Round 1: Izarith vs intrepid - "The Patriot Act"

The topic for this debate is "Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

"Izarith" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"intrepid" will be arguing the "Con" position.


Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

The topic for this debate is "Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

I have been assigned the "Pro" position of this debate.

First I would like to thank Chissler, the debaters and all who had a part in helping this wonderful event come to pass. As for the judges, puppy dog eyes. Nay, make that cute puppy dog eyes. And yes the puppy is in the rain.

Oh and big thanks to Intrepid. We go way back him and I. I remember the very first time he gave me a warning. Or he edited my post, or something of that nature. Actually it might not have been him at all. But there have been many Mods taking away my beloved ATS points and this is the first time I have ever had the chance to....”thank” them for it. Might be my last too.

Opening

During this Debate I will attempt to fully emphasize that because we have all ready accepted more than some limits on our personal Freedoms, the Terrorist have truly already won. By doing so I hope to instill the possibilities, in your mind, of what life would be like in America without out the Patriot Act today.

My goal is not to win this debate by out debating my opponent. Doing so would only endanger my future posts on ATS. All my glorious knowledge and eccentric points of view would be at the mercy of a rabid Wolverine stalking me to what ever thread I show my avatar on. Of course Intrepid would never do this but the world depends on me and I just cannot take that risk.

But honestly I strongly believe that Intrepid is by far a much more astute and better debater. Quite frankly if I'm to have a chance in hell of winning I must attempt to bewilder him while traumatizing the Judges till they vomit on their monitors.

All joking aside, the Patriot Act is very serious. How the world came to rely on such a tyrannical document in order to protect it's people is beyond insanity. One does not protect against Terrorism by creating and Act that makes us all potential Terrorists especially if we are Patriots to this country and it's duties those of which are beyond our rites.

There was a time in America when the word “Freedom” meant something. It's meaning was hard to put into words but when it's meaning was put into words it always made us feel good to be alive and glad to be an American. The word Freedom brought tears to our eyes.

Today the word Freedom feels like a 1984 double speak term. It gets thrown in our face while Banks and Pharmaceutical companies laugh in our face. Our Brave soldiers are forced to serve the best they can an fight in wars that are needless to the interests of America and it's safety. They do this in the very name of Freedom. Well at least the Word Freedom still makes us cry.

All the blood it cost those who made this nation before us and all the hard work which were the roots of the worlds strongest tree died and shrived on October 26, 2001 the day the Patriot Act was singed into law by George W. Bush. The terrorists, may they be crazy pee-peed off Muslims or crazy, greedy, power hungry people in 1,000 dollar suits, won the day we freely gave our Freedoms up while quivering in a puddle of our own urine.

I think that without the Patriot Act we would be in the same boat today, but as Americans. But today we are what ever the Act wants us to be classified as. We can only hope it's as Americans.

We need to keep our Freedoms and truly make them personal. And we most definitely could go without the Patriot Act.

It's now or it's game over.

Izzy.

The tourny has begun and I would like to thank chissler for setting this up. Props to the readers as well, without you this would be meaningless. I hope we can provide information and entertainment for you.

The topic is:

"Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

I will contend that ANY personal freedoms that are lost are a gain for the terrorists. What is a "terrorist"?

One Look states:

noun: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

www.onelook.com...

Do we need to define "terror"? OK:

noun: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety.

Same source.

Terrorists gain advancement when what they do has an effect on their target. Thus any reaction will be a GAIN for them. The Patriot Act, and we will look into this legislation in depth later, is just the sort or reaction that fuels the terrorists. They made a gain in the psyche of the American people. When this comes to this topic:

"Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

I would say that WITH the Patriot Act, the terrorists have already won. What is the last 2 lines of the national anthem?

"And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

The land of the "free" and the home of the "brave". Not the land of the "less free" and the home of the "scared". The very existance of the Patriot Act is an abomination to what the American people have achieved.

Benjamin Franklin stated: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This will be my premise as we continue.

GATDUNG! You and your impeccable reading comprehension skills. You have ruined my only chance at obtaining victory with nothing but my “cute puppy dog in the rain eyes” ninjitsu.

Ninjitsu

Fine, you leave me no choice Intrepid. If it's a debate you want, a debate you shall have.

mommy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the definitions and links you provided. But I find it more appropriate to look at the definition of....

responsibility:

n pl -ties
1. the state or position of being responsible
2. a person or thing for which one is responsible
3. the ability or authority to act or decide on one's own, without supervision

While we are at it lets also have a look at the word....

courage:

n.
The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

These two words go hand in hand and they are the traits seen in people who are free in both mind and country. Quite a few Americans today Have neither and live in your given definition of terror whether it be of terrorist or not. This in a so called democracy which is supposed to be governed by it's people for it's people in an informed manner is most deserving of a little “Wake UP!” call like the Patriot ACT.

Freedom is most definitely never free. It comes at the price of blood or gold and often both. But the biggest price payed for Freedom is the responsibility and courage to pass that Freedom on to our children and hope we taught them to do the same for their children. We have not done any of the above. Worse still we have urinated on the face of liberty and let laws and bills pass that have indentured our unborn great, great grandchildren while our own children are raised by the dictate and standard of the State.

Cattle are meant for the slaughter and sheep are meant to be fleeced. The word Terrorist is nothing more than the sheep dog herding us along. The very existence of that word playing a role in our society is more than proof that we are unworthy of that which we have all ready given away, our Freedom.

I urge you Intrepid to go as far as your stomach can handle into the Patriot Act. Show us all what our lethargic, credit hungry hands have brought upon the world. Teach us why the very sweat from our butt cracks stained on our comfy couches was in vain. And please convince us that every tyrannical and despotic sentence of that document is not 100% our own fault.

Originally posted by intrepid
Benjamin Franklin stated: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And we shall have none because of this.

Question 1: Are you a Moderator?

Question 2: What is a troll?

Question 3: Have you ever while moderating on this site felt the need to limit the personal freedoms, lets say for example a first amendment rite, of irresponsible people?

Question 4: Is not this site a better place thanks to the the unleaniant punishment of such people.

Question 5: What would be needed from every person on this site for there to be no need of Moderators?

I yield back the remainder of my time to Intrepid. (I have always wanted to say that.)

"Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

1st rebuttal.

My opponent has talked about "responsibilty" and "courage" but accepting the Patriot Act is the exact opposite of either. Maybe he is not aware of the scope of this Act.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.

en.wikipedia.org...

That means anyone "suspected" of terrorism can be unconstitutionally searched. Right down to their skivvy's. Without representation or even their own knowledge.

This can't happen to me right? Wrong. There are home grown terrorists as well. Remember Timothy McVeigh? The Oklahoma Bomber? If there is a precedent set that an American can be a terrorist, no one is above these Gestapo tactics that the government has in place.

Is that a freedom that you are willing to give up? YOUR PRIVACY!!! Oops, sorry, this is for national security. Anyone accepting this trade off of a loss of a fundemental right has let the terrorists win. Not everyone has secrets but that doesn't matter. Anyone can be searched now. Does that sound like "courage"?

Can this be challenged in court? Sure but at what loss? They have access to your email, all of your private information, in the name of Security. What if this information is used NOT in the legal system? A person can be MADE to do anything to keep something meant to be private. An affair? A pyramid scheme? Maybe NOTHING!

This can't happen, right? Wrong again. Let's reference J. Edgar Hoover:

Late in life and after his death, Hoover became an increasingly controversial figure. Some critics asserted that he exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to use illegal methods to collect evidence.[3] It is because of Hoover's long and controversial reign that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now what we have in place is a way to manipulate the individual. That is the ULTIMATE breech in Freedom. From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

en.wikipedia.org...

Seems to be quite the opposite than having your life torn apart and being manipulated. Why was the Patriot Act enacted in the first place......... FEAR. It was accepted by both sides of the aisle and the people because of the "terrorists". What the people didn't know was how invasive this legislation was going to be. Why did they accept it then? FEAR. What is a terrorists main weapon? FEAR.

The Patriot Act = acquiescence to the terrorists.



Your Socratic questions:

Question 1: Are you a Moderator?

Yes.

Question 2: What is a troll?

Hard to define. They come in different shapes and sizes.

Question 3: Have you ever while moderating on this site felt the need to limit the personal freedoms, lets say for example a first amendment rite, of irresponsible people?

Yes. You will find though that a private websites T&C have fewer freedoms than the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of rights.

Question 4: Is not this site a better place thanks to the the unleaniant punishment of such people.

You will find that the staff here are much more lenient than those that are pushing the Patriot Act. The difference between the PA and ATS is that ATS has a T&C which every member agrees to. It's a contract. The rights of ALL Americans is a birthright.

Question 5: What would be needed from every person on this site for there to be no need of Moderators?

Impossible. The staff are required not only to keep the peace but also to move threads to the right area so that people have access to that information. Secondly there are forum issues and members that need to be helped out. Questions answered. I really don't know why this is an issue here though.



I have one Socratic question:

Are you comfortable with the government being able to search all of your corrospondance, digital, auditory or hard copy at the whim of a government agency?

Back to you.

2nd rebuttal.

Originally posted by intrepid

My opponent has talked about "responsibility" and "courage" but accepting the Patriot Act is the exact opposite of either. Maybe he is not aware of the scope of this Act.

I am very aware of the scope of the Patriot Act. But I am here to argue the pro of "Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won.". That is to say that thanks to the Act and it's limits on our freedoms we as irresponsible and non courageous citizens are protected from the Boogieman and prevents the boogieman from winning the war on terror. I think this is true in the minds of sheep and cattle.

What I am attempting to help the judges and the readers following this debate is that we, Americans of today's generation, are no better than spoiled brats who have defaulted on their responsibilities of keeping watch on the very people who created and passed the will of the people into the law as the Patriot Act. This was done due to the lack of courage needed to hold true to such responsibilities.

We have bought into this slave game “The war on terror” and now we are forced to play. The benefit of this lesson if well learned is priceless. If we do not learn from this lesson and end up like North Korea it will be no more than providence.

Originally posted by intrepid

Seems to be quite the opposite than having your life torn apart and being manipulated. Why was the Patriot Act enacted in the first place......... FEAR. It was accepted by both sides of the aisle and the people because of the "terrorists". What the people didn't know was how invasive this legislation was going to be. Why did they accept it then? FEAR. What is a terrorists main weapon? FEAR.

Some nut-job referenced in an Iconic fashion does not create fear in the hearts of the contagious no more than the word Boogieman does in the heart of an adult. Children on the other hand need nightlights like the Patriot Act in order to Sleep at night. And just like children need mommy and daddy to tell them how to live, so too do the American people so long as they do not meet the requirements needed to function as a true Free and democratic society.

Question 1: Do you disagree with my statement the one between my last quote of what you said and this question?

Question 2: In reference to your answer of my last question, why?

Originally posted by intrepid

The Patriot Act = acquiescence to the terrorists.

I find your equation also in acquiescence to the iconic reference used to instill terror. My I suggest trying to at least step out of the parameters of the “War on Terror” algorithm. By only attacking the only defense the scared citizens have, the Patriot Act, you strip them naked of any guidance.

Originally posted by intrepid
I really don't know why this is an issue here though.

Well I thought that by some what rhetorically reminding you that even you have had to limit the freedoms, at least to some extent, of the irresponsible on this site it might aid my side of the debate in comparing your actions to those of our government.

After all we would not want the Trolls to win, now would we.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Socratic question:

Are you comfortable with the government being able to search all of your correspondence, digital, auditory or hard copy at the whim of a government agency?

No.

But our Government doing so to every one of it's citizens will most definitely lead to the incarceration of many, many Boogiemen.

Your turn.

Oh my, where to start?

"Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

Originally posted by Izarith

What I am attempting to help the judges and the readers following this debate is that we, Americans of today's generation, are no better than spoiled brats who have defaulted on their responsibilities of keeping watch on the very people who created and passed the will of the people into the law as the Patriot Act. This was done due to the lack of courage needed to hold true to such responsibilities.

No, it is because the terrorists had instilled a sense of fear in the people that they were willing to accept it. If that hadn't been the case Dubya would have been bounced from office in 2004. Rights are important to Americans but the fear remained.

I suggest reading this small piece, How terrorism works.

Does that sound familiar? Secondly:

They also reported any experience of terror-related post traumatic stress symptoms (PTS) in the form of intrusive thoughts and images resulting from 9/11. In addition, respondents expressed their degree of support for anti-terrorism policies in three ways: 1) as having desired an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11, 2) as support for ongoing military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 3) as willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for security. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for political affiliation, general psychological distress, exposure to 9/11, and other key variables revealed that both perceived likelihood of future terrorism and 9/11-related PTS independently predicted greater support for all three categories of anti-terrorism policies. Moreover, perceived likelihood and PTS interacted such that perceived likelihood of future terrorism did not predict policy preferences among individuals high in PTS. Public views on future-oriented policies may be disproportionately influenced by distressing experiences from the past.

www.allacademic.com...

There was more in that small article that set up what was said there but I have sentence limitations. Notice the bold at the end though:

Public views on future-oriented policies may be disproportionately influenced by distressing experiences from the past.

Something from the past? Like the fall of the Twin Towers? Bottom line is that if a person accepts ANY legislation that limits their rights because of something in the past, the terrorists win. THAT is what "Patriot Act = aquiescence to the terrorists" means. FEAR wins.

Question 1: Do you disagree with my statement the one between my last quote of what you said and this question?

Question 2: In reference to your answer of my last question, why?

First off are these Socratic questions? And secondly, if they are could you be clearer so that I can give your questions the answer they deserve?



Lastly I will remind the people what one of the founding fathers said again, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

THAT is the spirit of America, not one of fear. The Patriot Act is an instrument of fear. Fear = the MO of terrorists. The Patriot Act = an act of terrorism. The terrorists win.

3rd rebuttal.

The pro of “Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

Originally posted by intrepid
No, it is because the terrorists had instilled a sense of fear in the people that they were willing to accept it. If that hadn't been the case Dubya would have been bounced from office in 2004. Rights are important to Americans but the fear remained.

Yes and the fear still remains today. The people need the Patriot Act, they need to feel that something can be done to stop Terrorism. And just like 9/11 the second some one, or a group of people, remind the people of America that the world is a very dangerous place by committing another act designed to cause fear they will inevitably demand that more of their rights get taken away simply by letting it happen.

Yes Intrepid the terrorist “Have all ready won”, but this happened long before the Patriot act was signed into law. We lost the war on Terror the day we forgot what it meant to be an American, this happened long before 9/11 or the Patriot Act.

This is why the Patriot Act, a law that limits the personal Freedoms of the people, is so important in preventing the terrorists from winning. We need to lie to our selves, we need a show, the illusion that we sill have a fighting chance. And we need this because of the fear that still remains in us as a country.

“Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” That's what the Patriot Act gives people who live in fear. People who are incapable of maintaining their liberty and freedoms to pursue what would make them happy end up with a lie a sick parody of “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”.

It's called free will. So long as we the people freely chose to lie to themselves and put safety before freedom an Act like the PA will only be to our benefit. Granting true freedom to people who don't deserve it would be like forcing a domesticated animal to live in the wild, a cruel fate for an animal born and raised in captivity.

Originally posted by intrepid
Public views on future-oriented policies may be disproportionately influenced by distressing experiences from the past.

I agree 100% but only when it applies to people who put safety before freedom. And people who do this need an Act like the PA to function in an uninformed democracy, one in which responsibilities are handed over to the government.

Originally posted by intrepid
First off are these Socratic questions? And secondly, if they are could you be clearer so that I can give your questions the answer they deserve?

Yes they were my Socratic questions. My apologies.

I would also like to point out that in my statement below (the one in question) I overlooked that contagious (in bold below) should have actually been courageous. Again my apologies to the readers and my opponent.

Originally posted by Izarith
Some nut-job referenced in an Iconic fashion does not create fear in the hearts of the contagious no more than the word Boogieman does in the heart of an adult. Children on the other hand need nightlights like the Patriot Act in order to Sleep at night. And just like children need mommy and daddy to tell them how to live, so too do the American people so long as they do not meet the requirements needed to function as a true Free and democratic society.

As to making my statement clearer I will only do so for clarification and not for you to answer because I believe you have all ready answered in agreement with your quote from Benjamin Franklin.

Originally posted by intrepid
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

Coincidentally this is exactly the idea and message I was trying to convey in my statement. Again my apologies for not having the eloquence of Mr. C note himself but I can only try my best.

But I feel your Quote says it all and I thank you for posting such intelligent words from a brilliant man. What Benjamin Says is so true, is it not? And he brings us exactly to the point of why I feel The Patriot act and the limitations on our Freedoms is so important to us to keep the fear at bay. Because if we truly understood that we as a people deserve neither liberty nor safety the shame would be far more a punishment than continuing in our little charade of “The war on Terror” which is a benefit to our dignity and peace of mind.

My Socratic Questions To Intrepid:

-Socratic question 1.) Has not the limitation on our Freedoms in this land we now call America been a trait seen throughout our entire history dating back before the Constitution of America to the Articles of Confederation?

The Articles were created by the chosen representatives of the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." Although serving a crucial role in the victory in the American Revolutionary War, a group of reformers,[1] known as "federalists", felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a federation was sought to replace the confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central state (i.e. the federalists)[citation needed] was that the government (i.e. the Congress of the Confederation) lacked taxing authority; it had to request funds from the states. Also various federalist factions wanted[citation needed] a government that could impose uniform tariffs, give land grants, and assume responsibility for unpaid state war debts ("assumption".) Those opposed to the Constitution, known as "anti-federalists," considered these limits on government power to be necessary and good.[dubious – discuss][2] Another criticism of the Articles was that they did not strike the right balance between large and small states in the legislative decision making process.[dubious – discuss] Due to its one-state, one-vote plank, the larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote.

The Articles were replaced by the US Constitution on June 21, 1788.

Articles of Confederation

-Socratic question 2.) Have we as a people put or safety over Freedom into law many times before the Patriot Act?

-Socratic question 3.) If so does that not make us deserving of neither liberty nor safety?

Japanese American internment

Japanese American internment was the forcible relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese residing in the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

-Socratic question 4.) Did we not win the war against Japan in World War II?

Back to you Intrepid.

Friday night folks. I'm going to invoke my 24 hr extension.

3rd Rebuttal.

My opponent has little regard of the strength of the American people:

Originally posted by Izarith
Yes and the fear still remains today. The people need the Patriot Act, they need to feel that something can be done to stop Terrorism. And just like 9/11 the second some one, or a group of people, remind the people of America that the world is a very dangerous place by committing another act designed to cause fear they will inevitably demand that more of their rights get taken away simply by letting it happen.

The Patriot Act(PA) was enacted only 6 weeks after 9/11. Everyone was in fear those days. The terrorist act had happened and the media sure didn't play it down.

Yes Intrepid the terrorist “Have all ready won”, but this happened long before the Patriot act was signed into law. We lost the war on Terror the day we forgot what it meant to be an American, this happened long before 9/11 or the Patriot Act.

This I totally disagree with. You don't have to look far to see that Americans take their rights seriously. This was a blip on the screen. Before and some time after 9/11 the people were and are resolute in their pursuit of their rights. Look at any thread on ATS to see how they feel about their rights.

This is why the Patriot Act, a law that limits the personal Freedoms of the people, is so important in preventing the terrorists from winning. We need to lie to our selves, we need a show, the illusion that we sill have a fighting chance. And we need this because of the fear that still remains in us as a country.

Does this need to fool ourselves include the fact that we are fighting a war on two fronts? Iraq and Afghanistan? Doesn't sound like whimpering in the corner to me.

-Socratic question 1.) Has not the limitation on our Freedoms in this land we now call America been a trait seen throughout our entire history dating back before the Constitution of America to the Articles of Confederation?

No, it isn't. Fear will make some do strange things at times though. Was there fear during the World Wars? Korea? Viet Nam, The Cold War. The Balkan wars? No. America stood proud. My assessment of the fortitude of the American people is a lot more accurate and based on history. Not opinion.

9/11 brought us off our rocker though. THEN the fear seeped in and people were willing to accept what they should not have. Is that still the same? No. As early as February of 2004 the people began to see the implications of the PA:

When they learn what is in the act, many Americans find some of the details unsettling. The USA TODAY survey of 501 adults Feb. 16-17 found that 71% disapprove of a section that allows agents to delay telling people that their homes have been secretly searched.

And about half of those surveyed are uneasy about two other parts of the act: one that allows the FBI to obtain records from businesses, including hospitals, bookstores and libraries, and another that permits federal agents to ask financial institutions whether terrorism suspects have accounts with them.

The Patriot Act, rushed through Congress 45 days after the 9/11 attacks, was controversial from the start.

www.usatoday.com...

The people were heard and the Patriot Act 2 wasn't put into law. What about now? What do the people think of the PA now?

“[President Obama] promised during his campaign that he was going to look at the Patriot Act in order to reinstitute protections for the abuse of civil liberties, but he’s not making any statements on that so far,” Kardell said.

The Patriot Act essentially is removing the requirement for investigations and searches without probable cause. And people seem pretty irritated with Obama’s decision to reauthorize some of the Patriot Act, as they believe it’s the invasion of their privacy.

rt.com...

This is from September of this year. I've bolded the critical part. The people WANT their rights. They are not mollycoddled like my opponent would lead us to believe. Yes there was a blip in 2001 but that passed and the people saw what this legislation is doing to the American people and the fabric of the nation.

-Socratic question 2.) Have we as a people put or safety over Freedom into law many times before the Patriot Act?

On this scale? No. Not where anyone from a prostitute to members of the Supreme Court could be put under unconstitutional surveilance.

-Socratic question 3.) If so does that not make us deserving of neither liberty nor safety?

I guess you were looking for a "yes" there. No answer required.

-Socratic question 4.) Did we not win the war against Japan in World War II?

Yes.



In my conclusion to follow I will tie all these aspects together to show that NO, "Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won." I will show that WITH the PA that the terrorist have won. The people are no longer afraid and they don't need unconstitutional legislation. Nor do they want it.

The Pro position on “Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

Closing

We the people of America have let Freedom go. We have let fear take over our hearts one too many times in the past and we will perpetually continue to do so in our future. Our laws will for ever increase and amount until the day we become our own enemies.

Words like “Black men raping white women due to drugs”, “White supremest”, “Japanese”, “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Terrorist” will forever keep us teaching our children to hid under flimsy school desks in case of nuclear strike or to hang a black man from a tree or to shoot an innocent white man so he doesn't. Words like these will forever lead to the rounding up of American citizens based only on their race and former nationality or because of their creed and religious beliefs or lack there of. Two year old children and elderly women will continue to be denied access to travel by plane because they are on a ridiculous list that says they are dangerous.

Our brave soldiers will continue in needless wars whether it be on American soil under martial law so a little black girl can go to an integrated school or in a foreign country like Iraq to fight men trying to defend their own county from foreign occupiers, occupiers who were in favor of the food for oil program that caused the death by starvation of millions of men women and children in Iraq just a few years prior to the war. Our soldiers will also surfer from the crazy vaccines and insane uses of depleted uranium only to come home ill and find no help due to lack of funding or indifference. All in our new found twisted version of Freedom under fear.

Not only do the citizens of America fear the world and even their next door neighbor but we have great reason to due so. For was it not us who let our own CIA train and help create Terrorists in the first place? Did not our own foreign policies lead to the death of so many, many people? Do not our Allies help do the same?

We have a world of hate coming our way and those who hate us have nothing to loose. Who they are we have no idea for they come in many different shapes and sizes and now that our very own citizens are starting to hate their Freedoms taken away the list of hate just got longer.

We live in a new world, A new world order one in which we have no freedom, no responsibilities other than to follow the law and dare not go against our government or be classified as a Foreign or domestic Terrorist.

Thanks to our Patriot Act and the limitations on our personal Freedoms the people our government truly fears, people who could actually take their power away are too worried about a war that can never be won.

Thank you, and good night.

Izarith.

I'm going to invoke my 24 hr extension.

“Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

Closing.

I would like to thank my opponents for this interesting debate. I hope the readers were enlightened and entertained.

My opponent has stated that Americans have lost their freedom long ago. I disagree with this statement. You don't have to look beyond this board to see what Americans think of their rights. When gun legislation is brought up, EVERY TIME you will hear someone say, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands." What about the 1st Amendment? "I don't agree with you but I will defend with my life your RIGHT to say it." Have you not seen these statements on the board?

Americans are proud of their rights. 9/11 though produced a fear in the populous so that they would accept a loss of their rights, privacy, so that they could feel unthreatened. This act was perpetrated by terrorists and the government took advantage of this to embolden the power of government. Ie: roving wiretaps, unconstitutional searches, etc. The fear, or terror if you will, worked. The Patriot Act(PA) is legislation built on fear(terror) merely 6 weeks after 9/11. It's continuance means that the terrorists acts of Sept. 11, 2001 still have an effect on the people.

Yes, the people accepted the PA strongly at the beginning but I have shown that less than 2 years after its inception the people realized just what they had given up for this unconstitutional legislation. They don't want this anymore. They are upset that Obama isn't relaxing the PA. No, the people do not need their security blanket as my opponent would lead you to believe. They want their rights back. This I have shown.

By keeping the PA we continue to allow the terrorists actions of 8 years ago to keep that terrible event to stay in the peoples psyche. The PA propagates fear, even against the will of the people. The cast is taken off when the bone heals. You don't leave it on to remind the person of that wound.

I have shown that the PA is a reaction to fear(terror). It's continuation is a WIN for the terrorists. Remember the debate topic:

“Without The Patriot Act And Accepting Some Limits On Personal Freedoms, The Terrorist Have Already Won."

I have said that WITH the PA the terrorists have won. The populous knows this, they've voted to have this abolish, also shown the people are not in fear anymore. Why do they need this Act? They don't, they want it gone. What they want is a return of their constitutional rights.

I've posted this several times in this debate but I restate yet again because it is intrinsic to the very fabric of what America is, stands for and is based on:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Indeed. The PA does just that. It provides the illusion of "temporary safety" in trade for a limitation of "liberty". It is NOT the American way. Continuation of the PA is a WIN for the terrorists. The abolition of the PA will be a WIN for the American people and the American Way.

Thank you.

We're off to the judges.

Judges comments...

The nod goes to intrepid..

Izarith while entertaining, failed to keep a spotlight on his direction of the argument/debate, it showed some intersting twists of intrepid's points here and there but it didn't help to sway the debate his way.

I think that with a few more debates under his belt, that the member could definitely improve, even with the unorthodox method, but an attention to detail is needed, Izarith does need to review his debate posts before posting to avoid unnecessary apologies in follow up posts, that makes it difficult to keep the flow consistent. Same with presenting clear socratic questions, might be me but the added ex quotes within the questions are a distraction, much better saved for the meat of the debate post, the socratic questions should be straight and to the point. IMO.

In comparison, intrepid's performance showed focus and the ability to drive a point home, without excessive words. It reflects the experience he has in participating in many of these contests.

Overall, I enjoyed the debate and enjoyed both sides of the discussion, but in the end the member who won this debate is intrepid.

After reading through the entire debate three times, I must admit that I’m impressed with the non-conventional lines of reasoning used by Izarith to convey his stance, puppy dog eyes withstanding. His example of comparing the necessity of ATS’s terms and conditions to the Patriot Act was a good analogy. However, his argument would have been much stronger if he had actually taken the time to delve into the details of the Patriot Act itself. Be that as it may, the loose parallels he drew between the Articles of Confederation, the forced internment of Japanese American citizens and the Patriot Act were intriguing.

However, Izarith made a startling statement which weakened his overall stance:


This is why the Patriot Act, a law that limits the personal Freedoms of the people, is so important in preventing the terrorists from winning. We need to lie to our selves, we need a show, the illusion that we sill have a fighting chance. And we need this because of the fear that still remains in us as a country.



In essence, he stated that the Patriot Act is nothing short of a placebo to pacify the American public.

His opponent, intrepid, wasted no time beating around the bush and stated his case loud and clear from the beginning. He makes a strong point by stating that Americans’ acceptance of the Patriot Act was triggered by fear despite the loss of personal liberties, and that the American people are currently weary of certain aspects of it.

All in all, it was a thought provoking debate with both sides presenting interesting perspectives. In the end though, I must give the winning edge to intrepid.

intrepid wins and moves to the 2nd round.



This debate is now open to comments from "fighters".

I have to thank Intrepid for a good debate. He stuck to his guns and got the point across, he is a well known Fighter and has earned his reputation. It was my honor doing battle with him and look forward to another match some day.

English is my second language, But I am better at it than my first so I can't really use that as an excuse.

I do wish I would have paid extra attention to my grammar and correct word usage. I'm the reason why they say "one should not edit his own work".

I am very grateful to the judges for their kind words and I find it pleasing that at least one of them found my reasoning intriguing. It was the only way I could fight the Pro side of the Patriot Act.

Thanks again to all who had a part in this wonderful experience, see ya next time.

P.S. I had no Idea what side of the debate I was supposed to be on until Intrepid made his opening post.

TA!

Izzy.

Thanks to Izarith for this lively debate. To chissler and the judges as well. Mostly though for the readers, I hope you enjoyed this debate.