security is greater than liberty

3R1NRC: On "Bob"Liberty is a human right; it is so important that the violation of it would mean the violation of all means of living. The opponent's example, hypothetical to say the least, of this "Bob" character and how wiretapping him would result in the prevention of a terrorist attack, is not a violation of liberty. Liberty is defined as the quality of being to do whatever one would want to do; the free will, to be more exact. How would wire-tapping Bob be a violation of liberty? It is indeed a violation of privacy, but the debate motion presented with today is on liberty, not privacy. Apart from this, it is never wrong to have too much liberty, as long as that liberty is expressed within the laws.3R2NRC: On Death and Liberty"Give me death, or give me liberty" was a common quote used during the American Revolutionary Wars. Would one want to live a life, in which all commands comes from the outside? There is no free will when there is no liberty. Security is very important, one must say, but security can and must coexist with liberty. A good example of liberty and security coexisting is in Singapore, where albeit the police has the rights to arrest anyone for infringements of the strict laws, for the good law-abiding citizens, they have the liberty to do whatever they like within the rules of law. Denmark is also another example of this; liberty and security coexists with each other, and henceforth, the Danish people are one of the happiest people on this planet, as of now. This is because free will enables the pursuit of happiness; the freedom for me to pursue music, which also happens to make me happy, increases my happiness to do things. Note that at this point, the opponent has the burden to prove that liberty is of lesser importance than security, thus for the opponent to win this debate, the opponent cannot compromise the resolution. The violation of liberty is a major intrusion of human rights, and this violation has been condemned and will continue to be condemned throughout human history. Apart from this, if we were to quantify the violations of liberty into a formula, and how this would do upon the happiness of the people, we must employ to formulas. The first one is the utilitarian principle of happiness, which states that "the combination of biological standpoint, living conditions, and voluntary actions" contribue to happiness. Or in algaebric form:H=s+c+vI will not quantify this factor, as this formula is purely subjective, but the loss of liberty has negative effects as it would highly put a decrease upon c (living conditions) and v (voluntary actions), as both of them put a high emphasis on the free will. However, the next equation, so called the util formula, measures the number of people effected via an action. This formula states that "the number of people profited minus the number of people affected equals the util value. i.e the number of people left in a state of happiness" In Algaebric form:U=n(p)-n(a)This one is quantifiable in some measures; for example, in Nazi Germany, there are 90 million citizens. For the loss of liberty, less than 100 people profit, as the nation is not a person and cannot be measured as a person; 90 million people are effected. So henceforth, the loss of liberty in Nazi Germany produces a negative util value of -90,000,000 (approx.) Let us apply the same equation for the gain of security, at least Nazi security, which includes the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Political Dissidents and many more. For the extermination of these subhumans (accordinglty to Nazi doctrines) create a negative 6 million (number of Holocaust victims) util value, there is barely anyone who gains. The total loss of security in the Nazi form also comes with the loss of liberty; henceforth, we can conclude that 96 million people are effected from the loss of liberty and gain of total security in Nazi Germany. Then the util value for the gain of total security is -96,000,000. Via quantifying this, we see two important factors develop; firstly, we can now see how much the total loss of liberty to security can cost us. Secondly, we can now see that the gain of liberty produces much more positive utils than the loss of it due to security. If utilitarianism is the measure of how a philosophical figure is greater than another, then clearly, liberty is greater than security.3R3NRC: On the effectiveness of the NSASince the beginning of the NSA, it has been involved in "cyber" warfare. Firstly, however, we should premise that the NSA is not a violation of liberty in our sense, but rather a violation of privacy. Nevertheless, the NSA has been involved in digital data mining for many many years now, but since the exposition of the PRISM program by Edward Snowden, many of the NSA's secrets are out.However, one would want to know NSA's sources, and what data it in reality mines; the PRISM program mines data namely from Google and Yahoo, with the intent of stopping drugs from crossing the border. They mine data in forms of voice, email, special requests, Facebook posts, and secret social networking details. However, there has been an increase of drug murders, considerably, in Mexico and drug-related violence is also increasing in the United States. [1][2]Apart from this, data mined by the NSA is also, allegedly, used in the suppression of terrorism. However, a study shown states that only 4 cases, out of 221 cases of terrorism in the US within the 30 years, used data from the NSA. The FBI and the CIA has its own apparatus of gaining data; again, we come back to the dillema. Should the NSA mine data from it's own citizens, as well as others, when clearly NSA's data mining program is quite ineffectual? A logical answer is no, as the NSA's data mining program is clearly inefficient enough to ensure that the US people can achieve security, whilst the NSA's practices undermine US liberty.In conclusion, liberty is more important than security because if we lived upon the needs of total security, we would live an animalistic, brutish, robotic, and undesirable life. Security, in the case of NSA, is also undesirable, because as well as violating the rights of it's own people, is more or less ineffectual.Vote meh[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://cnsnews.com...Sources used in last round