Resolved: When in conflict, the right to Individual Privacy is more important than National Security

I"d like to open up with a quote from Scott McNealy, who, quite elegantly, summed up the entire Negative philosophy in six words. *Clear Throat* "Privacy is dead, get over it." (http://moreintelligentlife.com...) I know, shocking right? But Privacy wasn"t taken away from us by the Government or anything, as Charles Nevin says, "This is an age which happily invades its own privacy" (http://moreintelligentlife.com...) You see, no one "stole" our Privacy... we surrendered it. But I"m getting ahead of myself, so let"s cover some other key bits of information what is important to this debate. First I"d like to present a Resolutional Analysis, or my opinion on how we should approach the resolution. Debate Theory: The Negative"s Job I promise it"s not as scary as you might think. All I want to mention is my job as the Negative. The Affirmative"s Job is to state that the Resolution, which I"m sure you are familiar with at this point, is true. So in this instance [Affirmative"s Name] must say that Privacy is more important, when in conflict of course. But my job as the Negative is to stop the Affirmative. I have to claim that Privacy is NOT more important than National Security. So I don"t have to praise National Security, just make sure you think it"s better than Privacy. Resolutional Analysis: Concept, not Excuses A lot of stories and evidence against National Security comprise of the Government doing something bad, and then claiming it was for the cause of National Security. However, in this round we are going to deal with the concept, not the excuse. For the sake of clarity, we are only going to call something part of National Security if it actually benefits the security of the nation. But the Government claiming something is National Security doesn"t mean it is actually that. Even if I"m an expert on clouds, I can"t claim that your ballot is a cloud. Just like even if the Government claims that Obesity is a National Security threat, doesn"t mean it actually is. So when dealing with National Security, if it wasn"t done for the sincere intent to preserve or strengthen National Security, then it isn"t National Security, regardless of who claims otherwise. Value: My Value today, or what I believe is the best way to measure the effectiveness of either concept is the fundamental Human Right of Life. Definitions: National Security: "The protection or the safety of a country"s secrets and its citizens" this definition comes from Macmillandictionary.com Individual Privacy: "The ability to keep personal information or opinions secret" this definition comes from GJdictionary.me Contention 1: Privacy is Dead Now back to that radical statement I opened up with, "Privacy is Dead." What does this quote mean? Look at the society around you, nearly everyone posts their location and activities on Twitter, use Facebook as their diaries, and give us an up-to-date image of their face on Instagram. The public doesn"t care about their own Privacy. But we American"s don"t just not care about our own Privacy, we crave and feed of off other people"s lack of Privacy. Tell me, how much do you know about Kim Kardashian? Did you know that she"s pregnant with a boy? How about the fact that she"s severely depressed and is only pretending to be happy to please the media? There are people whose jobs, their literal jobs, are to expose and remove the Privacy of celebrities for the entertainment of the public. And we celebrate that, people scour the latest Tabloids for the private information of celebrities. British Royalty Princess Margaret said, "I have as much privacy as a goldfish in a bowl." (http://www.brainyquote.com...) So Privacy isn"t wanted, and the lack of it is celebrated by the general public. But what about those of us that aren"t as stupid as the rest of the public? What about those of us that wish to keep our Privacy, those of us that still value it? Is it possible in this day and age to retain our Privacy? Scott Mcnealy would say it"s hopeless, as he"s said before, "You all have zero privacy anyway," (http://moreintelligentlife.com...) a little brash, yes, but it really does hone in on that point. That Privacy is impossible. You sign in to Gmail, it tells you that the Terms and Conditions have been updated, you accept without reading, who has the time for that? But, now Google can now read your emails, or at least search it for keywords. So out of fear, the next day you stay huddled inside. No one will you what you do today! So you lie and the couch and marathon F.R.I.E.N.D.S on Netflix. But now Netflix knows exactly where you are, because your account, from your IP address is using their services. Privacy nowadays is impossible. So what are the ramifications of lack of Privacy? Well, let"s look at Kim Kardashian... is she dead? Well, to quote Shakespeare"s Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 9, "No." Ok, how about the North Korea"s? Are they dying? Well, not due to lack of Privacy, more like lack of food. Privacy doesn"t impact life as nearly as National Security does. Contention 2: National Security protects Life Alright, whew, now that we have that out of the way we can discuss National Security. The very purpose of National Security is to preserve the Life of it"s citizens. Terrorism can kill lots of people, so National Security tries to stop it. Cyber attacks can ruin the infrastructure, and possibly kill a bunch of people, so National Security works to prevent that. It is the inherent nature of National Security to protect and preserve our Human Right of Life. Conclusion: So, what does all this information mean to you? How should you interpret this information? First of all, Privacy will always remain in some form. I highly doubt we'll ever lose enough Privacy that our passwords will ever be taken. So Privacy isn"t actually "dead" per say, rather a zombie of what Privacy used to be. The Privacy of today, is a shell of what Privacy meant in the past. Society, coupled with technology, has eroded the value of Privacy. So when in conflict you have to choose between Privacy and National Security, choose the latter. Because while Privacy is still a nice thing, in no way is it even close to the act of preserving our fundamental right of Life. Any right cannot exist until safety, and Life, is guaranteed.