Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

I am excited to begin. First and foremost, I feel that it is only right to define my role in this debate. In this debate I am the Pro/For/Affirmative; therefore I must affirm the resolution: Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security. Thus, my stance is that the citizens' rights' importance surpasses that of the nation's security. Definitions: In any debate, it is important to have definitions so that not fallacies of ambiguity or equivocation occur. As my opponent has not, as of yet, implemented any definitions of his own, he automatically accepts mine. Nation: "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. " [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Rights: In the resolution, the word rights is pretty vague, so I will define it as human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3, Line I) [. http://www.ohchr.org...] Citizen: "A person who legally belongs t o a country and has the rights and protection of the state" [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Security: "The state of being protected or safe from harm. " [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Resolution Analysis: In the resolution analysis, I will help the voter make more sense of the resolution and the debate. I: The resolution does not give a particular country to which the resolution applies, thus my opponent and I must defend all states. II: The resolution does not say that to grant rights, a nation should throw security out the window, neither does it say that to grant security, rights must be obliterated. III: The resolution states that the security of the nation itself takes precedence, not that of the individual citizens. My Stance: Though my position in this round is already apparent, I want to clarify some ambiguity. I am not arguing for the complete riddance of security. In fact, I am arguing for security. I am arguing for the safety of the rights of the citizens. Ronald Reagan once said: "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. " Thus, my stance is that national security is important, but retaining the purpose of government, to protect the people and not controls them, but the rights of the men and women in the country are more important. Contentions: The contentions are the meat of my arguments; they are the reasons you should vote for my side of the motion. I: Valuing Security Over Rights Results in the Violation of Rights When governments use surveillance techniques to view the private lives of citizens, they are violating the very rights they were instituted to uphold. When governments compile personal information on citizens, security of person is breached and violated. If the government turned corrupt, an agent defected and took information with him/her, or another government/organization hacked into the databases, the information could be used to harm individuals in significant ways, violating the right to life. Surveying and compiling data on people violates their liberty. Their private lives are being observed by unknown people. Thus, when a government tries to monitor its citizen's actions, it violates the security of person right, and possible the right of life. It also violates the right of liberty. II: Countries That Uphold Security Over Rights Abuse Those Rights Many countries over the years have tried to make themselves as secure as possible. Unfortunately, these countries turn into authoritarian powers which utterly abuse power and the rights of citizens. Two example of this includes North Korea and the Soviet Union. In Russia, after WWI, the government became highly centralized, trying to protect its people from hostile neighbors. As a result, however, the living condition of people went down, and the corruption in the new Soviet Union went up. In the country of North Korea, the same issue has occurred. The state has tried to cut itself off from the outside world, but has only managed to all but destroy its population. Therefore, when countries value security over rights, the eventually slip into corruption and abuse of those rights. III: The Systems of 'Spying' Currently Implemented Have Done Little to Limit Crime Since the 9/11 Attacks (I am sure we are all familiar with this), after which the USA and other countries implemented serious security measures, in the USA alone twenty-seven terrorist attacks have occurred, leaving a total of ninety-three dead and an unknown number affected. These attacks include the 2015 San Bernadino Shooting, which left fourteen people dead; the 2015 Charleston Church Shooting, which left nine people dead; the 2012 Sikh Temple Shooting, which left six people dead; and the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting, which left thirteen people dead. These are the shootings that have occurred solely in the US, not including the recent attack in Europe. These facts show that the surveillance of citizens is not working. Instead of ending crime and saving lives, the governments of the world are wasting money, resources, and human capital to violate the rights of innocent people. Trillions of dollars that could have been diverted to more important projects have been used to observe people all around the world and these dollars have paid for nearly nothing. Conclusion: Thus, the surveillance of innocent citizens to increase security has done virtually nothing to help the rates of crime and to curb violence. We have also seen that when countries try to enhance security, they trample the rights of citizens. Therefore, I urge you, the voter, to vote for my side of the resolution.