The Kaiser needs some help defending the USA Patriot Act

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ok, I have a debate compitition tommorow, and I want to score really well. It's a discussion tournament, a nice, calm discussion about the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Now, I'm naturally going to defend it from the following resolution (it's not an exact quote):


Resolved: That the United State's government will substantially decrease it's powers in fighting anti-terrorism.

Now, it's obvious that this is about The USA PATRIOT Act.

Now, here is what I have so far:


The resolution neither states what powers nor how substantially it would limit the Patriot Act and our abilities to fight terrorism
The Patriot Act is essentially a strategy to root out Terrorists from the American Public. The problem is not within the bill itself, it is within the lack of regulation and control of the agencies capable of using the USA Patriot Act.
It is true that the bill has been used in cases of which the accused was innocent or the bill was not appropriate for the case, however, this lies in the lack of regulation of these agencies, not nessissarily in the bill itself.
Throughout history, the US has enacted acts similar to the US Patriot act at times of war. The Sedition Act of 1918, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death penalty Act of 1996, and COINTELPRO, are some examples of these acts. None of these actions have either endangered human rights excessivly, nor have they been kept around longer than nessissary to serve their purpose.
While we are at war, we must not risk any unnessisary casualties, especially when we are fighting an enemy such as the one we are fighting now. We must do anything and everything within our power to prevent another incident like 9/11, and we must protect American lives at all costs nessissary.


I need a few more.

[AntiochusIII]

The resolution is very ambiguous. What does it really imply? I do not see any Patriot Act in sight. For now, I'd advise against it. In debate competitions (which I'll have this weekend), it is best to avoid controversial "names" (i.e. even though socialism is a valid point in many cases, it carries a bad name in America after decades (or just Reagan's?) of propaganda against the USSR, the supposed "socialist") and Patriot Act is one of them. I'd be glad to add more if you post the entire resolution word-for-word. In debates, a single word in the resolution can destroy the legitimacy of an entire case.

Unless, of course you're going to go against the Act itself, then more controversy is only better.

Also, remember that, in debates, you're not being yourself; I've done entire cases that go completely against my beliefs and pull it off with (faked) passion: you're being what your criterion (you have it, right? Same system?) is. On stage, you become the rabid, firm, radical [insert your criterion here].

However, from what I could gather from your post, I believe the Affirmative case to be very weak in the beginning. Attack them on the simple fact that why [the hell] should we decrease our fighting abilities? Though the Aff would go stronger within details, where a case of Civil Rights could rip you apart. The simplest way is to attack them in principles, take the realist or unilateralist stance (both are powerful) and hold it well. I'd suggest that you claim the good of the United States or something similar as your value.

I presume you're going against the resolution, right?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The resolution is very ambiguous. What does it really imply? I do not see any Patriot Act in sight. For now, I'd advise against it. In debate competitions (which I'll have this weekend), it is best to avoid controversial "names" (i.e. even though socialism is a valid point in many cases, it carries a bad name in America after decades (or just Reagan's?) of propaganda against the USSR, the supposed "socialist") and Patriot Act is one of them. I'd be glad to add more if you post the entire resolution word-for-word. In debates, a single word in the resolution can destroy the legitimacy of an entire case.

Unless, of course you're going to go against the Act itself, then more controversy is only better.

Also, remember that, in debates, you're not being yourself: you're being what your contention (you have it, right? Same system?) is. On stage, you become the rabid, firm, radical [insert your contention here].

However, from what I could gather from your post, I believe the Affirmative case to be very weak in the beginning. Attack them on the simple fact that why [the hell] should we decrease our fighting abilities? Though the Aff would go stronger within details, where a case of Civil Rights could rip you apart.

I presume you're going against the resolution, right?
You would presume correctly.

Now, it's obviously against the Patriot act, my history teacher told us to do reseach on the patriot act. I beleive it mentioned Patriot Act in there somewhere, as I said I didn't copy word for word of the resolution (I have a copy somewhere).

Also, I'd like to know what civil rights it violates? It only grants the government hte same rights as the FBI has when dealing with Organized Crime, unless that goes against civil rights as well.

[AntiochusIII]

Also, I'd like to know what civil rights it violates? It only grants the government hte same rights as the FBI has when dealing with Organized Crime, unless that goes against civil rights as well.You just found another argument yourself. ~;)

Since you're going against the resolution (Lincoln-Douglas debate, I presume? Or at least not Policy?) the majority of your arguments will be based on your opponent's case. If they start claiming things with names like John Locke attached to it, then claim the better good of society. Bring up the cliche 9/11 if you want. Something like "the government's enhanced ability to deal with terrorism could've prevented or at least lessen the tragedy" is a powerful emotional appeal, even if not very logical.

Also, try research in-depth about Unilateralism. It is easy to understand the basics, but, in the same time, the basics come off as selfish--deeper understanding of that philosophical idea, which has more meat than the basics cover, (I'm not an expert on this...) will greatly help you in most cases in debates.

*Whoops. A mistake. By Contention I meant Criterion. Two different things. I meant the heart of the case, not the arguments that make up the meat of it.*

[Kanamori]

If the debate is not specifically about the Patriot Act, I guess I would try to stray from explicit mention of it. I know that in my debate class in the day, our teacher wanted us to stray from ideas of legality and such in an effort to make it more interesting by focusing on the raw issue. I do not know the scope of your class though. I would not stray from using ideas of the Patriot Act, however, just be prepared for the affirmative to be prepared for those arguments.

Also, in areas of debate, I would pay particular attention to semantics; it is often the easiest way to trip up an opponent, and often the hardest to pin down for a rebuttal.

Just my two cents from prostitution and capital punishment debates.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You just found another argument yourself. ~;)

Since you're going against the resolution (Lincoln-Douglas debate, I presume? Or at least not Policy?) the majority of your arguments will be based on your opponent's case. If they start claiming things with names like John Locke attached to it, then claim the better good of society. Bring up the cliche 9/11 if you want. Something like "the government's enhanced ability to deal with terrorism could've prevented or at least lessen the tragedy" is a powerful emotional appeal, even if not very logical.

Also, try research in-depth about Unilateralism. It is easy to understand the basics, but, in the same time, the basics come off as selfish--deeper understanding of that philosophical idea, which has more meat than the basics cover, (I'm not an expert on this...) will greatly help you in most cases in debates.
Lincoln Douglass isn't until February, and that's supposed to get heated (will be fun, maybe I can get the guy to attack me ~:) ) but this is just the Discussion Tournament. Not very important, but I don't need too many more points to get into NFL (maybe this one will push me over, but I'll be in after the one in Dec.)

Anyway, I'll do some more research, if you can think of anything, keep it coming ~:cool:

Danke sehr.

[Xiahou]

Also, I'd like to know what civil rights it violates? It only grants the government hte same rights as the FBI has when dealing with Organized Crime, unless that goes against civil rights as well.Yup, I believe there are some good parallels between it and the RICO Act.

On a side note, USA PATRIOT has to be just about the most hokey acronym I've ever heard of.

[English assassin]

FBI has when dealing with Organized Crime, unless that goes against civil rights as well.

Well, there are those who would say your RICO act does just that.

Kaiser, if I can suggest some of the things that ought to be argued against you? First, in order to "fight terrorism", you need to know what it is you are defending against terrorism. If that is a liberal free democracy with the rule of law, and accountable public bodies, are you sure your Patriot Act hasn't taken that all away? I could prevent terrorists killing my family by killing my family myself first, but it wouldn't be a very brilliant counter terrorist strategy would it?

Second, to counter terrorism, you need intelligence. That means human intelligence. Terrorists aren't like an armoured division, you can't stop them from space. Someone has to tell you who they are or what they are doing. Two things:

That someone has to think your vision of the world is preferable to the terrorists, or they won't help you. Would you have reported a terrorist active in Stalin's Russia, or Hilter's Germany?

Second, that person has to have had reasonably positive experiences of intereacting with law enforcement. You could lock up every vaguely middle eastern person in the states on a regular basis (indeed, US immigration seems to be doing just this). Do you think the innocent who are locked up will then be in a hurry to go to the police and report suspicious activity?

I'm not familiar with how the powers conferred by the act are regulated and held to account but I suspect there is fertile ground for challenge there. At the very least it should be annually renewed by congress, if it isn't. We did that with the prevention of terrorism act, it at least keeps the spooks slightly in line.

Finally, is it even going to be effective? Spooks are rubbish, when they are not crooked (look at what the FBI was doing under Hoover). Would any of those powers have prevented a 9/11?

And finally, an argument that ought to appeal to all the right win Go USA types, what happened to "give me liberty or give me death"? When did the proud cry of the right get changed to "Take away my liberties because of one attack that killed fewer that 10% of the annual death toll on the roads"

BTW, is USA PATRIOT an acronym for the name of the Act then? Sheesh. The biggest assault on your liberty in recent times and someone, somewhere, thinks the reallty important issue is a cool acronym? What happens when a democrat is chairing that committee, do you get the THIS BILL SUCKS Act? The I LOVE LENTILS Act?

[Major Robert Dump]

Take the debate from the standpoint of the potential PATRIOT has for abuse. Of course everyone who approves it says something like "well...i wont abuse it!" but that doenst mean squat for future people in power...

Rather than saying its being outright abused to break laws, start conspiracies blah blah balh consider this:

the law is being used to prosecute crimes that are not related to terrorism in any way shape or form. they are crimes that need to be punished, yes, but provisions in the patriot act are being used to do it. Its an akward thing...the organized crime guys and the meth labs need to be broken up, but some prosecutors and sheriffs are using a anti-terrorism law to do it because all the specific wording of the law about what can be done to "fight terrorism" is always folowed by "or other crimes"

So, really, the law isnt being abused when these guys yuse it for meth labs because the law says "other crimes (sic)" It is, rather, abuse of intent of the law and the ignorance of the people who stood by and let it pass

[Ironside]

Throughout history, the US has enacted acts similar to the US Patriot act at times of war. The Sedition Act of 1918, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death penalty Act of 1996, and COINTELPRO, are some examples of these acts. None of these actions have either endangered human rights excessivly, nor have they been kept around longer than nessissary to serve their purpose.

The problem with that argument is that when is this war won? Basically it's up to the rulers. You need to have a good definition of a won or otherwise can your opponent claim that this special laws can be maintained forever. And try to avoid it to sound like it's needed to be maintained for atleast several decades (and I suspect that this war on terror will last that long).

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Well, the debate went moderatly well. I did very good the first round, when everyone was respectful of everyone's opinions and we all agreed what was in the best interests of America.

The second round was a miserable though. Well, here's the story.

We start off ,we don't have a judge. It takes 10 minutes to get the judge in the room, before we start discussing. Then we randomly jump around, thanks to this one a. Also, EVERY TIME ONE OF THE TENNENT KIDS TRIED TO MAKE A POINT, HE'D INTERUPT US MIDSENTANCE. I was this [..] close to pulling a Kruchev (i.e. taking off my shoe and slamming it on the desk) and then beating the crap out of this a. But i didn't do anything. Now, I placed in the first round (4th), but the second I was unranked BECAUSE I COULDNT FINISH A SENTANCE. And the Tennent kids weren't the only ones pissed off. This one chick from another highschool got uberpissed too, so we stayed a bit during the half an hour we had to eat and talk and chatted a bit.

I'm homicidal right now.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You ought to've pulled a Kruschev. It would have truly been 10 points for class.
I'll do it at Student Congress or Lincoln-Douglass. ~:)

[AntiochusIII]

I'll do it at Student Congress or Lincoln-Douglass. ~:)Ah. So you did something similar to Congress. I get it.

Don't be surprised: sometimes, if you're unlucky, Congress can be OFFENSIVE!

One of my friends, a Varsity debater (2nd year), in congress, stormed out of her Congress room in outrage in our first tournament of this year. She told me that one guy kept insulting women as inferior, while the other joked about topless girls. He's also a white supremacist of sorts. Before the topic of immigration was brought up, she stormed out of it with another girl (from another school), deciding not to wait for what ugly racism would show up. She looked like she can kill when I found her.

I was lucky to be a Lincoln-Douglas debater, where the atmosphere is far more formal, polite, and, strangely, comfortable.

And you shouldn't be too aggressive with LD debates. Passion and powerful Hitler-esque speechs are useful, though you must direct it not against your opponent but for your case and your "beliefs"*, but over-aggressiveness, insult, and others would make you a horrible person in the judge's eyes. "How can you be sooooo mean to that little girl?"

*I put the quote there because oftentimes, the beliefs are more or less faked.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ah. So you did something similar to Congress. I get it.

Don't be surprised: sometimes, if you're unlucky, Congress can be OFFENSIVE!

One of my friends, a Varsity debater (2nd year), in congress, stormed out of her Congress room in outrage in our first tournament of this year. She told me that one guy kept insulting women as inferior, while the other joked about topless girls. He's also a white supremacist of sorts. Before the topic of immigration was brought up, she stormed out of it with another girl (from another school), deciding not to wait for what ugly racism would show up. She looked like she can kill when I found her.

I was lucky to be a Lincoln-Douglas debater, where the atmosphere is far more formal, polite, and, strangely, comfortable.

And you shouldn't be too aggressive with LD debates. Passion and powerful Hitler-esque speechs are useful, though you must direct it not against your opponent but for your case and your "beliefs"*, but over-aggressiveness, insult, and others would make you a horrible person in the judge's eyes. "How can you be sooooo mean to that little girl?"

*I put the quote there because oftentimes, the beliefs are more or less faked.

Your LD's must be differant from ours, from what I've heard (I didn't do LD last year, this is my 2nd year. I'm def. in it this year) they get heated, violent, and offensive VERY quickly. Though hopefully I'll get against this one girl (who wants to go to West Point, I want to go to VMI if I can make it so we'd make a good pair to debate about military strategy and tactics ~:) ) or the kid who I almost beat to death with a shoe, the incompatable language kid.

BTW in the censor tags I had just a. the letter, a.

I was in student congress last year, it was my first real debate (I was in caucus' too) and I got thrown into the middle house. The first speech(s) I got torn apart, but when we began to debate foreign policy and the like I did moderatly well. I got 14 NFL points for that one, not too shabby ~:cheers: I'm 6 away from getting in, so the speech tournament will probably get me in (if not, Mock Trial will). In congress I'll prob. be in Senate this year, depending on how well I do for the rest of the year.

I didn't rank overall, but I ranked 4th in the 1st round of this one (2nd I didn't BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET 2 FREAKIN WORDS OUT. I'm still pissed over that).