I take 5.

I guess i'll take 7

I'll cede my spot to Kegel & Zerstoren... but hope that after the debate we are allowed to comment to our hearts content ;)

OK! So our debaters have chosen their numbers. The number that my roommate picked for me (as I was lazy) was 2, so the closest of you was Kegel. Kegel, choose your sides, and I will talk about opening statement. Zerstoren, if you end up with a side you don't agree with, please don't let that diminish your debating skills! This isn't about the subject of the debate so much as it is about the manner in which it is debated! Regardless of the bias the judges may have, we will make our decision of who argued their point the best.

So, Kegel, will you debate Pro (Yes, security measures are justified to the extent that civil liberties can be sacrificed) or Con (No, security measures are not justified to the extent that civil liberties can be sacrificed)?

Con

OK.

The format will be as follows (I will introduce and elaborate on each section when we come to it):

Format of the Great Debate:

1) For side: Give opening statement
2) Against side: Cross examines/addresses flaws, or issues in For's argument and asks For questions.
3) For side: May respond to cross/answer questions (MUST answer all questions).
4) Against side: Give opening statements (Repeat steps 1-3 in opposite order)
5) For side: Give closing statement (will elaborate on this later).
6) Against Side: Give closing statement (may not respond to For's closing statement).

The moderator will make sure no one steps out of line, and will "give the floor" to the debaters.

The judges will NOT participate in the debate, and will come into the debate with little opinion and/or previous knowledge of the subject. The judges will determine who should win the debate based on their persuasive skills and argument alone, not based on topic matter.

Arguing for the Affirmative in this debate is Zerstoren, while arguing the Negative is Kegel.

Affirmative, it is your turn to give your opening statement, which is a few paragraphs including proofs and supports for why liberties can be sacrificed for the sake of security. Proofs can include relevant examples, statistics, expert quotations, historical trends, etc. You may use pathos, ethos, and logos, that is to say you can appeal to our morals, emotions, and sense of logic in any way you see fit.

Your opening statement should be around five hundred words, but we won't be counting. If you feel you can say it all in three hundred words, or if you feel you need seven hundred words, then that's fine. The only reason I'm giving you a word count is in case you want a guideline. Take as many words as you need, and as much time as you would like to organize your response (though preferably respond by the end of the week so we can keep the debate going).

:o) Remember! This is all in good fun. If you find you aren't enjoying yourself, then you can drop out at any time, but if you're a debater, you will be ceding your title over to your opponent.

WINNERS: Yes, I have decided there will be a prize for the winner: A banner/image/certificate that will be uploaded to the image section of this spot celebrating the fact that they one Fanpop's first ever structured debate. Hopefully, if this goes well, we'll have more debates and more people can win.

If anyone wants to design this banner/image/certificate please contact me. If no one contacts me, I'll design it myself.

Zerstoren? You gonna give a statement???

I can't pace anymore. My hip hurts.

Got a hole in my carpet here, man. Someone go nudge Zerst...

I'll send her a message.

In the meantime, why don't we flip the order. Though it's a little unorthodox, would you like to take the floor, Kegel? I know you've been asking me when you can start. LOL!

Oh, I didn't see this post, sorry. I'll post my statement soon, if you still want me to start, unless Zerstoren starts after all ;).

yes please do, Kegel.

um...this topic seems to be dormat..

Okay, I'll write a statement now! I hope Zerstoren will answer then ;)

goodness, it might be 2008 before this debate actually gets underway!

Question: Are security measures justified to the extent that civil liberties can be sacrificed?

CONTRA

Civil liberties are an important part of human security. Citizens have the security that the state will acknowledge their rights. Civil liberties shall guarantee that nobody is imprisoned without proper procedure. Civil liberties shall protect the individual from potential tyranny of the state.

In many countries human rights, including civil liberties, are guaranteed on paper, connected with the clauses that they are valid “as long as the order of the state is appreciated”, and other, similar clauses. Western societies usually give civil rights a higher standing. Only in very exceptional cases can some of them be limited.

The question is, can a civil liberty even be called a “liberty”, a right even be called a “right”, if they only count as long as no situation comes along that invites to give them up?

In my opinion, civil liberties are not only designed for times that are peaceful and problem-free (and do these times even exist?).

Human rights conventions usually make it clear that the majority of rights count in any time. Torture is not allowed. Point. A derogation from this rule is not allowed in any case. If this were different, the whole norm would be worthless, as nobody could be sure to not be affected by any declared “state of emergency”.

Some civil rights can be limited in such states of emergencies. In the immediate danger/aftermath of attacks (as well as natural disasters), due process rights can be limited in the sense that the right to a fast process can be limited. This counts only as long as the state of emergency holds on, and can never be for an undermined time as it is done now with prisoners in “war on terror”. There is no enduring “state of emergency”. Whatever governments want to tell their people, the fundament of the state is not endangered. Telling this is nothing else than fear-inducing policy that is not based on any realistic considerations. Therefore, there is no enduring “state of emergency” today which means that those civil rights that can be “taken away” during such states, can not be taken away now either. As said, certain norms, like the ban on torture, counts in any time.

What I think is especially dangerous, is the redefining of norms, and the invention of loopholes. An example can be seen nowadays in the try of the government to redefine what “torture” means. Another example is the invention of the term “enemy combatant”, and thereby refusing the protection of the Geneva convention.

The redefining of norms that are spelled out clearly enough for any rational being, and the invention of new categories of people is dangerous, as it undermines the rule of law. And the rule of law is after all what keeps any security measures on a democratic track.