Tomorrow I have a debate against another high school. Now, this is pretty much my first debate, and I was able to come up with a speech but am really anxious about it and want to have it proof read. So, I am counting on you guys to help me, please. Also, I would love if you were able to improve on it a bit. Now, the topic being debated is: An increase in National Security should and MUST be made, regardless of impact or violation of civil liberties. Now, I completely negate this topic. I am not asking for arguments here, I am just asking for help. I'm in 10th grade, so take it easy on me please.. Here it is: Hello. My name is Adalgeovany Caceres and I am representing the William Allen negative B team. Increasing national security would violate Americans individual liberties, and individual liberties should be valued above security. We are all part of a society in which we agree to be part of a social contract. In this society we are given certain liberties. An increase in National Security violates these liberties, which in turn violates the society. Eventually, the society would become corrupted and no longer be a democracy. A certain liberty that Americans value greatly is privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a judicially sanctioned warrant that is supported by probable cause. If the United States were to increase national security, the National Security Agency would be able to search phone calls, messages, internet browsing history, etcetera, and it would violate the Fourth Amendment unless the NSA had a warrant for each and every person affected. According to Wall Street Journal, intelligence officials stated in a collection of 17,835 phone number checked against phone records, only 1,935 had reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This means that over 15 thousand Americans had their rights violated by the NSA. The NSA should have to follow the same rules that police officers and law enforcement agencies have to follow. They all need warrants and probable cause for their searches and seizures, and so should the NSA. In the court case ACLU v. NSA, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the National Security Agencys electronic Terrorist Surveillance Program. This program allowed the NSA to intercept electronic communications with anyone suspected of being affiliated with al Qaeda. They could do this without a court order. This violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This law requires special approval by a court confirming that there is probable cause in order for a person to be targeted by electronic surveillance. President Bush, after the September 11th terrorist attacks, created the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and it is argued that this gives the president an unconstitutional amount of power. It also violates speech and privacy rights protected under the First and Fourth Amendments. The checks and balances system was created to prevent one of the three branches of government from gaining too much power. If the National Security Agency were to increase its security measures, it would give the Executive branch too much power, and it would overrule the judicial branch. The system would become corrupted and our entire government would have to be changed. The Privacy Act had provisions to track calls that only came from known terrorists or foreign countries, not random American citizens. This did not violate any liberties. In 1974, Senator Sam Ervin, chief author of the Privacy Act, said, Each time we give up a bit of information about ourselves to the Government, we give up some of our freedom. For the more the Government or any institution knows about us, the more power it has over us. When the Government knows all of our secrets, we stand naked before official power. Stripped of our privacy, we lose our rights and privileges. The Bill of Rights then becomes just so many words. Ervin is saying that if we were to give up our privacy, we would lose everything that was given to us by the founding fathers and The Bill of Rights. Picture a society in which this is the case. The government knows everything and has access to everything you do. You are left without natural liberties, rights, or freedoms. The president would be more like a tyrannical leader. Is this the type of society you would want to live in? There are many other ways to prevent terrorist attacks and collect data. Ways that do not violate the liberties and rights of American citizens. An increase in national security is not the option we should choose. Thank you.
You contradicted yourself between your opening and your closing - I'd fix that. I personally find it unfortunate that debate teams are no essentially just speech teams.
Memorize a list of key words that can be used to impose a logical fallacy without being called out for it. The goal is to force your opponent to deny your charge, and in doing so, distract himself from making any points. "Un-American" is a good one. Remember, all debates that matter are incredibly irrational, and are about capturing emotions, not presenting logic.
