The time for my opponent’s time extension period as passed. Therefore I will proceed with my opening statement…
The topic for this debate is "The Patriot Act should be permanently enacted.”
"nyk537" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"AllSeeingI" will be arguing the "Con" position.
First I would like to clearly define the two key words which will shape our debate…
1. Existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.
2. Intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions.
3. Long-lasting or nonfading: permanent pleating; permanent ink.
Enact(ed): (transitive, law) to make (a bill) into law
What I must attempt to prove in this debate is that it would be improper and illogical to make the Patriot Act ‘everlasting’, ‘permanent’,
‘indefinite’, or ‘non-fading’.
The idea of making any law a permanent fixture of a governmental and societal structure is absurd. Any law enacted at a given time and place must be
susceptible to the changing world and nation in regards to methodology, and changing opinion of the will of the people and the elected representing
Laws can become obsolete for many reasons: their purpose fades or changes, the will of the people and representing officials changes, new methods or
technologies become available which would require the change or ending of the old law.
By making the Patriot Act permanent we would be disabling the ability of future generations to make changes, edits, additions, or ending it’s
existence regardless of changing times or political opinions.
All I must prove here is that making the Patriot Act permanent is wrong.
I am not here to argue the validity of the Patriot Act on a case by case basis, or whether , in its current form, it is a logical or proper law at the
I will show in future posts during this debate that permanency of the Patriot Act is pure folly.
I will close now and await to see if my opponent will enter this debate.