It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 2: nyk537 vs AllSeeingI - "Patriot Act"

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:07 PM
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.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:27 PM
I'll be opening my side of the debate by expending my extension early. This debate crept up on me.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:42 PM
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. permanently

Enact(ed): (transitive, law) to make (a bill) into law
wikitionary: enact

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 law-makers.

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 present time.

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.

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:21 AM
1st Post...

I would like to make clear that I believe it is common knowledge that the nature of human civilization and its laws are constantly in a state of change and evolution. I would cite examples such as the issuing and repeal of alcohol prohibition, and any examples of new laws becoming required with discovery and use of new technologies.

Because of these examples I believe to make any law permanent is foolish and illogical. Over time some part of the proposed permanent Patriot Act would without a doubt come under debate for editing, addition, or elimination like all other laws based on the common knowledge of the nature of change and evolution of human civilization and its laws.

Socratic Questions:

#1: What would be the benefit of making a set of laws permanent and uneditable forever therefore denying future generations of the ability to choose to change or edit them in any way?

#2: Do you feel that laws created 1000, 100, 10, 1 year ago are as, and will be as complete and adequate in the future as they were when they were created?

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:22 AM
2 posts have been missed, thus this debate ends in forfeiture.

AllSeeingI moves to the 3rd round.


(Note: I have been in communication with nyk537 regarding the issue of this debate and why he has not been able to participate. As he has taken the time to communicate with the organizers of the tournament, this forfeiture will not result in a 'suspension' from future tournaments.)

top topics

log in