NSA Week in My High School Debate Club

[Gumba of Liberty]

What do you guys think?

Any suggestions?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

What do you guys think?

Any suggestions?

I have many suggestions.

Read the Bill of Rights, for starters. Or better yet, the Declaration of Independence.

Someone will surely say freedom and security is a balancing act. That you have to sacrifice some for the other. Be prepared to destroy that argument. It appears the teacher is sympathetic to the message of liberty. Considering this is the only argument even the pundits can revert to, "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care," I would expect any and all proponents of the NSA spying to start with that. I'd quote Goebbels reincarnate Lindsey Graham while spelling out for the particularly dim, that that is not the way the Law works. If you have nothing to hide, then why are they monitoring your messages in the first place? Would that not hamper their ability to monitor actual threats? And furthermore, when you collect the sheer volume of data they have collected you actually hinder your ability to effectively analyze it. Talk about Bluffdale and the effects that spy center has on the environment. Talk about the lack of funds we have, the fact that we have been attacked more with our meddlesome foreign policy and Nazi-esque security apparatus than when without it. Talk about the revolving door of National Security heads and their role in various abominable war crimes throughout the last twenty years. I mean, it would be hard to even stay on topic. I'd take a few of the more egregious points I've suggested, ones you are knowledgeable on, and focus intensely on that. They will say things of "Freedom isn't free" or that you must "sacrifice a little liberty for safety"... respond with Benjamin Franklin. They will say they have nothing to hide so they don't worry about it. Respond with a quote from Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Tie in Natural Law between the points.

Frankly I'd be surprised if there was even much of a debate. Maybe one or two people may not know the issue and attempt to debate the affirmative; it would be rather amusing how quickly they'd get destroyed. I'd expect a few simple Bill O'Reilly talking points and a by and large non-existent understanding of the issue. It doesn't take much effort to destroy their argument.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Oh, and tube it. Let's make it go viral and get you an interview on the Ron Paul Channel.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Also they will surely talk about 'prevented' terrorist attacks:

NSA Director Alexander Admits He Lied about Phone Surveillance Stopping 54 Terror Plots

By Admin on October 15, 2013
by Noel Brinkerhoff

The head of the National Security Agency (NSA) admitted before a congressional committee this week that he lied back in June when he claimed the agency’s phone surveillance program had thwarted 54 terrorist “plots or events.”

NSA Director Keith Alexander gave out the erroneous number while the Obama administration was defending its domestic spying operations exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. He said surveillance data collected that led to 53 of those 54 plots had provided the initial tips to “unravel the threat stream.”

But Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday during a hearing on the continued oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the administration was pushing incomplete or inaccurate statements about the bulk collection of phone records from communications providers.

“For example, we’ve heard over and over again that 54 terrorist plots have been thwarted by the use of (this program),” Leahy said. “That’s plainly wrong,” adding: “These weren’t all plots and they weren’t all thwarted.”

Alexander admitted that only 13 of the 54 cases were connected to the United States. He also told the committee that only one or two suspected plots were identified as a result of bulk phone record collection.

Leahy was not happy. “We’re told we have to [conduct mass phone surveillance] to protect us, and the statistics are rolled out that they’re not accurate,” he said. “It doesn’t have the credibility here in the Congress, it doesn’t have the credibility with this chairman and it doesn’t have the credibility with the country.”

http://thestateweekly.com/nsa-direc...-phone-surveillance-stopping-54-terror-plots/

The one attack that was allegedly thwarted by bulk spying was foremost prevented by HUMINT. (human intelligence)

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

I have many suggestions.

Read the Bill of Rights, for starters. Or better yet, the Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for that bro.

Someone will surely say freedom and security is a balancing act. That you have to sacrifice some for the other. Be prepared to destroy that argument. It appears the teacher is sympathetic to the message of liberty. Considering this is the only argument even the pundits can revert to, "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care," I would expect any and all proponents of the NSA spying to start with that. I'd quote Goebbels reincarnate Lindsey Graham while spelling out for the particularly dim, that that is not the way the Law works. If you have nothing to hide, then why are they monitoring your messages in the first place? Would that not hamper their ability to monitor actual threats? And furthermore, when you collect the sheer volume of data they have collected you actually hinder your ability to effectively analyze it. Talk about Bluffdale and the effects that spy center has on the environment. Talk about the lack of funds we have, the fact that we have been attacked more with our meddlesome foreign policy and Nazi-esque security apparatus than when without it. Talk about the revolving door of National Security heads and their role in various abominable war crimes throughout the last twenty years. I mean, it would be hard to even stay on topic. I'd take a few of the more egregious points I've suggested, ones you are knowledgeable on, and focus intensely on that. They will say things of "Freedom isn't free" or that you must "sacrifice a little liberty for safety"... respond with Benjamin Franklin. They will say they have nothing to hide so they don't worry about it. Respond with a quote from Nazi Propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Tie in Natural Law between the points.

Frankly I'd be surprised if there was even much of a debate. Maybe one or two people may not know the issue and attempt to debate the affirmative; it would be rather amusing how quickly they'd get destroyed. I'd expect a few simple Bill O'Reilly talking points and a by and large non-existent understanding of the issue. It doesn't take much effort to destroy their argument.

Good call on freedom vs. security. My point was to start from average MSM perspective "freedom vs. security" and then blow there minds with "freedom = security". Overall, I was asking for suggestions about the look of the poster, the text and the quote at the bottom. I believe I am well-versed and well-read enough to deliver the message. I just need a good, catchy poster

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Thanks for that bro.

I wasn't saying that as to imply you hadn't... just that it is all that really needs to be said with regards to this subject. If you read the DOI during the debate, you'd probably be disciplined.

Good call on freedom vs. security. My point was to start from average MSM perspective "freedom vs. security" and then blow there minds with "freedom = security". Overall, I was asking for suggestions about the look of the poster, the text and the quote at the bottom. I believe I am well-versed and well-read enough to deliver the message. I just need a good, catchy poster

Excellent poster. I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

I wasn't saying that as to imply you hadn't... just that it is all that really needs to be said with regards to this subject. If you read the DOI during the debate, you'd probably be disciplined.


Excellent poster. I wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks

 

[presence]

 

[messana]

I would probably drop the George Orwell quote. Keep the activism at the debate.

 

[MrGoose]

I remember reading something about a guy who lived in a middle eastern country with a big brother government. He said that he though that, "I don't do anything wrong so I don't care if the government monitors me!" That's what someone might say in your debate, that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. That guy had some police show up to his house anyway and told him that if he didn't help them find rebel, then they would turn in his family members. So even if you don't do something wrong, can you be sure all of your family and friends wont either? How many of them do you think downloaded an illegal movie? It could be something as simple as that. Then they hold that against you and you help them turn in other people to save your friends and family.

We had a debate about the patriot act in my high school, out of a class of 27 people, I was the only one who was against it. Sometimes I think we get what we deserve...

 

[Sub-Zer0]

I think one of the best general arguments is that: Unless you want to put massive crippling restrictions on all human activity, it's impossible to prevent every single possibly bad thing from ever coming to fruition. In the process of creating such a system you hinder the human potential of the entire species.

The other thing is that if people want to actually "debate" in the logical sense, our opinions mean jack. It's about what we can prove or what cannot be refuted. The constitution is still the written law of the land. I would focus on making your opponents try to prove that the NSA was constitutional, or if they said that it didn't matter force them to admit that the constitution was not relevant. THEN debate them on whether or not we should have constitutional restrictions or not, that's a piece of cake.

Watch Stefan Molyneux, the Socratic Dialogue technique is extremely effective for dispelling fallacious arguments. Still, I give you props for doing this. That flyer is awesome, seems really pro-liberty did you make it? Jan Helfeld does the same thing, you have to be VERY polite about it though. Also it's hard to do it if you can't have a back and fourth exchange. Here's an example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1P3IfVEx0

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Not being smart but do people actually show up to these things? In my High School you could not get a single person to show up to something intellectual unless you promised giveaways of porn magazines.

 

[GregSarnowski]

Talk about how in the spring the head of the NSA straight-up lied to Congress about spying on Americans, and as a result how the organization now has zero credibility and shouldn't be trusted.

video here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjdJRXeZ3s

Talk about how information collected by the NSA has already been abused (at least!) to spy on romantic interests [ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html ] and that the Federal government as a whole has already been proven to single out Americans for their political beliefs [IRS "tea party" scandal].

 

[GregSarnowski]

Not being smart but do people actually show up to these things? In my High School you could not get a single person to show up to something intellectual unless you promised giveaways of porn magazines.

I'm sure parents do...

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

I think one of the best general arguments is that: Unless you want to put massive crippling restrictions on all human activity, it's impossible to prevent every single possibly bad thing from ever coming to fruition. In the process of creating such a system you hinder the human potential of the entire species.

The other thing is that if people want to actually "debate" in the logical sense, our opinions mean jack. It's about what we can prove or what cannot be refuted. The constitution is still the written law of the land. I would focus on making your opponents try to prove that the NSA was constitutional, or if they said that it didn't matter force them to admit that the constitution was not relevant. THEN debate them on whether or not we should have constitutional restrictions or not, that's a piece of cake.

Watch Stefan Molyneux, the Socratic Dialogue technique is extremely effective for dispelling fallacious arguments. Still, I give you props for doing this. That flyer is awesome, seems really pro-liberty did you make it? Jan Helfeld does the same thing, you have to be VERY polite about it though. Also it's hard to do it if you can't have a back and fourth exchange. Here's an example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ1P3IfVEx0

This is not a formal debate and I will not be debating. This is a Socratic forum where students can come together and hash out issues in an informal setting. I want to teach them how to make logical arguments and debate their friends without it devolving into a right-left shouting match. While I am liberty-minded, I never push my students to believe anything. I simply state the cold-hard facts and let the truth prevail as it naturally will.

Thanks for the bit about the flyer. I made it last night. 20 minutes

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

Not being smart but do people actually show up to these things? In my High School you could not get a single person to show up to something intellectual unless you promised giveaways of porn magazines.

Sound like someone needs a few bad-ass flyers

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Sound like someone needs a few bad-ass flyers

No, just a smarter and more involved populace.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

No, just a smarter and more involved populace.

No, I teach at a low-income school with a majority Hispanic students. Zero parental involvement. Zero role models. The only thing they love are their iPads (school provided) and their twitter accounts. It's the flyer, I'm telling you.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

No, I teach at a low-income school with a majority Hispanic students. Zero parental involvement. Zero role models. The only thing they love are their iPads (school provided) and their twitter accounts. It's the flyer, I'm telling you.

Amen. All arguments must be presented in a way that the 'audience' can relate to.

 

[Henry Rogue]

I'm not much of a debater, so I'm no help, but this is one of my favorite quotes>

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin