Debate – BP Security Cameras in City Centers

welcome to the final round of the world universities of a workshop we have four outstanding teams our judges for today’s debate I would like to thank you all for attending we have quite a number of judges who will be indicating this round our round will be chaired by debby newman of Cambridge University I’ve asked if she would share the debate as if she was in the in the debating chamber back at Cambridge so we got a taste of it here in Burlington Vermont thanks to you all for a great week of debating security cameras in public areas of city centers today we have Emily and Ethan and on the second proposition team we have Josh and penny please speeches today will be up seven minutes in length protective points of information the noise that you will hear once at one minute once at six minutes and twice at seven minutes from our timekeeper Steve is okay and if there are no further questions at this time it gives me great pleasure to recognize Emily’s proposed the motion that stands in her name defining the motion we’re going to define video cameras basically as you all think of them surveillance devices pretty much a given City Center we are going to define as main intersections and roads these and now I’m going to move on to our plan and then continue on to our my two points one of which is that a government has an obligation to protect its people the second of which is safety starting out with our plan the plan is to install video surveillance units at major intersections at each of these intersections there will be two cameras one of which will be surveilling Skiing will be civilian the traffic that is going through Center section the second of which will be doing a sweep of the block that it is on to watch for pedestrians crimes not at this time sir within my my own City we have a blue light system under each blue light there is a camera that’s sweeps the the street that it is on this is in Baltimore Maryland the it creates it creates surveillance that they believe men can look to encase in the issue of crime so that they can see who may be perpetrating said crime once it has been reported and if it isn’t reported they can see that it is still going on it will for those people who are afraid to go to the police because they are afraid of being looked no thank you sir being looked down on or accused of something that are let’s say a woman is raped often she feels that it is her fault that she feels too ashamed because she wasn’t strong enough to protect herself the police will be able to see this crime going on they will see if this is happening they can perhaps locate her go to her say you know you shouldn’t be ashamed about this they can take action to stop said crimes no thank you sir the these blue lights within my city have decreased crime they’ve led the comprehension of criminals and have made the streets ultimately safer yes sir the increased crime in that area think of decreased crime in the city as us where the video cameras are located yes sir it’s boy reason abroad I’m not sure I guess it would be but you need my words there are currently monitoring facilities in many private private industries and many private buildings this is not taking taking this to an extreme stuff this is in a public facility you can’t expect to have privacy when you’re on a public street

now on to my main point starting with the government Thailand you must protect people it’s their duty what’s the point of a government and a candy to protect its own citizens from crimes if I mean if everyone gets murderers who are they supposed to be there who are they supposed to govern in addition they have an obligation to use the technology available this is not not anything new when fingerprinting came out with DNA genetics issues came out they use this to apprehend criminals they have they have an obligation to use the available technology No thank you sir which increase it which includes video surveillance now my second point is safety these cameras will increase safety in two ways it will cut back on pedestrian crime as well as speeding time and now I’m not just talking about speeding I’m talking about accidents but you have to look about people who speed tend to be reckless drivers they increase accidents and apprehending them in pointing out that they have have had some misguided issue my second tip is that they are they are driving recklessly they are in this system they are seen they are less likely they are more likely to stop speeding which less likely to have an accident and hurt people now under the pedestrian crime knowing that there’s a camera out there that could be watching you means that you’re gonna be a lot less likely to mug the nice old lady walking down the street in front of you quite frankly there’s a higher chance No thank you sir that you’re going to be caught you were less likely to commit that crime you’re a lesser that under public street which increases safety for in the old ladies the young women the young men walking down that street going home from a club late at night it’s going to increase safety for the pedestrian yes sir so you’re talking about the little old lady walking down the street does that mean that you’re trying to categorize people I’m not looking at anyone under different suspicion I’m simply stating that little women are easier targets for people to harm than it is a jacked up man now to just to summarize what I was talking about a city center our main intersections to cameras looking at traffic violations as well as looking at pedestrian activity these cameras would not be used to to stalk people they would not be used to to watch people rock walk from point A to point B they would be simply used in the case of a in the case of crimes they’d be used to yes sir does the government decide not agree that if these cameras went into place and there were the police had a suspicion that someone was committing a crime in progress between many intersections that this person cannot be followed by these cameras and could those people not also be followed by an undercover police officer you’re simply taking away the manpower that that would take and putting into a technology that would use that that would make that signe that that police officer could be attending a crime that has already been reported then stalking some guy who might be committing a crime it means that you don’t have to take that man and move him from what doing doing apprehending someone who’s already committed a crime and it means that they can use that surveillance to to perhaps follow that individual who they suspect of a crime now my point has been that the government must protect people they have an obligation to do this as citizens within theirs within their jurisdiction they have a right they have a necessity to protect us and to use the available technology to do so they must use what they have available – you’re out of order start they must do that to you they must use the technology to keep their citizens safe and safety is my second point it will make the streets safer it will mean that you feel more comfortable walking down the street because you’re not worried that some guy is going to jump out from behind a building and try and mug you it means that people will feel safer immunes and that there will be less traffic violations and less accidents because people will be aware that these cameras are following them within my own City this is already I thank you very much indeed for her speech voices down and one of the speeches are going on fellow educators man’s answers each and every one of you have now been enrolled in a reality show but unfortunately you have no choice in that matter and the prize is we’re going to now know everything you’re going to be your driving habits and we’re going to know about your sex habits at these driving intersections but we’re inhibits if you want that on the news bad boys

bad boys what you going to do so here we go now there are serious issues and I have three of them but I will refute but we’re gonna talk number one what this plan is this crime will shift number two is is that room being a complete loss of privacy and number three we’re gonna talk about money police they’re the most poor have most outstanding people to do this and we’re going to show how the police are actually corrupt and you can be roped in to monitor this but let’s do it down to City sinners she defines city centers it’s just main intersections on the road I’m going to say that status quo party does this and major cities why are you going to enact them and this is every major city okay so first of all I want to say that they have to cross an inherent barrier with their plan and we already do this except maybe my city cook though which doesn’t even have a main intersection so that’s going to be really interesting and so I just I have a rook I asked the next speaker is this gonna be in every single city and every single intersection I would like to know that because all she said it she gave an example of Burlington which is a wonderful fine city and I encourage everyone to come here next year but let’s go on to this plan they are going to install and major intersection intersection traffic sweeps first of all we already had these and cities are they going to take those down they are sup are they going to have an integrated system with all these other cities I’m really confused about this and then I want to know what cities don’t have this okay so like Cooke thought for example but all major cities already have this so people for them here nothing will happen nothing will change you and so we’re gonna say that uh actually we need to take action okay so instead of one camera on a red light we’re just gonna have one right below it have to Wow so that camera doesn’t work and they’re gonna have a quagmire what camera do you look at okay that doesn’t really that doesn’t really make sense to me big enough yes sir the gentleman that usually when you have two surveillance cameras in the same place they’re my second point will be my first point would be the crime shifts but I need to get to going down to this and then they say criminal in the cities okay how many people are committing crimes in the city intersections versus the whole city I would like a number okay and then number two if you get the right in your car obviously if you’re not just going to walk up in the middle of an intersection by yourself you’re going to be in an automobile and we have enforcement for this already now what’s going on to the government duty to protect Prime Minister obligation and she gives a fingerprint well that’s completely different than just looking at something and I’m actually going to say that actually this this really doesn’t apply and then she says increasing safety I’m going to say they’re actually going to hurt safety by ten percent minimum and the reason why is that if I know is a criminal that oh the only way that they’re going to do this is at an intersection at busy intersection I’ll just go to the park across the street do the crime okay and so they don’t actually they’re actually going to increase safety and we now know the focus is going to be on the intersection and not the public parks please tell me how that’s gonna increase the safety I think the intent of the person that made the revenue president not this time maybe I’ll ask later I’ll answer your question later so and then they said about an old woman they’re stereotyping people and that the only the whole one day across the street we need to work about that the drug acts and we need to be people that are racing the main points of the city but let’s go on to our point our opposition the first main point was my third but now it’s my first is that that crime shifts criminals are crafty but we’re called Clem destined criminals are very smart and they also know that ok if there’s a camera right here let’s say that’s there I can just go over here but they’re not solving that so even if it’s two ways I can just move around and I can still do my crime in an intersection and number two criminals are smart they’re not going to do it in a main third war but everyone’s watching they’re not going to do crack deals on let’s say six forty or the major course they’re gonna go somewhere they’re not seen and that’s where the problem lies lies not in intersections okay and then also we had a huge huge problem in America with NSA with wiretapping and then now guess what we were in debates last you were saying how it’s gonna happen to something else and that’s not at this time sir that it’s gonna escalate this is a great example of how a slippery slope argument happens now we’re finished with wiretapping and now we’re going to put cameras up and find more about you what’s next is this the last time you’re going to want to know more information on us yes sir I would like to remind the gentleman since the Patriot Act has been enacted there’s not been a terrorist attack on US soil terrorism and each and every one of us when a woman gets raped acts terrorism when a woman has that’s what we need to focus on and that’s the heart of the issue not stopping speeders on a lady that is important but there are a lot more serious issues of what yes man okay so your point on the crime shifting if all of a sudden crime shifts to the part which may happen now can’t we go there and have our police and they’re gonna totally be the intersections and they’re gonna completely ignore the parks and that’s the first thing is that they’re gonna be

more worried about this intersection and this new policy that you’re having no we’re actually saying that’s not unless you can less your plan it hires more police and less your plan gives more money which it doesn’t you’re using the same amount of police and adding a whole new for the program and that’s where the flaws with the system is how many people and how many police are you going to add we’ve never there’s nothing so we have to assume you’re just gonna overwork the police we’re just going to leave me to my police corruption down below let’s talk about the crime shift and then we’re gonna move from cities and enforcement I would like to know if this each and every one of us wear a license license plate on the back of our things no and so how are you gonna force are we gonna have face recognition from every single person obviously that tall said not me I’m not system if I see that pretty girl walking down the street and I think she’s smoking a cigarette it’s a marijuana how would I know it’s her I might go over here to this pretty blonde and arrest her please show me how you can recognize people in a camera I mean we need some more information and do we have the technology of face recognition and then that would feed to my privacy loss of privacy the Big Brother which is and if Big Brother’s always watching us and now we have cameras what’s next and then no I think I’m in protect the time but my third thing is please corruption we already had this now and now we’re gonna have police sitting behind a little desk watching a camera and then watching every move we think I think there’s better people and better ways to monitor and enforce this but now you’re gonna have a police Bob that has no training in this whatsoever sitting behind a desk and is now going to be enforcing to this would you like that do you think do but that make you feel safe I don’t think so if you think that would make me feel safer that your intersections might might be safer but you can go right down the street get mugged because you know that’s not going to be a Patrol that’s not safety in conclusion the opposition is you can see how the opposition leader was completely paranoid in the way he was speaking quickly in the way he jumped from topic to topic and the paranoia infiltrated his entire argumentative process it characterizes them perfectly see now he wants to fight me he’s mislabeling his armies completely his third point is police corruption they’re sitting around so I think that we should just move right now to adjourn this entire debate but failing that first I won’t go down the list of his arguments I’ll move on to my point about how these cameras are going to comfort people sure what are you trying to suggest my partner’s frantic speaking as a result of no this is not true in those days we do not have cameras on all of the blocks and secondly we do not have these scanning cameras which are a specific part of our plan then he goes on to talk about people being able to move and jump around and he does some acrobatic sort of stuff but these are scanning cameras they’re constantly going back and forth you’re not going to be able to be moving around his first point is about crime shift and how this is going to go to different places say the public park however the important part you should realize here is that these cameras are going to be going 24 hours a day what kind of old lady I’m sorry we’re trying to protect the old lady I know you and your paranoia you have a problem with that but that’s what we’re trying to do the old lady’s I’m going to go to the park at 12 o’clock at night to walk through okay we need city centers that are monitored so that late at night when the criminals come out there can be a safe place for people to walk through that’s the whole point it’s not going to be an entire ship to get the old lady’s shirt so you said people can walk around what our city centers you said there are intersections by your own definition

what are what please define city center the safe center definition is a troublesome one I don’t think we should be penalized for not being able to define it because we really don’t think that has any clear definition but we believe that our definition of named main thoroughfares that the saves themselves would define it’s not going to be an integrated system we believe that that’s probably the best Stephanie we can come up with as our side and you can debate that’s bad if you want okay so on to the next what they have which is a slippery slope let’s talk about that one they say this is going to be too Orwellian society is going to be a step-by-step process of creating a police state calibration we already have a model for putting cameras into cities and that’s written in Great Britain there’s already millions of cameras all over the place watching people and England is not you know a police state people still live their lives they have freedom Dickens you know they have political rights it has no characteristics of the police state and there’s no reason to think that somehow in doing this in America and also on the issue of privacy my first point would be that if you don’t have anything to hide then why should you be scared and the second is that you really can’t use probably the idea of privacy and an idea of right of great to privacy in this debate because I you know our definition by the demotions definition I should say it’s a public space it’s not a private space police officers can already see you with their eyes in public so should you as a private citizen be able to go into a public place and know that you can care as a daily lives without everyone in the world have being broadcasted all across there this will deter them this will reroute the capabilities of the police until it’ll take away from their capability there’s not going to be a police officer saying behind watching every camera the point is that it’s going to work you know in in the future to look at past events say if there was a crime committed yesterday then today go back and look at that crime there’s not going to be a face recognition software if someone’s a known criminal and they have been known to commit this sort of crime with that sort of crime then it’ll be much easier for the police to investigate this and to bring it to some sort of resolution so yes there there’s no there’s no actual drawbacks this is going to make people feel safer there about living in their community the innocent people will be protected rewarded by their access to their communities while PLT the criminals they will be the ones punished and the ones will be stopped so and this will be funded by the increased amount of speeding tickets that we take go ahead and go emphasize a rigid offer a little bit of reputation as what they’ve said and really explain the deep

dark implications now to expand off of what rich said when he met there was a crime shift and that criminals are clandestine perhaps he was suggesting that by merely only putting your cameras within public areas in the city centers that not only war criminals become more crafty as to where and how they commit their crimes but that they aren’t actually going to no longer commit crime they’re just going to move to the area where there is no longer camera and that’s really the issue we’re trying to focus on here is you’re not solving the crime issue when I asked the government is this going to stop crime outright lower the percentages or is it just going to move where the crime happens the answer was I don’t know now that’s a really big issue because sit down the whole reason why they’re installing these cameras in the first place is to have a detrimental effect on crime but the fact that they cannot even tell me whether or not this is going to stop crime they’re giving me a lot of what-ifs they’re just saying well perhaps it’ll be moved I don’t know perhaps it’ll be stopped maybe it’s really really shameful I’m still talking it’s really really shameful that they cannot give us a straight answer on this that there’s just suggesting that perhaps crime will stop but they failed to answer my partner’s point is it going to just shift yes are you suggesting we should put more cameras elsewhere aren’t you isn’t all right going on further you said this is going to result in safer pedestrian areas and safer speeding areas the intersections already served to protect these people that’s whether stoplight said that’s why there’s already a police presence sy already many city centers have cameras so we haven’t really seen a severe impact of your plan we haven’t really seen unnoticeable change we haven’t seen a measurable change we haven’t seen really anything that comes a benefit of this except perhaps that you’re allowing these criminals become more crafty or in their way severe evading surveillance so now I’m going to move on to what we were talking about earlier about the dangers of this police state mentality what she said we’re going to be a little paranoid about well the thing is is yes other places have installed these things and other places have use them correctly but we are living within a culture that has abused the powers that the people have given to the government we gave the government powers to assist in these terrorist attacks we gave the government the ability to make us safer and what did they do with it they went too far with it they’ve broken the laws with it they undermine our rights with it given that we can see this historical precedence with it what other logical conclusion can we come to that they’re going to do it again we gave them the ability to monitor terrorists what do we have now we have a terrorist watch list that has civil rights leaders on it don’t you think that’s a little bit too far so we’re looking at this and we’re going and and see that we don’t have a police state but in effect we actually do because we’ve given the government the right to do these things and they’ve pushed it beyond what we’ve allowed them to do this is where we have a problem we’re not paranoid but we do think the government has a severe fear mongering program in place there’s they’re hinting at the idea that people are inherently flawed and so we must monitor them daily we must you trying to protect them because they can’t protect themselves yes sir if you’re not paranoid why aren’t you wearing shoes logical connection perhaps the government has the government has a logical connection the government has a lack of reasons why they should do this and when we point out the problems with their case this is what they do they don’t want to acknowledge it we tell them that there’s something wrong in fact we show them that something’s wrong we’ve given them historical precedents for why these things have been abused in the past and why they should not be used now but what have we offered in return we still offer we’ve still had nothing but the jokes and we moon to see from their side we’ve got nothing but then trying to undermine the credibility of the negatives argument by trying to attack our characters by trying to attack our demeanor and that is wrong so let me go ahead and summarize my partner here was speaking of the ineffectiveness of this plan how merely the crime is going to shift the crop the criminals are just going to become more clandestine more tender more covert more sneaky more crafty as to how they’re gonna commit these crimes these security cameras are gonna prevent crime in these areas they’re just going to encourage crime to move somewhere else when we see

that we can see that that their plan fails to address the actual harms in the first place we see that they say there’s a lot of crime by putting up cameras we’ll stop the crime but we don’t because we’re merely just moving where the crime is going to be committed then when we say that these powers are going to be abused see it’s already done in England it’s not getting abused there right but we’re putting these in the United States and we’ve seen that every time we give the government an inch of power they take a foot hell right now they’re taking about 10 to 15 feet I think that’s just absolutely shameful that the government has failed to include any of this within their plan they failed to address these issues in fact they just ignore them but that’s the entire idea of their plan is to ignore the inherent problems to ignore what’s actually going on there’s crime cool set up cameras all right it just went somewhere else how do you solve for that oh well maybe we can put the police over there well that’s not what you said you said the police are going to be monitoring these tapes and the police are going to be answering over any call no calls that are already in effect all right we’re always kind of given lost where all the police are going but maybe they can clarify that later so in the idiot we’re really fostering a culture that is embarrassed we’re saying that we can’t trust our people but we’ve already shown we can’t trust so let’s start by saying this team has come to the wrong school the wrong University in the wrong town to argue this camera issue because two years ago a camera caught the killer of the shell Gardner Quinn on camera they identified him they identified the Kobe they got his height and weight and were able to expedite the the answer to her murder he was discovered and now he was put away in jail for life that is sorely because a camera on a busy street corner videotaped him abducting her so I asked you I come here today to ask the house-sit to vote YES to place cameras in public city centers on these streets and on these main intersections now I’ll go into my reputation I’m very no sir I’m a little troubled by what the opposition has said and I will continue on this path label own as paranoid because they are one of them stood up here and said well we don’t walk around with IDs tape to our back well what about your ID card you have a serial number on that ID card that I sighs you you get into your your your moving vehicle which has a license plate so yes you are tracked by the government and you are watched by the government so yes it is the government’s duty to protect us from ourselves there to ensure no sir that they are here to ensure that people are being effective members of their society and to watch out for us so I don’t know where your figures is about reducing crime rate without cameras by 10% like you said before but I think your figures are a little out of whack and then the gentleman who stood here before said oh well in England it works it works works well yes that’s what we’re trying to say here god forbid America takes a lesson from Europe I mean their economic growth their architecture is amazing they continue growing their vast tourism their crime rate is very low and they’re on the Euro so like you know God forbid sir that we take a lesson from from Europe so now I know sir sit down please now I would like to go into something that hasn’t been addressed at all this debate cameras can also prove your innocence they can work both ways today I woke up as I always do and I turned on CNN first thing I saw on CNN was it yesterday in New York City a man on an african-american male about 25 years old was walking down the street iPod you know he was driving and dancing over a little bit but to the cops who socially profiled the man they thought he was drunk in a disturbance to the public you know what they did they came over two of them with their nightsticks and beat this man he is now in the hospital in critical condition and this was all caught on camera so the cameras can help catch corruptly sighs they go both ways yes sir both examples you’ve given or cameras not from intersections on streets and roads on

everybody’s all intersection sir yeah we’re talking about suspicions let’s take the black men and they have suspicions about those managers clear he has his headphones in and use dancing down the street so yeah that sends a pretty normal signal to me that I need to go over with my nightstick and beat the living hell up no sir so yes the cameras work both ways so let me also ask you another question here do we really want to live in an unsafe and secure society just clearly I think that’s what the opposition is coming here today to advocate let’s live in an unsafe society let’s live in a place where there aren’t cameras that can prove evidence of a cop hurting an african-american male or in another situation the grantee that they’re talking about her purse is stolen yes this completely hide evidence it can provide an alibi about a year ago there’s a famous show on the channel HBO of Curb Your Enthusiasm and in the stadium outside of the stadium in Los Angeles at Dodger Stadium a man is caught on camera he was also caught on film by HBO this man was accused of murdering his wife he was at the baseball game when his wife is murdered that was his alibi but they had no proof finally after going to the cameras they saw him on camera and then they call HBO because we can and remember he said oh yes sir I remember there was a TV show being filmed there that day they look back on the records the man was proved innocent and he has left free so yes in this situation cameras and busy street sections and on the streets are welcomed by this house and when you’re driving down a busy intersection you know I’m from Denver Colorado the neighborhood Greenwood Village and they have cameras on the intersections and if you’re speeding no sir if you’re speeding it will catch you it’ll take a picture of your license plate and you in the car so they can tell that it’s you so we already have this in mainstream society this is not something new that the public is used to and also in regards to so bringing up this is not gonna be like communist Russia or 1984 or the government’s are watching the people to make sure they don’t rise up against the government this these cameras are put in place to ensure our safety no sir no sir to ensure our safety to ensure the mother’s safety who takes her children for a walk down the street to ensure that if a grandmother the one that the paranoid opposition keeps talking about gets her her personal you know stolen it would have to take a friendly person on the street to call 911 one to get the cops on their way over to help that granny but we can see 10-15 minutes here if the cameras catch it they can I’ve already called in the police so I asked this house to give it ya info to place cameras in public city centers we cannot avoid violating oral implication to help out our fellow man this this staff our fellow man in the back by not doing this this can prove our innocence it can prove someone who’s guilty it can help solve a crime it can help identify a criminal and yes let’s face it when there’s cameras around you act a little bit better because you don’t want to get caught on candid camera so this house please give a phone think there’s nobody watching but there’s always someone watching maybe you’re thinking I’ve got nothing to hide I’m a good person I don’t commit crimes I follow the law millions of other people bite as well just as you do but guess what you’ve been fooled were you watching her when I walked up to her and I was looking behind her here a little bit I was watching her she was being watched for five seconds

did you see how nervous you got people do not want to be watched no first I’m going to go into my event of refutation and then I’m going to go into my two extensions my two extensions are first pink zebras and the destruction of individualism and second the person the loss of personal touch of law enforcement so first my reputation first they’re like I’d like to a point I had a little bit of a little mix-up that the first government physician had the first government speaker came up and said suspected criminals can be followed on cameras by sweeping the streets and modern pop monitoring possible crimes then the second dharmic walked up contradicted the first government speaker and said the cameras will not be actively watched so I ask you who will you believe there are two problems with this that came out the first problem is that the government side is not even consistent about what it wants to do wait and to watch people to put it in these cameras in place when it does not know what it wants to do and it’s definitely suspicion can lead to extra surveillance when you are suspicious about something when you are suspicious about a possible crime it can lead to extra surveillance and I will explain to you today how this can lead to the downfall of our society as we know the old government the the second government talks about how we’re watch anyway license plates were followed the Patriot Act watch anyway so what should we give up all of our civil liberties just because we’re being watched a little bit should we get in to such dangerous possibilities also there are other arguments made we’ll have secret streets crime will go down innocent people may be proven innocent maybe it’s possible but maybe not once you remember that as I go into my my extensions and you will see how my disadvantage is so far outweigh these possible advantages that will cost so much money as the first opposition size pointed out that they will not be worth it all yes ma’am did you not recognize my partner said that they wouldn’t be actively watched that perhaps if they know the criminals movements and they start to watch him then no I did not recognize that what I read behind then one person one person is saying they will be actively watching when they’re suspicious of a crime they will watch and the other one said they will not be active much so I don’t know what’s going on that’s wrong today okay so now I’d like to move on to my first exemption extension pink zebras and the destruction of individualism as I showed you and my little experiment walking around this room we do not want to be watched based on those long career reactions what does this lead to people there’s a speech again against what is not the norm so if I’m not sitting up normally if I’m if I have to scratch myself if I have to take care of something this suspicion will eat meat to back differently this suspicion will also lead to people lead to the government suspicion as the as the government side has pointed out a little old lady is not going to be we’re not gonna worry about a little old lady committing a crime but above 25 year old men maybe maybe we should be worried about that so what will this we’ll call it is black man driving a nice car me it might be a little bit rare in the society but because of our bodies maybe he’ll be pulled over more you know all right what this will lead to is a homogenized society people will begin to act the same if you think that your different behavior if you think that your different way of acting your different life choices will cause people to be more suspicious of you when you will do before is act the same as others yes we’re in this debate have we the government challenge the status quo you’re talking about we’re in this debate I don’t understand your question I don’t understand what you’re categorizing this desk which should be more specific next time um so what this hammam what what happened with this Imaginext ina I’m gonna go for instance people will stop doing cultural things will chew will draw suspicion people will stop wearing do rats because that’s up that’s kind of that’s a bit of a black gangster a connotation and it may be you might think someone is wearing red white in your criminal Middle Easterners will watch out stop practicing their culture because of the problem of being different people will try to back the same if everyone is in

one room is wearing a white shirt will you wear a black shirt no because you don’t want to stand out there people do not want any different people are scared out of work so this brings me to my example of the pink zebras the pink that scientists painted a bunch of zebras pink and they wanted to watch the warning what would happen with these zebras the next morning they woke up and all the Zebras were that the Lions kill them what does this show us if you stand out in a society that’s watching you it’s gonna lead to big profits you don’t want to stand out standing out is dangerous so this leads me to the final extension of my example 1984 it was the leader – alluded to by the last speaker if we all act by societal norms if we’re scared to go away from society Lawrence that will mean that we are all going to try to have the same and who sets our societal norms the government so when the government decides but this is what we this is how people should act this have a shot by a growing prostitution their state constitution is wrong by outlines smoking in parts you’re saying smoking is bad for you if the government decides they can set your societal norms the danger of that is a homogenized society and that’s why I say we should reject there’s been as very few times it might be a career where I’m excited to speak after speaker but this happens to be one of those times because that speech was so blue person so outlandish that this is actually going to be entertaining for me hopefully for you first of all I’m going to do a little bit of reputation and then I’m going to get into the big basic questions of this debate how I’m gonna boil this down is in three ways first of which the distinction between the public and private sphere the second way the role of the government and the boundaries of and the third way the effectiveness of the raise a tool for protection so first of all I’ll do a little bit of reputation he talks about well he says he has two arguments but he really only has one because he fails to get to his second argument but his first argument is the pink zebras he says cameras will make people act differently and then he says that we are going to have a homogenized society and use as evidence as 1984 okay so actually as my brother spent half of his speech talking about this is actually what’s going to protect people from having to become homogenized as it is right now people have to people are afraid to wear those directs and everything like that because they don’t have those cameras as a form of protection to prove false suspicion right though this protects from false suspicion we see by putting up cameras that we can actually that people won’t have to change their ways and change their cultural differences and anything like that and second of all where is your link sir I I don’t know if you were you in Steve speech of the causation and correlation argument are you totally lack any causation this is without link there is not going to be of marginal society because there’s already the cameras up as your first speaker of your entire patch said this is the status quo this is already happening so that’s true when we are living in a modern eye society and whatnot so there is not much of a Lincoln this is a huge huge balancing SEC ball I’d like to get into how I’m gonna break this overall the bank down and the first way is this distinction between the public and the private sphere what the opposition fails to recognize that we do give up a lot of our rights when we enter into the public sphere and there’s good reason for this the reason is because when we’re on the public it’s a whole different ballgame it’s not just about me anymore it’s about me and the other it’s about my interaction with other people and we think it’s a good investment as the government and as anyone else the world does to invest in that protection against one another and that’s what weeds why we do have driver’s license that’s why we do have identification insurance that’s why we do have a possibility for the issue warrants to go in a home in search and seizure we even violate that public or that private sphere because we violate that public about that private sphere in many cases because we think that it’s worthwhile as the overall society and for protection but I’ll take you rich yes Mandy are you encouraging everyone in this room just to stay in their house and not leave absolutely none when we do it all right we already do need an Evo our house we give up a lot of our rights and we think that’s a really good thing we think that that inherently is part of the societal contract that we sort of enter in and entering into a state and we also say that this little show argument doesn’t fall here right I mean one first Martinus that the opposition Benchmade does the fact of the oh we’ll bring up cameras on the streets oh my god now we’re gonna put up cameras everywhere and then yeah yeah yeah but then their other argument which I think Emily tried to point us out of information was this crime shift right this is an internal contradiction of their point they’re saying oh well you know now the crime is gonna move to the parks are you suggesting now we put up the cameras in

the parks no we are recognizing on/off and the government bench of balance but compromise between that we do recognize that that people don’t want to be watched all the time as dhari as pointed out but we also think that it’s important to watch those people so we can prove the innocence are guilty when crime is involved and that’s what we do every day as a government we think that’s a pretty darn important thing saying about the role of the government right what is the role of the government its purpose is to protect people and sometimes we do have to step outside of what we would consider the norm of boundaries we do have to recognize that the government does have its pass to overstep you know what we would consider normal you know with the look in the case of 9/11 this came up in one point during the debate with the with the Patriot Act right a situation arose and we had to react as government and we think actually the possibility of a government being able to react to that situation and overstepped its boundaries is a good thing and we don’t want to limit that possibility we don’t want to take that away from remember it we do want our government to respond to exactly what’s going on in society and and solve the problems that waiter is don’t you think that a suspicion can be a problem like regards the Patriot Act for example I go to an airport I’m always taken into airport security because of the color of my skin okay I understand your suspicions are good and this is actually a great segue into my third point the effectiveness of this is a tool protection now my partner’s entire extension was based on the fact that this is not only going to protect the guilty from her brother convicted guilty of crime but this is going to protect the innocent now we say you mow and you an aerco will use your example although we’re not talking about intersections let’s say we were friends if say we’re talking about airports if you go into an airport and you are on justy always brought into security if you can use some film footage from these cameras that we would put up and say look this is always happening to me this is the tool for you now this is a tool for the judge this is a tool for the impoverish this is a tool for the disenfranchised the people as my party used the example the man who did nothing wrong and was led off because he did nothing wrong because it was our bill so we think that this is really important so how does this movie serve as a tool proof of effectiveness now a lot of they argued throughout the Opposition bench was that this is not going to be effective at all because primers shift and the cameras just cannot simply cover it up but we say that’s not enough reason to reject the plan yes you’re right this is going to stop every single crime everywhere in the world but it’s gonna do something and that’s why people across the United States and across the world such as in England recognize this is a good decision that does have the possibility to solve crime thank you and we think that is this that there’s just simply that the opposition men just doesn’t give you enough reason not to do this although a word we’ve made it explicitly clear that we’re not violating rights and though we’ve also made it explicitly clear that when you’re in the public sphere it’s a whole different ballgame anyway and we also said that even if there’s a 1% chance that we stop it from that we saw a rape case that we get off the man who is innocent and that’s enough reason to do it because it just haven’t even enough the fact that it might not work is not enough reason to do it because we see that it’s always a reason to try and that’s what we are trying to do a vehicle that we’re trying and the opposition has tried and failed to prove why that’s not worth it so in conclusion simply breaking this debate down it comes down to is protection security and the role of the government and if you a solitude caters field the we outside government have done our job in protection providing security and not overstepping but stepping just enough as role government and you have to vote the government and until the opposition so the final speaker gets up here he’s now a lot of work to do he gets up here and he has he can say that we violate all those things we just don’t know and so be it but I strongly today so I want to talk about what’s happening today because we have these two conflicting calendars privacy they see mutually-exclusive which one are we in to attain to how are we to do it what should we do with our society let me let you you cannot have security without privacy with this type of impersonal surveillance that the government is advocating we are endangering ourselves because we are

placed under constant suspicion so to break down this debate into crystallized there have been three main areas that we have heard arguments on both sides come back and see the big feasibility of this plan we had first I said the feasibility of this policy the second the idea of trust can we trust our government this far and third we have the homogenize ation of our culture of our society yes have only shown that these cameras can also hold the government liable for my point which I was gonna make later but should we be placing these corrupt police officers in control of our cameras say they were caught by them but there’s nothing to fix the corruption in our system so we’re not going to give them more power and let them sit behind the cameras where they do not be overtly sit on the streets No thank you so first we heard about feasibility and we had these feasibility arguments and we talked about how the plan is not inherent from the first government really points out the fact that’s already happening but they’re just looking to reassert that this idea might help in some way more we also talked about how climb will move this plan doesn’t solve anything it’s gonna make more crime because it’s predictable where the government is putting their emphasis on fighting crime we know where they’re looking now on to the intersections so it’s gonna move elsewhere we can dodge the campus but we can’t dodge a man on the street who’s walking around who can see people’s faces here what’s going on know what’s happening look into people’s eyes face to face and be able to judge yes there would be more men in those areas where these crimes would that’s not relevant because we’re saying that all these cameras do put emphasis in the wrong place they’re just shifting it because you’re still going to need resources to man these cameras to pay attention to these cameras and no longer as enforcement foresman enforcement becomes two pricks but we know where they’re looking so let’s go somewhere else and that is the important part about the feasibility Artemus no thank you next Trust how much can we trust our government and since it’s come to the debate looking at the United States can we really trust the United States government more to have this kind of power over us absolutely none we have seen with the Patriot Act how it came with for the principle of security but now we’ve seen it invade our private life lives because of this paranoia there’s justification that no longer we can we trust our people that we have to thank you nook and cranny of our culture to see what seems out of place it allows government to be more covert now we have the impersonal security we have people behind security cameras they’re no longer on the street subject to our sole to act in a socially acceptable manner they can be lawyers and voyeurism as it was pointed out by the first government as a crime so let’s just perpetuate a new crime now committed by our own government by those who are in power can escape any consequences on one hand you say that these cameras are are not going to be effective in that crimes in the mood but on the other hand you’re saying they’re so powerful that it’s gonna invade our private life what is it exactly they’re invading the pipelines they’re invading the good people they’re not out getting the bad people they’re just looking for what’s different what is good about our culture that we are different diverse culture and that’s the problem and we’re putting the wrong people behind these cameras and we’re Pecha rating more crime new crime voyeurism and now on to pick zebras no thank you first of all they the government has mischaracterized my partner’s argument saying that since we are already on the foot of the first table says that cameras are everywhere and next that we’re talking about the new cameras but we’re talking about the overt action of this government now having a uniform policy across all of the space saying that cameras must be on every street corner before was up to the same to decide now it is no third step by the government to put them everywhere and this is the link this is the link that causes all the problems with modernization of our society because now the overarching body of our culture now

states that it is okay to watch and it is okay to see everything that is happening in our private lives when we go to do our daily activity so look at the first conference appeal we that we asked to the first government voyeurism is a crime but that we’re gonna look for jacked up man a jacked up man under 25 and this exactly what happened remember the pink zebras we painted the zebras pink to see how they would interact socially with other zebras but what we found is they didn’t make it through the night they were the ones sought out by the Lions and its tackled and killed by the Lions viciously in the night ladies and gentleman I want to leave you with that image and also everyone’s wearing a black shirt are you willing to wear a white shirt this modernization will need to that demise of our culture we’re a diverse people who value differences but now this overarching overt policy will deny those differences and force us to be the same as everyone else so that we do not stand out so that we do not look any different than everyone else so that we can escape you think won the debate which is a decision about the kind of quality of argument let’s actually have a vote on the motion on what you do or don’t please the public areas of city centers okay what I’m going to do is I’m going to ask those of you who support the motion say Aye and those who reject the motion to say nay okay so firstly those who agree with the proposition that we should introduce in place cameras security cameras into public areas of city centers please say aye and those who agree with the opposition that we should not say day like I can’t tell by that we need to do a count by show of hands at this point it would actually be a division through the lobbies if you can’t tell by acclamation but if we don’t do hands so you put your hands up please you put the proposition this motion is to be to this house does not believe that we should have security count them to allow them to fill in your ballot you’re now not thinking about your own opinions on this issues we’re now asking you to think about who