Affirmative Case, Version 1
November/December 1997

"Teenagers need privacy; it allows them to have a life of their own. By providing privacy, we demonstrate respect."
My concurrence with the views of Dr. Haim Ginott causes me to stand resolved that "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know".
In order to clarify the grounds of this debate, I submit the following definitions: according to Webster's New World Dictionary, an "adolescent" is defined as "a boy or a girl from puberty to adulthood, a teen-age person." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "privacy" as "The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion," and "ought" as "To indicate obligation." Finally, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "valued" as "To rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth."
With the use of the universal human right of privacy as both value and criterion, I shall uphold my stance on this resolution with the following three contentions.
CONTENTION ONE : Privacy is a universal human right, and as such it cannot be denied to an individual solely because they are an adolescent. CONTENTION TWO : Individuals cannot be forced to give up their right to privacy in favor of security. and CONTENTION THREE : An adolescent cannot be denied their right to privacy unless it has been proven that their possession thereof would prove unsafe.
Now, allow me to discuss these contentions individually
First, let's consider CONTENTION ONE : Privacy is a universal human right, and as such it cannot be denied to an individual solely because they are an adolescent.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
So reads the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December of 1948.
Fifty years ago a group of countries, including our own, created an agreement. This agreement, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put into words the birthrights of every human being, including privacy. By definition, a universal human right, such as life, liberty, property, or, in this case, privacy, cannot be denied to any individual unless it is discovered that their possession thereof would prove unsafe. Parents, serving essentially as the governors of their offspring, are bound to uphold these universal rights just as are any individuals or governments. Not many parents regularly make it a practice to violate their children's basic human rights of life, liberty, safety, and property. Privacy should be no exception.
Now, let's turn to CONTENTION TWO : Individuals cannot be forced to give up their right to privacy in favor of security.
The points I touched on in contention one lay the foundations for the arguments that I shall set out here: the universal right to privacy cannot be involuntarily exchanged for other rights without the due process of law.
Adolescents fall under this doctrine as well--a parent ought not to infringe on their teenager's privacy even if they see their actions as being in the younger person's best interests. As I will confirm in my third contention, an adolescent is able to manage their own right to privacy unless such a situation arises that they must be deprived of it. Like any universal human right, that of privacy cannot be stripped from an individual without the proper proceedings.
With these arguments in mind, let's consider CONTENTION THREE : An adolescent cannot be denied their right to privacy unless it has been proven that their possession thereof would prove unsafe.
As I have stated, reiterated, and reinforced throughout the framework of this case, an adolescent is considered to have the ability to handle their own affairs, including their right to privacy in those affairs. Said Randall P. Banzanson, Dean and Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, "If we are to protect privacy as it is manifested in today's social environment, the legal system's policies must be grounded in the individual's choices, and placed substantially in the individual's hands."
An adolescent is no exception to this standard, and ought to be allowed to wield their right to privacy as they see necessary. This right may only be denied to the adolescent if a court of law finds that they are unfit to utilize such a right, in such a case where the adolescent's possession thereof proves unsafe, either to their own person or to that of others. Then, and only then, is the exception. In all other cases, adolescents ought to be considered able to make their own judgments, use their own rights, and conduct their own affairs without unnecessary parental intervention.
Now, for my conclusion, allow me to summarize this hierarchy of arguments I have presented.
Adolescents, as I stated in contention one, cannot be denied their right to privacy merely because they happen to be adolescents. Furthermore, as contentions two and three state, adolescents are free to wield their right to privacy as they see fit unless they, as stated in contention three, cross over the line, so to speak, and prove to a court of law that they are unable to handle such a right any longer. In all other situations, an adolescent is considered able to conduct their own affairs.
Because of the reasons I have stated, I ask you to please join me in affirming the resolution "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know."
I now stand open for cross-examination.


Copyright © 1997 Joseph Barillari. All rights reserved.

Back to the Page of Debate Cases.
Back to the top.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page
1