Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.

I will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is. Off of his 1 argument: Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate. Off of his 2 argument: Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments. Off of his 3 argument: The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen. Off of his 4 argument: Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost. But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime. But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras. Now moving on to my side of the debate. Against his attacks on my 1st contention: Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right. Against his attacks on my 2nd contention: I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased. Against his attack on my 3rd contention: Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental. There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution. So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability. We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution. That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round