Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

Also, here is the link to the article I used during Round 2: . https://www.luminpdf.com... Now, I would like to begin my referring back to my initial argument"s from Round 1. My opponent has yet to respond to my two main arguments from this Round, nor has he responded to any arguments I made during this round. Due to the fact that this is the last time I get to respond, I urge all potential voters to discount anything my opponent brings up regarding these contentions in their last round. With that being said, because my opponent has failed to address these arguments, he is conceding to them for the purpose of today"s debate. I will now show why the extension of these two arguments should alone win me the round. My first contention, is that the first priority of a just government is to protect the lives of its citizens. During this contention I use the example of John Locke who, "goes on to explain that this is the point of the social contract, that citizens will surrender some of their rights, or civil liberties, for protection by the government. " This shows that by nature of the social contract, citizens surrender some of their civil liberties for protection by the government. Because, my opponent has failed to address this, we have to evaluate the debate based on this view for how society ought to work. My second contention, is that there is no such thing as an unlimited right. I brought up the example of free speech to demonstrate what this means, "while you certainly have a right to free speech, that right can justifiably be limited if and when it poses a threat to the safety of others. " I then continued onto relate this example to the resolution stating that, "limiting the civil liberties of certain individuals is just when it is protecting the safety of others. " Again, my not responding to this, my opponent is agreeing that limiting civil liberties in the name of national security is just. This alone is reason enough to vote con. To conclude the arguments on my side of the debate, my opponent agreed that 1) the government can morally violate its citizens in the name of national security due to the social contract as described by John Locke, and 2) that it is just to limit civil liberties when it is to protect the safety of others. I point out to all potential voters, that these two concessions alone, are grounds to vote con. Now, I will talk about my opponent"s side of the debate. On my opponent"s side of the debate, their arguments and rebuttals can be summed up by the argument that by prioritizing national security over civil liberties, the government is becoming tyrannical. "If we allow 'national security' to supersede these rights, the U. S government will be next in line for tyrannical governments. " Their first argument is in regards to the second amendment. However, by their concessions to my case, it is clear that gun-control in the name of national security is just, not tyrannical, and can be morally done due to the social contract. This leads me to my opponent"s next point, being that gun-control doesn"t even work. I will address this using a report by JAMA Internal Medicine (1), which states that, "stricter firearm laws are associated with fewer firearm homicides, and the implementation of Florida"s stand-your-ground law was associated with increased firearm homicides. " This is just one example that shows that gun-control can be effective. The argument my opponent provides for this point is two-fold: 1) gun-control is an inherent violation of civil liberties and can lead to a tyrannical government, and 2) that gun-control doesn"t even work. However, both of these arguments fall at the end of this debate. Their first point, is refuted by the extensions to my case as I mentioned early (see above). Their second point, is refuted by the fact that gun-control can work, and will logically be more effective if we allow for it to happen in the name of national security, which is a government"s to priority according to John Locke, as I mentioned in my case. Their second argument is that the government isn"t successful in protecting its citizens" safety. Again, I bring up the example above, showing that gun-control can work. I would also like to again, bring up the fact that 71 ISIS followers have been arrested since March 2014. (see link in beginning) While that number may not seem high, it is still 71 potential terrorists in about 2 years. So while we can certainly improve the success our government has, it is still significant. It is also logical that with access to public information such as social media, or even texts, emails, and calls, that the government can have even more success in the con world. My opponent"s last argument that they brought up in Round 2 is that wiretapping of foreign officials can lead to war. I respond to this by saying that this is not what I am advocating for. I am advocating for the prioritization of national security over the civil liberties of that government"s own citizens, not foreign officials. This response is therefore, untopical as it does not fit under the resolution at hand. In conclusion, I urge all potential voters to vote con because: My case has been extended throughout this debate due to the fact that this is my last chance to refute any arguments and my opponent has failed to make any about my case thus far. It is clear that a just government can morally and justifiably violate certain civil liberties in the name of national security. As explained throughout my extended case. I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and they stand in my favor. Lastly, using the Utilitarianism value that I set forth for this round (and also has gone unrefuted by my opponent) I should win today"s round. The con side clearly better protects the safety of its citizens, which is how I proposed we determine the utilitarian course of action. For these reasons, I strongly urge all potential voters to vote con. I thank you as well as I thank my opponent for taking the time to have this debate with me. Source: 1) . http://www.popsci.com...