San Bernadino

My opponent's comically short, two paragraph response just sealed his fate in this debate... Pro makes three outlandish claims in his last round; one is that I failed to meet his "value" or invoke my own, the second is that all impacts have to likely occur in the timeframe of this debate, and the last is that I conceeded his arguments. On the value: Pro seems to think that writing a one-sentence framework argument is an argument at all. He can't expect a valid response or any consideration from the judges on his framework arguments because there are litterally no warrants that support its validity. He has also conceeded the burden of proof. But the funny part is, I have no problem with his framework and I don't violate it in any way, in fact I uphold it as my own. Because Pro has BOP it's his obligation to show that Apple's compliance with the court order would Harm People, if he doesn't do that he hasn't given you a reason to vote for him and losses. This is an extension of what I argued in contention one. That means contention one is still up and running. If he doesn't fulfill his burden of proof he loses no matter what. On timeframe: There are no rules for this match and I don't have to restrain my arguments to those whose impacts are likely to occur during the debating period of this match. All I have to do is show that it's net worse to comply with the court order than to Not comply with it. If I do that I win. I could argue impacts that occur a million years from now if I wanted.On concessions: I didn't conceede his arguments. This goes back to Pro's inexperience. On DDO the first debating round (R2) is usually for constructives and then rebuttals come after. Pro doesn't refute a single argument I made so if anything, he has just conceeded My arguments. He finally claimed that all of my arguments are speculative but I'd like to point out that I am the Only one in this round who has actually used a source. All of my arguments are backed by cybersecurity experts and Pro's responses are stoundingly uneducated, debate-wise that is. ____________________________________________Now let's go to his own arguments: His first argument is that Apple has a moral obligation to help the American people becuase it owes its existence to it. I agree, that's why Apple shouldn't comply, because complying would actually hurt the American people by causing crime and terrorism.........His second 'argument' is that refusal to break into the encryption "actually endangers the nations security and the well-being". That's litterally it, there is no reason that it does, he just says it does. I think my rebuttal will be very obvious, he has no warrant for this claim and so this claim litterally means nothing and you should defer to my expert proven points._____________________________This debate is now ridiculously simple to evaluate. Pro has the entire burden of proof, meaning if he doesn't prove there is a greater harm to complying with the federal court order to Apple, than Not complying, I autmotically win. Furthermore I agree and meet his value. I want people to be safe from terrorism, crime and the government. The reason copmliance with the court order is bad is becuase it will create backdoor into Apple's encryption softawre which will escape and get into the hands of terrorists and foreign hackers, especially from places like Russia and China. Furthermore, when we set a legal precedent that its OK to poke gigantic holes in the software of companies, other countries follow suit and in our own country we reproduce this effect, esentially turning coorperations into government spy machines. Once backdoors are in every coorperation, in every country and the software is in the hands of criminals, we Will Be Attacked By Terrorists. My authors say that cyber terror is THE single biggest cyber threat and a growing national security issue golabally. All of this could happen just because the government wants to do some investigation on a phone which the police admit will probably give us ZERO leads. My opponent's reponse to these arguments? "these are all pure l speculation and have no impact". Not a single counter argument. This is called Lazy Debating. So I ask, how has Pro outweighed these impacts, how has he even outweighed the RISK of these impacts? The answer is that he hasn't, and for that he easily loses this debate.