should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

**This round is for rebuttals. My opponent didn't respond to my case, and thus all of my harms/disadvantages are still standing**FrameworkAs my opponent has not provided an alternate framework by which to measure this debate, mine is preferable and the only option. Thus, the debate should be judged on real-world implications and advantages which serve to maximize societal welfare.ArgumentsInherencyHere is a contention (plagiarized/copied/unoriginal) which has no real impact on the debate. It simply lists the laws that exist currently and essentially provides no argument as to how it applies to the debate and solves for the negative position. It's summation at the end implies it's open for abuse, but does not document how it's been abused nor how that affects the resolution. This argument has NO impact and can't be upheld by the negative.Contention 2: Significance & HarmsThis argument (again copied) demonstrates that government supposedely "can do whatever it wants." This is obviously not true. Surveillance is implemented to deter terrorism, deter overall crime, and protect its citizens, thus maximizing societal welfare. Marshall C. Erwin notes surveillance has "helped prevent over 50 potential terrorist events”—which appear to encompass both active terror plots targeting the United States homeland and terrorism facilitation activity not tied directly to terrorist attacks at home or abroad." [1] It's been used to prevent and deter terrorist activity. Moreover, it's exemplified the surveillance shouldn't detriment society, as it's restricted by the US legal system. The Guardian confirms "NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information." [2] This protects from abuse by the government.There are references to, essentially, privacy concerns with government abuse. However, as I've shown, abuse isn't really dangerous since it's restricted in the first place, and secondly, privacy is not a big issue since it's not a real-world measurable impact but rather a theoretical one. Tangible advantages trump the theoretical ones in the long run and under my framework.Contention 3: SolvencyMy opponent proposes modest changes to the Patriot Act, but doesn't specify which ones. This leaves his side unsolved, with no ground to solve the issue at hand or prove his side preferable.PlanMy opponent adovocates, as his plan, to uphold the ACLU vs Clapper case which essentially claims that surveillance is unconstitutional. However, he shows no example of how this will be done or WHY it's unconstitutional. I'll provide claims demonstrating the contrary, that it IS constitutional. The Supreme Court acts as a check-and-balance for the things the NSA does. Therefore, the USFG can operate with surveillance and still be constitutional, since the Supreme Court rules as such.India AdvantageMy opponents speaks of an unreferenced and seemingly invisible "India Advantage." Since he has not showed what this supposed advantage is, it holds no water. Moreover, there is no logical link between the US increasing surveillance (which is not what the resolution mentions, or what I advocate for [thus untopical]) and India following suit. There's really NO impact here since there's not established correlation between US increase and the proposed subsequent India increase and nothing to suggest Pakistan will become upset OR that war will be the result. This is just a chain of far-fetched skepictal conjectures. Disregard these and look at the tangible advantages of preserving the surveillance, as I have shown.ConclusionI've shown a plethora of reasons as to why preserving USFG surveillance is in the best interest of US citizens and how it will do the best to maximize societal welfare. These reasons have not been attacked by my opponent (and thus stand) and are as follows:- Security is achieved by surveillance- Surveillance deters crime/terrorism- Privacy is not a big issue- Problems remain unsolved without surveillanceOn the flip side, I have addressed and effectively refuted each of my opponent's contentions, regardless of tangibility and impact. This leaves no option but to vote Con.The resolution is negated.Sources:[1] https://www.fas.org...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...