Novice Tournament Finals: NSA Spying is Beneficial to the US.

Rebuttals first, counter-rebuttals after that.R1, MetadataMy opponent opens his arguments trying to show the NSA to be less threatening and invasive than they are often perceived as. The main way he does this is by showing that the NSA does not actually see the content of your actions, but rather the data about your actions, metadata. The NSA keeps track of where you are on the internet, not your specific actions on different sites. They keep track of who you call, how long you make the call, and from where you are making the call, but not the actual substance of the call. Even though the NSA is not seeing actual content, there is still plenty of information granted. Who you call and where you call from can give a lot away, and it can grant lots of power to be abused. Consider the Patriot Act. It allows intelligence agencies to forgo traditional due processes if an American citizen is deemed to be a suspected terrorist[1]. According to my opponent, the NSA needs a warrant to obtain the content of your call (they actually don't, more on that later), but it is still possible for an intelligence agency to call you a suspected terrorist based on who you are calling, and then forgo the necessary process to acquire a warrant. This can lead to massive abuses of power. All the NSA needs to do is make a few loose connections to 'possible terrorist activity', and, for example, a person who is extremely critical of the government could be deemed a suspected terrorist and then taken away in the 'interests of national security'. Metadata can still be used for abuses of power.The NSA doesn't need warrants to spy on people who aren't American citizens[2]. Using a system called XKeyScore, they can access any electronic content, without a warrant. As far as laws go, the theory generally is that the citizens of a country will dictate what the laws are based on where they throw their support. Therefore, we in America are more accountable for what the NSA does than foreigners are. For foreigners, America is a country whose law making process they have no say in, and yet its laws allow for them to be spied on. It is not the place of America to decide what the civil liberties of citizens of other countries are.R2, Constitutionality, Legality, and WarrantsIn his first round, my opponent claims that the NSA must obtain a warrant for data collection. His link does not provide this information. His link takes you to an article that gives a quick summary about the FISA court reauthorizing the NSA's data mining program as a whole. This has to be done every 90 days in order for the program to be active legally. In actuality, the NSA can query data on Americans that their analysts think could be involved in terrorist activities[3]. This is important to note because our civil liberties are not being protected by a neutral judge, they are in the hands of members of the NSA. This continues the theme of the possibility for the abuse of power.While many judges have ruled in favor of the data mining's constitutionality, there are a few things to keep in mind. 1) Should a search of private information be able to take place without the approval of a judge? I get metadata, but observing actual content is much more invasive, and under the current system, it's up to a NSA analyst whether or not to access the data.2) Just because something is unanimously declared to be ok under the constitution, doesn't mean it actually is, nor does it mean it's automatically ok. Just look at slavery. For a while it was thought to be ok.3) Refer to my slippery slope argument (which I will get to defending later). It may be considered ok right now, and perhaps everyone is refraining from abusing the power granted by the program, but corruption spreads the older a program/constitution becomes.4) Plenty of respected people outside Washington disagree[7][8].Lastly, a prominent law is being violated. Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Section 215 does not authorize widespread metadata collection, it authorizes the FBI to acquire warrants to force a person or company to produce tangible things that have relevance to an investigation[9]. R3, EffectivenessMy opponent claims that over 50 terrorist events have been put to a stop thanks to the NSA. This sounds like a nice solid number, but let's take a look at what the number represents. In actuality the number is just a claim that the NSA has made, they have not deigned to give us details about most of these events. Instead, they have released a measly 4 events that they claim were stopped due to the NSA's data mining program. Of the four events that the NSA thinks are the best examples of their capabilities, only one appears to have needed the NSA's data mining[4]. The rest show other foreign powers doing the work for us, or a situation that could've been solved without the warrantless power the NSA holds.My opponent also echoes the argued expressed by many government and court officials, that if the NSA's data mining program was in place, 9/11 could've been avoided. The fact is though, that intelligence officials already knew of the hijacker and the fact that he could be a problem[5], but simply failed to act. In that situation, widespread metadata collection wouldn't have gained them any more information than what they started with. "There were plenty of opportunities without having to rely on this metadata system for the FBI and intelligence agencies to have located Mihdhar," said former Senator Bob Graham[5].CR1, Too Much DataIt would seem that since computer algorithms go through all the data and flag certain things, my opponent has reached the conclusion that there is no problem interpreting all the metadata. Consider two things. First, my earlier quote from a respected business analyst. Too much data can slow processes down. That could effect the 'flagging' system the NSA has in place. Second, regardless of whether or not the system can flag what it's supposed to flag easily or not, algorithms are still incapable of using intuition to find relevant data. Instead they just use lists of key-words to flag people[6].CR2, EffectivenessIn regards to the 27.5%, it should be noted that even if the NSA contributed something to those investigations, it does not mean that the NSA was necessary to those investigations. Given all my other sources and examples which show that the NSA's widespread capabilities could be done away with, this is not unlikely.CR3, Slippery Slope"The moment that the NSA actually starts spying on people without a warrant, or the moment the NSA actually infringes upon somebody"s rights, is the moment that we can begin to scrutinize it more thoroughly." The NSA is already spying on people without a warrant[2][3]. The fact that they can do so infringes on a person's rights.Just because the NSA isn't abusing their power right now, does not mean they won't ever. The longer people are used to the NSA's spying, the more easy it'll be for the NSA to push their data mining further. The same concept can apply to the courts who are supposed to keep them in check.Sources:[1] http://www.theguardian.com...[2] http://www.tomsguide.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.juancole.com...[5] http://www.propublica.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.cdt.org...[8] http://justsecurity.org...[9] http://www.forbes.com...