Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Hello debaters and voters, In this response to my opponent’s response to my opening arguments, we have a lot to cover. So let us get to it. In his first response to my contention one, my opponent states that surveying and compiling data on people does not affect their everyday lives. I have two responses for this: 1: How would you (the voter) feel if someone you have never heard of walked into your room and began rifling through your belongings? That sounds unpleasant doesn’t it? Just because it causes no direct harm to you does not mean that your liberty is not oppressed. 2: My opponent does not even address how the compilation of data not only violates the rights of freedom (see 1) but can also break the security of person and a right to life (See original Contention I). My opponent then agrees, “…there is a risk of the data being abused…” but then dismisses it because it has no evidence. This is a logical assertion, thus, my claim does not require empirical evidence as I have given sufficient logic to support it; I demand a reasonable response if my opponent wishes to rout my claim sufficiently. In his next response, my opponent tries to make Stalin out as a hero, pointing out the good things he has done. In the very article that my opponent uses it shows Stalin to be a cruel and ruthless dictator: “[The economic progress that Stalin dreamed of for Russia] came at the cost of losing many human lives.” “He introduced the policy of collectivized agriculture due to which, the land was taken away from peasants, reducing them to the status of serfs again.” In these two quotes from the article my opponent used, the author condemns Stalin as a dictator who is not afraid to kill his people to accomplish his goals. But wait, there’s more: “[Stalin] has been held responsible for the Soviet famine of 1932-33, in which millions of people lost their lives.” The Wikipedia article on Stalin states that: “After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of 799,455 executions…around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement-with a total of about 2.9 million officially recorded victim in these categories.” (https://en.wikipedia.org...) History.com says: “[Stalin] ruled by terror, and millions of his citizens died during his brutal reign.” “Once in power, [Stalin] collectivized farming and had potential enemies executed or sent to forced labor camps.” (http://www.history.com...) The BBC iWonder says: “[Stalin’s] regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) As we can see, Stalin was a man who violated all of the fundamental rights of humans just because he tried to make Russia a more robust and secure nation. My opponent then wants me to provide evidence for the fact that North Korea has cut itself off and abused its people. Thought I would dispute this as common knowledge to anyone with the slightest awareness of the world, I will provide evidence anyways. The nominal GDP (gross domestic product) per capita for the USA is $54,629 USD, meaning that each person makes an average of $54,000 a year. In North Korea, the GDP is $621 USD. This means that the average person makes on $600 per year. To put this into perspective, a McDonalds part-time employee makes $150-$200, a week. This means that a McDonalds employee makes 1/3 of the yearly salary of the average North Korean, every week. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Human Rights Watch says the following about North Korea: “North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries. All fundamental freedoms have been severely restricted…” “A 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry found that abuses in North Korea were without equal in the contemporary world. They include extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions, and other sexual violence.” If you (the voter) need more evidence than this, see the Wikipedia article on North Korea. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) In his next response, my opponent states that I failed to establish a link between security and rights when I said: “Therefore when countries value security over rights, the[y] eventually slip into corruption and abuse of those rights.” I assert that the main point of this statement is a correlation between rights and security. As I have proven both in rounds II, I and now in this one, when a country values security too much it ends up abusing the rights it was made to protect. This is WHY countries should assess citizens’ rights over obsessive security. My opponent then brings up the example of the USA, which I live in. He says that the USA is an example of how security can take precedence and rights not be abused. I disagree with this assertion. The majority of America’s military power operates forward in the world; this means that not all of the security is focused on the homefront. The people of America have been increasingly agitated with the government’s observation of people, which is a big topic in our upcoming presidential elections. Another point my opponent misinterpreted was that having a large military means abuse of rights. That is not what I was asserting. I contended that a government obsessed with security would result in a large military. The USA uses most of its military not to protect at home and to control the people, like the CCCP/USSR and the DPR of North Korea, but to operate forward in the world. Thus, my opponent’s example is refuted. In the next response, my opponent makes the assertion that just because terrorist attack have not decreased since the implementation of surveillance techniques, does not mean that the monitoring methods are not working. To back up the claim he makes an analogy that just because we have had advancements in medicine does not mean we stop getting sick. This is “false logic”. There has been a marked decrease in death from illnesses that once ravaged the human population, and live expectancy has risen to an all-time high. My opponent then relates the surveillance methods to security cameras, saying that they have shown a marked decrease in crime by 50%. Once again, the monitoring techniques have shown no significant, marked reduction in crime and have only cost government massive amount of money. In his final paragraph, my opponent tries to disrelate my first two contentions from the resolution of the debate, by saying that I am not showing WHY it is bad. I am doing precisely that. I am showing why surveillance of civilians is bad. I do not know if my opponent missed my contentions on how the surveillance of citizens violates inherent rights and can lead to the violation of the rights to security of person and life? Did my opponent miss my contention on how governments, which value security over rights turn corrupt and abusive of those rights? This entire debate has been the showing of WHY security over rights is bad. My opponent then goes into semantics, arguing what terminology I should be using and how my incorrect terminology makes my arguments invalid. This is the typical case of looking at a tree and not at the whole forest. My opponent is trying to tear down my responses without looking at them on a full level. I have consistently proven that when security takes precedence over rights, those rights are often abused. I have successfully refuted my opponent’s argument against that claim and have refuted the arguments for his allegations. For those reasons I urge you to vote for the Affirmative/Pro/For motion: “Resolved: a nation citizens’ rights do take precedence over security.”