Liberty Vs. Security

Let me go line by line here. First of all, I never said that our basic liberties shouldn't be protected. They should. You can also look to John Rawls' Principle of Equal Liberty, in which, to set up a just society, people must be outfitted with a scheme of basic liberties, compatible with the liberties of others. So in this aspect we agree, but the fact is that by taking the position of liberty, I would contend that you have to defend more than just 'basic' liberties. Especially in society, there have been many laws and constitutional amendments granting other liberties as well, so if you yourself agree that too many liberties is bad, then it seems like you have, to some degree, conceded to the CON on that point. You also misconstrue my point. "I am against our government turning against us while fighting FOREIGN enemies. I don't think that I should have to wonder if the government is listening to my phone conversations or reading my private emails." I am against this as well, because when the government does this, we are no longer safe on a domestic scale, because our constitutional security is being eroded; what the government is doing with its privacy violations is not justifiable, and crosses the line between security and authoritarianism; thus, I can't be asked to defend the United States' overcompensation for the 9/11 attacks, because these kinds of measures actually decrease security, as opposed to making us a safer nation. What you say about "taking normal measures" is exactly what I am advocating, but at the point that you argue that, you are really arguing my side for me; I'm supposed to be arguing for security on this topic; I in no way advocate putting a "metal dome over the country"; what I am asking for is for our government to legitimately fall back on the constitution, and make sure that the laws come from the people, and that they follow the Constitution, and achieving that kind of security is far more important right now than securing liberties for the American public; sacrificing a bit of liberty now is insignificant compared to the freedom one can experience in a truly safe America. Finally, you say "I find it hard to believe that I'm currently getting both." I agree. Right NOW, we are not getting both, but this is what makes security all the more important. While you disagree with my argument over the topic, you never directly address the fact that we have to have a secure nation in order to maximize liberty. Since you agreed with my analysis on Locke (because Locke is great), you have therein agreed to the fact that a government exists to secure and enlarge mans natural rights, and, therefore, security must be a prerequisite to the enlargement of civil liberty; to conclude, that means that, even if the voters buy into your argument that liberty and security are in conflict (which they shouldn't), that security still has to be upheld, because without it, there is no chance of providing and enlarging liberty in the future. In close, the fact that you have agreed to or not addressed many of my key arguments is overwhelming proof that this round has to go to the CON. Thank you for this debate so far, and I look forward to seeing your final arguments.