The nsa is effective enough to use

Again, you have left these statements without a link. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually reading a real CNN article/video. The following article is from October 7th, over three months after the article I provided last round. I can't find the exact CNN one you referred to, so I hope this article will suffice. If it doesn't, well, you should have been more specific. (http://www.allgov.com...) "Each time he has been asked the number has changed. According to CNN General Keith Alexander has said it started at 54 attacks in the world. Then only 13 in the united states [sic]." You're skewing his words to make it look like he's lying, but that's not correct. What you just said basically sums up the one large quote I left last round, all said in one meeting. In the article I just provided for you, he said that 53 of the 54 plots were assisted with tips that were used to "unravel the threat stream." This is consistent with the quote I provided last round, he made it explicitly clear that, "We provided 54 cases to several congressional committees in which these [NSA] programs contributed to our understanding, and in many cases, helped enable the disruption of terrorist plots in the U.S. and in over 20 countries throughout the world..." He has evidently not changed that story. The same goes for the "13 in the united states" thing. In the large quote last round, he said that of the 54 attacks worldwide, "Thirteen events had a homeland nexus." You're not bettering your point; you're strengthening mine. "Now it has changed to just one has been stopped." First of all, in the very first round, you said that zero attacks had been stopped. Are you agreeing with Alexander? If so, stopping even one terrorist-related plot/event/attack is worth every penny. Second, I took the time to look up this video and watch it. I will go into this in more detail shortly. "There has been 49 homegrown terrorist plots in the United states. According to General Keith Alexander on one has been stopped. So there has been 48 that has been stopped due to other means then [sic] the NSA." Again, I had to Google your numbers to base my argument on. The first result provided the following quote: "Yet, the fact remains that there have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the homeland since 9/11, illustrating the continued threat of terrorism against the United States. Fifty-three of these plots were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence." (1) As far as I can tell, you're pulling these quotes/statistics out of a hat and hoping I'm not going to fact-check you even a little bit. "The estimate of the NSA"s budget is about 8-10 billion dollars. So that means that money right there is not going to its full potential." When 54 plots have been stopped, that money seems a bit more worth it. "Plus you can not go any more accurate than the leader of the NSA... My source was the CNN article." Considering you paraphrased my argument, seemingly made up a quote, and provided no article, I suppose you could have been a little more accurate. "The CNN article had a video of him saying it. The Video showed him admitting to one attack. Also in that same article it says the one that was stopped was the subway bombing." Okay, I finally found this video. It's apparent you didn't watch any of it. In addition to explaining how he stopped the subway bombing, Alexander also says that the NSA has helped stopped, "over fifty (plots) since 9/11 (and) just a little over ten (in the U.S.)." (2) Over several interviews and press conferences, Alexander has consistently not changed one iota of his story. ___ Typically, I overlook missed citations or quotes if they're reasonable. But in this debate, it got to the point of unintelligibly. I could not follow your argument. It became even more unclear when I had to look up your sources for you and immediately found (intentionally or not) skipped details. Most of your points are baseless, confusing, or simply misleading. Voters, vote for whoever made the better argument. ___ 1. http://www.heritage.org...; 2. http://www.cnn.com...;