Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

I will now take this time to rebut my opponent's points. Rebuttal: The Dissolution of Civil Liberties My opponent seems to take issue with the notion I have provided that granting government the power to survey as a method of attaining ‘national security’ will ultimately lead to the government revoking other rights. I would now like to address these concerns going down the line of things my opponent has said. Exhibit A “To tie this into your two arguments, we are not taking away the second amendment right to bear arms, we are prioritizing national security first. This means that a just government would make it harder to obtain a gun in an attempt to stop potential terrorists from getting their hands on weapons. ” My opponent seems to have ignored a major element of my previous argument: the government does not actually stop domestic terrorism by implementing additional surveillance and gun restriction measures. They seem to be diverting more into the ‘does the gun control work? ’ question, but I will briefly entertain it for the sake of argument. Statistically, states and cities with more stringent gun laws are more prone to gun crime[1], increased gun ownership leads to less gun crimes[2], and ‘gun-free zones’ comprise nearly all mass shooting locations[3]. With this out of the way, let us continue onto the greater point behind this: the more disarmed the greater people are, the more vulnerable to external threats they are. However, the harder it becomes for law-abiding citizens to own a firearm, the more easy it would be for their own government to overpower them. My opponent claims that regular Americans are unaffected by the federal government’s laws and restrictions (in the field of ‘national security’), but they are simply wrong. A writer from the Washington Times described their appall with the notion of the ‘watchlist’ system, and they have used statistics to support that hundreds of thousands (and even millions) of innocent Americans are miraculously disqualified from gun ownership because they are arbitrarily placed on a government watchlist[4]. Furthermore, many holders of political office are also on the watchlists that bar them from firearm ownership[5]. If even the Washington bureaucrats are getting caught in this buffer of our civil liberties, and thousands upon thousands of Americans are, there is no logical reason to believe these measures do not encroach on the rights of the common man. Exhibit B In the second rebuttal my opponent makes, they cite a statistic without providing a link to their source. I suspect that this is because they cannot provide it. I ask that all potential voters take this into consideration as they grade each of the belligerents. I do not think my opponent understands their own statistic, either. They mentioned the arrest of “71 ISIS followers since March 2014”. I took some liberties to research this fact, and I found that ISIS made allegations that they had 71 trained participants on U. S soil[6]. Nowhere did I find any data on 71 ISIS participants being incarcerated. My opponent makes further assertions, but I would advise they be annulled by spectators for the simple fact that they are not supported by any source cited. Round 2 Argument: Surveillance & Foreign Policy Government surveillance by the U. S has been strongly tied to foreign policy, as well. President Obama tapped the phone of Angela Merkel of Germany[7] and bugged calls from the former Brazilian President (and the U. S has a history of this)[8]. These things ultimately lead to a distaste with the U. S, and the loss of trust between nations. The government will use these espionage methods to spy on its allies, putting them under heavier scrutiny, and in the meantime potentially provoking a war. If the U. S wishes to stop having so many needless wars and conflicts with other countries, it must withdraw from doing these things. Provoking other world powers will not help citizens back at home. As it will be our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and even friends who are shipped overseas for these conflicts. It will ultimately be the common man who is shafted by these practices. Round 2 Conclusion My opponent has made baseless claims and fantasized that the government is a monolithic, infallible institution capable of defending its citizens and ascertaining more power without the threat of tyrannical overreach. SOURCES CITED [1]. http://www.washingtontimes.com... [2]. http://www.cnsnews.com... . https://www.forbes.com... [3]. http://www.breitbart.com... . http://www.theblaze.com... [4]. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [5]. http://www.dailywire.com... [6]. http://joemiller.us... [7]. http://dailycaller.com... [8]. https://www.usatoday.com...