Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.

Okay, I'll start with my opponent's case, move to mine, then I'll wrap it all up with some key voting issues in this round. Off of his 1 argument: He continues to uphold the idea that once a camera is put in a public area, that it is no longer public, but rather it becomes private. But you'll see as I defined private (not open or accessible to the general public) and as I defined public (open to all persons), that just because I put up a surveillance camera or several surveillance cameras in a public area, does not make it private. To be private is for something to not be open or accessible to the general public, and installing cameras does not take away public areas, in fact cameras keep the public safer. And just because someone thinks cameras are cramping their style does not mean you sacrifice the three Ss just so their style is not cramped. You cannot accept his 1st point because basic definitions and logic alone will tell you that just because I put a camera up in a public area, doesn't magically make it private area. Off of his 2 argument: First let's talk about the different worlds argument…. .we are debating whether or not surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. We are no debating which world is better, more cameras or more guards. We are not debating that. The con burden in the round is to prove why we should not put more cameras up, but instead my opponent uses smokescreen tactics to try and avoid the actual dialogue of the resolution we should be discussing. Since it is a should resolution, it appears to be more philosophy based, and not so much who provides a better plan. Let's get back to the pros and cons of surveillance cameras, and let's not do this cameras (vs) guards debate…. .because that is not what the resolution asks of us. Anyways, he brings up some economic arguments in this argument as well, but I'll discuss these in his 4 argument, so we can get to it all there. Off of his 3 and 4 argument: I need to touch on some major misconceptions and as a result, I will fuse my arguments against his 3 and 4 arguments into one long argument against both. Alright let's talk about some economics here. Even though it should not be cameras (vs) guards, I will show you why cameras are still more cost efficient. Okay, I do not really accept 10 cameras counter 2 security guards. But even so, the $4,760 dollars is based on how much they earn per week. That means multiple that by 52, and you will get the number the store has to pay the shifts of security guard every year. That number would be $247,520 dollars every year for two shifts at security guard. Whereas 10 cameras would only cost $20,000 dollars, maybe a little maintenance, but that can not counter the idea that 2 security guards cost more 12 times the amount of 10 surveillance cameras. In addition, as a report of job listings said on monster. com, a person who watches a surveillance camera is paid an average of 12 dollars per hour. So let's I even had 2 guys watching with 10 cameras all that cost together would cost $168,512. That is still dramatically less than the $247,520 dollars that two security guards alone would cost. Moreover, surveillance cameras can actually look at the entire store, whereas guards can only be in a certain little area at a time. Surveillance cameras do cost less and they do stop crime. So even though I believe we should you know……actually debate the resolution, I still provide why surveillance cameras are better, because they cost less, they can view of more of the store, thus stopping more crime, and that's why they are better than security guards. Off his counter-plan argument he made after the 4 argument: Forgive me if I actually wanted to debate the resolution. I think we should have some direct debate about surveillance cameras and once again the pros and cons of why they should be substantially increased in public areas. I think that we should just debate the resolution, but as he continues with this counter-plan, I continue to offer two arguments, that 1) I believe we should talk about surveillance cameras and not bring up anything you could think of in a counter-plan, and 2) I beat his counter-plan anyways, with the effectiveness of viewing the entire store, and costing way less than security guards would. He thinks I'm cheating him, because I'm not allowing him to make up some plan to go against mine, but I'm not. I got handed the job of defending surveillance cameras and why they should be substantially increased. That is what I have to do, that is the burden of the pro. You would be cheating me if you decided to try to throw up smokescreens to the resolution. But nevertheless, you still try to uphold this counter-plan and whether or not the judge accepts or not, I have efficiently beaten it. Moving on to my case…. . Off his attacks on my 1st contention: Surveillance do accomplish safety (dependable or trustworthiness), because they can view the whole store, the camera does not lie, it doesn't hold grudges, it doesn't have emotions, like a guard would, and a camera can only show the truth. Since it can only reveal and show the truth that makes it both dependable and trustworthy. Off his attacks on my 2nd contention: Of course cameras can't physically stop people. But the people assigned to watch the cameras can either stop them, they can call a manager, or call the police to take action. He pulls through his money totals, but I've shown why I win of those two. Plus, I like to point out that I don't ever have to get rid of security guards. He wants to get rid of surveillance cameras and only have security guards. But you see, the pro doesn't have to get rid of anything, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, I don't get rid of anything. Because in the end, I can have my cake and eat it too, whereas he can't. Off his attacks on my 3rd contention: Increasing implies getting more, so I'm trying to avoid that I'm trying to get more surveillance cameras. But since he offers no dictionary source for substantial and he previously agreed with mine earlier, my definition is still upheld as the one in this round. I will answer all of your questions in my voting issues right now. Voting Issues: Why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way? (I don't of course have numbers for each public place, but I can tell this is talking about a general impact, and by increasing the number of cameras I potentially insure the three Ss more. ) Why should this happen? (Because more surveillance cameras can bring more safety, security, and stability to society as I've explained throughout this debate round. ) How is this going to help? (By installing more cameras, more criminals are caught, less shoplifting will happen, and it will make people behave in a more civilized and un-criminal manner in public areas) How is this the best solution? (The resolution never specifies that I have to offer the best solution in the debate, but rather asks the question should this happen, as in…is this a good thing. And yes, I do believe substantially increasing the number of surveillance cameras is good for society. More so, you're trying to compare guards to cameras again, but once again, that shouldn't be the debate, but even if it was I provide why cameras are better, but as I said before the Pro doesn't have to get rid of guards, I can have both them and cameras. But the Con's plan is essentially asking to eliminate cameras, and have the guards. So that's just another reason on top of the effectiveness and the cost that I win that part of the debate. ) CLOSING STATEMENT: I truly do believe you must vote pro, I win the round at it's pure core, and I win it even with his counterplan. I urge the judges to look at the arguments and see that the Pro does win the round.