Resolved: Post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personel freedom

To give a brief road map i'll just be going down the flow First off on Agro Terrorism- My opponent gives a pretty good analogy saying that they banned broad tipped markers in new york, but that didn't deter people from still putting grafiti all over the city, my opponent uses that same basic logic saying that a Anti Agro Terrorism bill wont deter terrorism on our Agriculture, Except for the fact that my opponent has made one Critical mistake in her argument IT HAS. Sure she can name instances in New york where the Anti- Grafiti law has failed, but she hasn't stated any instances where agro terrorism has succeeded, so the voters must default pro considering the fact that it hasn't succeeded, why? you might ask well because of the specific security measures taken on in the bill that have helped secure our nations agriculture. Now like i said the Agricultural industry is key to our economy so in turn if we lose our agg we lose our country because we know the economic situation were in now... just imagine if we were to lose 100 BILLION in profit gains from agriculture Plus please disregard my opponents assumptions that say "THIS IS MAKIN AMERICANS LOSE THERE FREEDOMS' it's just some random assumption that ALL post 9.11 security measures are bad. Now onto Maslow's hierarchy of needs She makes this argument saying 'WELL WE NEED THE FREEDOM TO SECURE OUR FOOD" well nobody said you didn't it just another bladent statement that "AFTER 9.11 THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GETCHA?!" it makes no sense she dosn't back up any of her arguments with any evidence please prefer my EVIDENCE over her ANALYTIC S Then she makes another analogy saying "if our personal freedoms are impeded then we can't travel across borders to get our food then our food industry is really screw?!" basically she's saying that either way post 9.11 security measures or not our agg is still screwed but i beg to differ WHO SAID THAT THE U.S. TRAVELS ACROSS BORDERS TO FARM IT'S DOMESTIC PRODUCTS all of her arguments are redundant and they make no sense so far you vote pro. Now onto the Patriot Act- She first starts out with taking a line out of my evidence and saying " OF COURSE OFFICIALS PRAISE THE ACT ALL THEY WANNA DO IS TAKE OUR FREEDOMS" basically she's making some big conspiracy theory out of all this, that all post 9.11 security measures do is impede our freedoms and DON'T SECURE US AT ALL but again my opponent makes a very critical mistake. She doesn't give ONE specific instance of a persons personal freedoms being taken advantage of. She does make some generic claims like "well they COULD look at your library records and they COULD do that or they COULD do the other" all it is, is a bunch of buts and ifs, I WANT NAMES, ADDRESSES, ACTUAL PEOPLE not some generic "all foreigners are checked out" that's not good enough. Plus she dropped on very very very very very important piece of evidence, she never responded to it at all. First let's take into account the fact that she doesn't use any evidence so we can assume that if i have a piece of evidence that trumps her analytic s you vote pro right? OH YEAH I DO HAVE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT TRUMPS HER ANALYTIC S REMEMBER? :D "But what of the abuses, you ask? Time for a third truth: There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None. The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine the use of the act and report any abuse twice a year) has reported that there have been no instances in which the Patriot Act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties. Others agree. For example, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff . . . asked (the ACLU) for instances of actual abuses. They . . . said they had none." and P.S. the aclu stands for AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION so im sure if there had every been some instance of abuse they would have already blew it up and everyone would know about it :D And even if you don't buy that all that the government can do is check your library records, phone records, shopping records, etc. What do all of these things have in common..... what do they have in common.... OH YEAH you sign a TERMS AND CONDITIONS saying that you allow the government to access your personal information whenever they want so in all actuality there is no enfrengment of freedoms because you told the government that they could :D And for all the reasons encompassed i see no other alt than to vote for that of the affirmation. and p.s. even if you don't buy a word i just said PREFER MY EVIDENCE OVER HER ANALYTICS thank you bye :D