National Security is more important than privacy.

To begin, I wish to rebuttal against my opponents argument. I will try to do a better format, like requested from my opponent, when doing my rebuttals and new arguments. Why Transparancy is Bad:In my last argument, I discuseed on why Government Transparency is not good for our civilization of a country. I previously stated: "It is bad, to have Government Transparency, is because of us, the viewers, learning what the Government is doing; and have many disagreements with their actions". And in this round, my opponent stated this within his opening argument "People would've been revolted if they more knew what Stalin and Hitler were up to, and lack of government transparency was the cause of it". First off, I wish to show some evidence disproving my opponents claim about Hitler restricting the use of Government Transparency. Stated under "Transparency in a New Global Order: Unveiling Organizational Visions", it states that the lack of Government Transparency was not the answer to the problem with the Holocaust, but was actually the fault of Hitler. We must remember that he was the one who executed the order, and those who opposed of him were killed. He began to dictate the country of Germany, and many actually knew that their country was actually becoming a Dictatorship; not knowing about it. The answer was more fear, than not knowing. Many did know about the occurence of the Holocaust, but were restricted in truly doing anything about it. Secondly, the thing about Government Transparency is the trust factor that comes along with it. In society, trust is something we all desire and our Founding Fathers agreed with this idea. Said by Samuel Adams, he said: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who . .. will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man". The quote simply means showing hih standards for the people, which at the time was for the protection of the people. And other Founding Fathers stated that the security of the people, like George washington where his idea was "Washington warned against leaving the nation’s security 'to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger. By then, it would be too late. In his Farewell Address, Washington urged Americans to remember 'that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it". Basically we need to prepare for any conflicts ahead of us, before they pose a threat towards us. Government Transperency restricts this idea, when our Founding Fathers wished to grant us security. And finally, I have a few questions I wish to ask my opponent to answer within this round. Do you have anything to hide that is criminal like? If not, then why worry about someone randomly spying on you if you have nothing to hide? Also, in society, everyone is someone random; even me and you. What are the true chances that you will be spied upon daily for just doing your average daily duties? What are they going to do? Report about me going to the grocery store, even thogh there is nothing wrong with it. Typing this argument, someone could have been watching me type; but are they doing anything against me? No, they are not! As well as the fact that everything was going fine until the report of us being spied upon. Before Government Transparancy was initiated, many did not question and continued on with their lives. There was no interferance, but when the report came in; everyone started to freak out, even though things were fine before. Rebellion Against the GovernmentIn this argument, my opponent quoted: "One important thing that privacy gives us is the ability to rebel against our government". I wish to bring up a statistic on how the events of 9/11 showed our idea of National Security, and restraining privacy. Stated under "Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era", it states that after the evets of 9/11, 55% of people argued about restricting their privcy for the country. While in 2011, that number dropped slightly to 40% than the 54% for privacy. Its funny how people wanted to give up their privacy for the good of the country, yet they deny this for the good of the country. Why? But in 2014, in another statistic from "45% of Americans Think Online Privacy is More Important than National Security"; it states that only 45% of the population did not want heir privacy observed. The other percentage said they would rather have their privacy not be "private" in order to bring National Security to the people. The reason why this statistic has increased since 2011 is because of the foundings of ISIS. When a threat comes, people always fall back to the government; but if we try to give too much privacy, who doesn't say that we will fall into another terrorist attack? People change their minds at the drop of the dime, and if we put at least 75% of privacy towards the government, National Security will come. Constitution ArgumentFor most o my opponents argument, he only refers to one source being the constitution. I will agree that this debate heavily puts a focus upon the constitution, but I must ask; "How much does our Government follow the Constitution"? In reality, not much. In fact, most of the situations happening with our country is breaking the constitution. Stated by Ron Paul, he said "Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed". If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken. But if we do follow the constitution, it does. Stated from "A Costitutional Basis for Defense", it states: "Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion. ” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense". It has actually been proven to be effective, as stated under "The Patriot Act: Does it actually work". It states: "Three alleged terrorist plots have been foiled in recent weeks in three U. S. cities: Dallas, New York and Springfield, Ill. Officials say the cases involved men who, in separate plots, wanted to bomb a federal building, a subway and a skyscraper. Failure to prevent these alleged plots could have had catastrophic results. But these alleged plots are not the only ones foiled since the 9/11 attacks. In fact, authorities have stopped at least 26 others since Sept. 11, 2001 (and perhaps many more that aren't publicly known). Numerous operatives have been arrested and convicted. Much of the credit should go to the Patriot Act". So it does technically follow the rule given in the Constitution. Government "Anarchy"In my opponents final opening argument, he brings up a lot of "possible" situations if we do not watch out for the Government. Previously, I stated that the Government should deserve more trust than others. My opponent makes ridiculously strong claims that if we give the Government privacy, everything will fall into anarchy. I can say that this is false, and crazy for my opponent to think. I must ask, who runs the Government? The answer, human beings. Do human beings have morals? Yes, they do. Most humans will have a love of some sort, and when we look at the people running the government; they are like just me and you. Regular old citizens that have a little bit more power. I do not expect a member of the government to go insane because of having power, especially when the people elect that individual in the first place. And if we want to get factual, instead of philisophical, stated under "Only Humans have Morality"; it states that we, in society, will always make the right decision, compared to others who have mental issues. Do people within our government have mental issues? No they do not, so my opponents claim is just ridiculous on making an assumption without facts. Sources: . https://www.truste.com...http://www.heritage.org...http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.newrepublic.com...http://www.theguardian.com...https://books.google.com...-http://www.heritage.org...http://www.freerepublic.com...http://www.newswithviews.com...http://articles.latimes.com...https://www.psychologytoday.com...