Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

Thanks to Henry for what has been a very elucidating and intense discussion! I will use this round to do a concluding line-by-line analysis of the round, finishing with a summary and some voting issues. I will avoid new arguments, as per the rules. CON's CASEAt no point in this debate has Pro rebutted Con's case. I extended it last round, and can extend it again since it went wholly unaddressed for a second time. This means my whole case was DROPPED, and any attempt to rebut it would constitute a new argument by Pro. Therefore, Pro cannot touch this offense, and it clearly ways in my favor. Let me take a moment to impact these extensions:1. Framework: governments andpolicymakers must operate on a cost-benefit calculus, and therefore, this round should be evaluated from a pragmatic standpoint.2. Surveillance helps to combat terror by intercepting knowledge other nations have regarding terrorists and criminals3. Surveillance is minimally invasive4. The NSA is subject to effective checks and balancesAll of this swings the round in my favor. Since Pro never rebutted it ealier, he cannot now because he'd be making new arguments. PRO's CASEMy overview was just extending my Case, as I did/reiterated above. Before I get into Pro's core arguments, let me point out the main themes he is relying on. Pro is relying heavily on this idea that the NSA's actions have made the U. S. unpopular in Europe, that EU law applies to the NSA's surveillance, and that what the NSA did was wrong (makes a pathos appeal. ) These are the key elements of his offense. If these pieces can be mitigated or nullified, then I will have the most offense in this debate, meriting a Con ballot. Rebuttal 1: PopularityPro says that public reactions are evidence that the NSA has made the U. S. unpopular. He fails to cite any sources and fails to describe how much the NSA is impacting the U. S. 's image. If the NSA is only making a .5 or 1% impact, then its benefits for the U. S. (stopping terror, better trade negotiating positions, etc. ) might outweigh that small negative side-effect. Pro simply cannot show causality or the extent of any supposed causality. Pro then attacks my poll's credibility, saying that it is an "obscure blog. " However, if you click the links provided by that blog, it will take you to Pew Research Center, a massive, well-respected organization led by such prominent figures as Madeleine Albright (former U. S. Secretary of State)and Andrew Kohut of the Wall St. Journal. [1] The poll results that the blog was reporting were, therefore, from an EXTREMELY credible souurce. If you click on the blog's links, you will find that in 2013, the UK's population had a 58% approval rating of the U. S. [2, 3] Spain's approval rating of the U. S. is at 62%--which is an increase from 2012. [3} In Italy, 76% approve of the U. S. --an increase from last year as well. [3]Pro clearly failed to explore the source I cited and its links, which showed, as I stated in previous speeches contradicted Pro's claims. So, let us compare. We have a well-respected polling institution whose numbers were cited by that blog, and we have Pro's BBC report. Unfortunately, since Pro has failed to link me that source, I will have no chance to explore its findings, validity, conclusions, etc. Pro has also never answered the question I posed earlier about how many people the BBC study polled viewed the U. S. "neutrally. " Therefore, even if you accept Pro's study, that does not mean there is a net negative view of the U. S. Ultimately, prefer my study as it reputable and properly cited. Rebuttal 2: EU LawsPro claims that a German-German phone call is under German and EU law. But phone monitering is not all the NSA does. "Surveillance" can include much more than collecting metadata--it can also include digital/cyber surveillance. I made the argument before that such surveillance didn't fit clearly into any jurisdiction. In case ofthis second type ofsurveillance, Pro agreed, it was "hard to identify jurisdiction. " That provides the NSA enough wiggle room to conduct many of its activities. However, I would argue that the NSA is primarily beholden to the U. S. government, not the EU. I made this point throughout the debate, and if you buy it, then you buy that the NSA can override local interests in pursuit of its prime goal. This leads me to my next point. .. Rebuttal 3: The NSAUnder the social contract, the U. S. has the PRIMARY goal of doing well by its own citizenry. Pro has never once challenged this idea; Pro has only challenged that the NSA can override local laws. However, if we accept the DROPPED premise that the U. S. 's main objective is to do well by its people, then it can violate local laws to do so. We can also support the social contract argument by returning to myDROPPEDWoller card offered in my framework. It refers specifically to "policymakers" and "citizens. " Policymakers must justify actions to citizens, not to foreign governments. Ultimately, it is a question of which is more important: local laws, or looking out for your people. For the U. S. , it's primary duty is the latter, and so breach of the former is justified when it is done to achieve the latter. Therefore, all that needs to be shown is that the NSA's actions benefit the U. S. citizens. If that can be done, then the U. S. is justified in violating local laws to help meet it's most important goal. There are three easy ways to show that the NSA benefits the U. S. people:1. Pro dropped the argument in my case that surveillance decreases terrorism2. Surveillance helps improve our posture in trade negotiations3. Pro even admitted, "I never, ever said NSA surveillance was not useful to the United States Government, especially whilst these vital trade deals where underway"As I pointed out in R3:"The U. S. government's primary and overriding duty is to do what is best for its citizens. Every nation, through its social contract, has that duty towards its people. Insofar as the U. S. obligation to its citizens could best be obtained by spying, the NSA was justified in what it did. "CONCLUSIONI have done a line-by-line analysis of the round as best as I could without making new arguments, but by referring back to old points. What this round comes down to his offense and BOP. I have my whole case, and at least one rebuttal point against Pro--if not more--as offense. This should outweigh whatever Pro brings up. As for BOP, I have should that the NSA should have engaged in its surveillance regimine. Should expresses desirability, and since we're evaluating desirability from a cost-benefit standpoint (as per Woller in my framework) if you believe that it was pragmatic for the U. S. to spy, then you should be voting Con. I have show clear benefits to the NSA's actions, have mitigated Pro's alleged harms, and therefore have shown, I believe, that the NSA's actions were net beneficial. Thus, I ask for your vote. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.realclearworld.com... (see the first link in the text for expanded polling data)3 - . http://www.pewglobal.org...Thank you!