the benefits of domestic surveillance conducted by the nsa outweigh the harms

Sorry for my absence in the second round.Opponent's First ContentionI do concede that the NSA is costs a large amount of money, HOWEVER this amount of money is completely reasonable. Since my opponent doesn't specify the amount of money in his case, we can't evaluate his entire contention. But, for the sake of amusement, I will provide a response for him. Simply, the NSA is still important in preventing attacks by helping to thwart terrorist plans. Eric Schmitt, from the Star Tribune, explain on September 29, 2013, "News reports in early August revealed that the United States intercepted messages between Ayman al-Zawahri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as the head of Al-Qaida, and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the head of the Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, discussing an imminent terrorist attack" With this, you need to do a simple cost-benefit analysis. It could cost us billion of dollars to run the program, but how much assistance has it provided on the war on terror? Apparently, a lot. (Look at my third contention) There's simply no clear bright line as to how much they need to save the world from terrorism. Voting for the PRO in today's round will have guaranteed results with an extensive program that is preferable.Opponent's Second ContentionSimply, cross apply my entire second contention with his. However, if you, the judge, need more information on my side, I will provide it. Logically, you can see that these terrorists know they can't communicate by phone and email now, making it harder to be a terrorist, while also acting as a deterrent to joining terrorist activity. However, the benefits of stopping terrorism doesn't only stay domestically. CBSNews, on June 15, 2013, explains , "Top U.S. intelligence officials said that information gleaned from two data-collection programs run by the National Security Agency thwarted potential terrorist plots in the U.S. and more than 20 other countries" This thwarting of terrorism goes on internationally, and sets the precedent there without even using the surveillance as much internationally.Opponent's Third ContentionFor this contention, you can simply cross apply my ENTIRE CASE with it. My first contention explains how it is constitutional due to weighing security over the privacy of others in order to protect our citizens. My second contention explains that we need the NSA to protect us. My third contention explains that we need to find the balance between privacy and security, which we already have with the NSA in place. But, even if you don't buy my own contentions, I provide with more evidence of why we need the NSA and that its benefits will outweigh the harms. In order to overcome the issues of terrorism and fear, we must uphold the ideals that are worth fighting for. Robert Bloom explains, "The Constitution, of course, is not a suicide pact,' but it does provide the wax and rope to block and bind the passions and fears of the moment. If this nation is to sail past the Sirens' song of terrorism and fear, it must do so with renewed dedication to our first principles and to the liberties and democratic ideals that make our society worth the fight." Additionally, the NSA weighing the individual liberties of citizens over security was critiqued in the congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. Siobhan Gorman explains, "The 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks criticized the NSA for holding back information, which NSA officials said they were doing to protect the privacy of the U.S. citizens. 'NSA did not want to be perceived as targeting individuals in the United States'" So, as concluded by the Supreme Court, it is justifiable in certain scenarios for rights to be infringed upon. The way this is determined is the balancing test of government interest and personal intrusion.Opponent's Response to C1:Showing that terrorism is still a threat explains that the NSA is still needed in order to combat it. In the case of the Boston Bombing, I conceded that the NSA knew about this. However, this was only one incident. One incident does not bring down an entire organization. A government shutdown does not destroy government itself. The government program knows of this terrorism and now works to protect against it, therefore my first contention still stands. If terrorism was not an issue, why, in today's society, is it still a hot topic? Therefore, terrorism is still a threat and still a key part in today's round. My first contention still stands.Opponent's Response to C2:His entire response to my second contention comes from a complete misinterpretation of evidence. It may not be blatantly clear how much terrorism the programs have stopped to the CON, since they will be arguing against it. That is the main purpose of this argument. Then in order to clarify this, I provide the Heritage Foundation research. Now, when he responds with the Chief of NSA admitting about the number of terrorist attacks, of course he would do this. The NSA works in conjunction with the FBI and the CIA, the ones with the actual fire power and know how on how to go about countering terrorism. The NSA provides them with the information, without the information they would not know where to go or what to do. So, of course the NSA ITSELF didn't foil all these terrorist attacks. I do thank the CON for providing more support for me by conceding that we do combat terrorism in the last part of his response.Opponent's Response to C3:Misinterpretation of evidence again. The main point of the warrant is to explain the IN DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. You can completely the drop the "foreign affairs" and the warrant would still make sense. Also, domestic means conducted in the United States (for my opponent). Our domestic surveillance does influence the outside world anyways so his attack on my third contention is meaningless. My third contention still stands.Conclusion:I apologize for my mistake at the last part of my case saying "con" instead of "pro". It was late at night. However, the reasons you should be voting for PRO today is blatantly clear throughout my case. We need to be weighing lives in today's round. Since the NSA is protecting the lives of Americans, the PRO wins off of that immediately. However, if you don't buy that, an extra reason why the PRO should win is because my entire case contradicts my opponents and all of my contentions still stand. My opponent cannot generate any offense off of his case anymore and therefore, I must win the round. But, EVEN if you don't buy that reason, if you, the judge, values lives over money, you must be voting for PRO in today's round. Lastly, I thank my opponent for a good round. Vote PRO!Thank you.---~ThyAnchor