Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

I will rebut Pro's Case, and the turn to defending my own.PRO's CASEContention One: National SecurityThere are four quick points to be made here:1) Much of Pro's evidence comes from the Obama administration, which is obviously biased. It permitted the NSA to perpetrate its actions and it doesn't want to look bad. Both of these are motives for the government to release information that casts the NSA's actions in a good light. Also, Carafano is head of the right-wing Heritage foundation, and has pronounced neocon bias towards the NSA's actions.2) Pro gives absolutely no statistics to back up his claim that the "NSA prevents terrorism." How many plots has it stopped--Pro never says. Because I am the only one to offer statistics on this, you have to prefer my concrete data to Pro's vague claims. See my contention four for more analysis.3) Cross-apply my contention three here--it directly addresses the issue of oversight.4) Cross-apply my contention two here--it directly addresses the legality arguments.Contention 2: KnowledgeA) Even if Congressmen are briefed, that does not mean they are told many of the details of the NSA's operations. Clearly, some programs will not be revealed to the Congressmen in enough detail for them to make truly informed calls about the NSA's power. Moreover, the NSA should not just be accountable to legislators, it should be accountable to the people. If there isn't more transparency, it's hard for people to make decision re: the NSA when they go to vote for elected officials who will be making policies impacting the agency. By excluding the public, the NSA is making it harder for them to be effectively scrutinized.B) Again, Pro fails to show how useful the NSA actually is in beating back terrorism. My numbers indicate that the NSA has a very small, almost negligible role. Pro offers no numbers of his own, so we must default to mine.Contention Three: Impact on U.S.A) 9/11 was not preventable by any one agency. 9/11 occurred because many agencies failed to share information [1]. This failure to coordinate led to the travesty that was the World Trade Center attack. [2] The fact was, that we already had the information to stop 9/11, we just need to share it. Therefore, the NSA did not need to engage in domestic surveillance (PRISM), all it needed to do was reach out to fellow agencies like the CIA and DIA. B) Again, Keith Alexander is a biased source--he personally has be championing the cause of greater surveillance. Of course he will defend his brainchild. And what exactly does "disrupt" mean? And could these attacks have been prevented through other means--i.e. is this offense inherent to your case?Finally, lets look at the Social Contract. National Security does not trump the Constitution, or the rights that derive therefrom. The Constitution functions as the limits that bind our government, and the government must operate within these limits, not outside them. This includes as respect for the rights of citizens.CON's CASEContention One: Scope of PRISMThis point goes UNREBUTTED; it's clear Con offense now. The NSA's program is MASSIVE and touches hundreds of pieces of information daily--more than Google even. This means that there is a greater likelihood that one's privacy will be invaded. The NSA's mission here is not a narrow won, but rather a broad license to infringe citizen's rights.Contention Two: IllegalityPro has asserted multiple times that PRISM is not illicit. However, all he has done is offer evidence that Congress has passed the Patriot Act. I agree: Congress has passed it. But what Pro NEVER did was countermand either of the following:1) That PRISM is actually in violation of the Patriot Act; or2) That the Patriot Act is unconstitutionalThe first point was evidenced by a source in my case that was DROPPED by Pro. Extend this argument; it becomes untouchable Con offense. The second point, that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, is a logical extrapolation from the notion that it violates expectations of privacy (14th Amendment), and the right against unreasonable search or seizure. It's fairly unreasonable to search someone without telling them you're doing it. It's like a cop breaking into your house while your away and rummaging through your things. The NSA is breaking into you conversations and scouring them for data. It's downright illegal.Contention Three: OversightI would like to see a source for Pro's assertion re: the 22 NSA workers. Moreover, the information shouldn't be collected in the first place without a warrant. That's like a cop going into your home, picking up a suitcase of yours, walking out, and then promising not to look in the suitcase without a warrant. The fact is, he shouldn't have even collected the suitcase without the warrant. That's just an ex post facto justification for a crime. This is exactly what my source was saying earlier: "accountability is not strong enough, especially when access to metadata about communications and interactions only requires internal authorization within an intelligence agency—and not the warrant that is required to intercept the actual content of communications." [3]Moreover, Con's arguments have nothing to do with the administration's ability to order the NSA to bypass the laws or with the NSA's ability to simply ignore regulations, which was what my contention was about. So, he's not actually clashing here. Extend my contention--it's UNREBUTTED and is now solid Con offense.Contention Four: NSA doesn't prevent terrorPro cites biased evidence to try to refute this point. He cites one very specific example of the would-be Kansas bomb, but that's cherry-picking. Most importantly though, Pro utterly and completely FAILS TO RESPOND to the idea that "Of the remaining 38 plots, the public record shows that at least 33 were uncovered by using standard policing practices such as informants, undercover officers, and tips to law enforcement.” [4]If regular law enforcement are doing such an amazing job, why do we need the NSA--which just violates people's privacy rights--to join in? We don't--there's no gain to the NSA's actions because we can solve the problem through other, less harmfully intrusive means.Thank you! Please, VOTE CON!SOURCES1 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...2 - http://www.afcea.org...3 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...4 - http://bipartisanpolicy.org...