The United States Government Should Substantially Curtail Its Domestic Surveillance

Intro and why you're voting CON right nowMy opponent is obviously new at this, but that's ok. At first I was a bit peeved but really the only person he is hurting here is himself. First, let's talk about the rules. My opponent has made some very wacky nonsensical rules which keep him from winning this round. So in the first round, under the "Debate Structure" tab he mandates that round 2 have no rebuttals from con. Rebuttal means a response to my opponent's arguments. In round 3 he says that there shall be no new arguments, and again, in the final round, there are to be no new arguments. Here's the problem, (as he concedes) he has the burden of proof, which means, that until I know what his plan text is I cannot argue against him. I am here solely to negate. Because he doesn't give his plan text or advantages (which he easily could have done using the rest of his like 8k characters) I lose all offense and defense, such as kritiks or disadvantages, how am I supposed to hit a nonexistant target? I simply had to blindly throw out a counterplan.Here's where is gets bad for him: If he isnt allowed to bring out new arguments in the 3rd or 4th rounds, how is he supposed to explain and prove his India advantage? He can't, which means there is quite litterally no advatage to doing the plan and the Pro burden of proof goes unfulfilled, which means you're already voting con on presumtion, right now. Also, what give him the ability to only give his plan NOW? You're plan is The Only Stable Advocacy in the round, only giving it now is not only abusive but is a new argument. Furthermore there is a disctinct advantage to voting for con, the counterplan, which goes 100% conceeded, and remains so becuase no new arguments can be made past the second round. Therefore I will now expand upon my CPCongressional Oversight CounterplanCounterplan text: Congress should make the NSA Inspector General subject to Senate confirmation, require a NSA Civil Liberties & Privacy officer, change the jurisdiction of the PCLOB to include all intelligence activities, institutionalize privacy concerns in performance reviews, have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberties matters, and create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs to encourage executive restraint in the area of metadata collection by or for the use of the NSA. First, enacting the counterplan's instiutional changes is better than simply tearing down our metadata collection[1]: This is from Rosenzweig in 2013 Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation"The perception of illegality at the NSA has outrun the reality by a fair bit...our current system of intelligence oversight generally works. It is incumbent on this Committee and those in Congress with knowledge of how our intelligence apparatus operates to defend that system as effective and appropriate...The goal then is the identification of a suitable legal and policy regime to regulate and manage the use of mass quantities of personal data...We should therefore favor those reforms that create delegated or calibrated transparency (enough to enable oversight without eliminating essential capabilities...most of the more effective possible changes lie not in significant legislative tinkering, but rather in interstitial structural and operational reforms that improve the audit and oversight process without fundamentally altering the capabilities of NSA or the IC organizations...Make the NSA Inspector General, a presidential appointment, with Senate confirmation; Require statutorily, the appointment of an NSA Civil Liberties & Privacy Officer; Change the jurisdiction of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to include all intelligence activities, not just those with a counter-terrorism focus; Create panels of cleared external reviewers for consultation by the DNI regarding new programs; Institutionalize privacy and civil liberties concerns by making it a factor in performance reviews; and have the DNI annually report in a public forum on privacy and civil liberties matters." And, Oversight Solves: This is from Kriner in 2009 Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University[2]: "legislative oversight conducted by congressional committees has been one of the most powerful tools in Congress's arsenal to exercise a check on the executive branch and defend its institutional prerogatives. Particularly in times of national exigency - both military and economic - the need for Hamiltonian "energy" tilts the pendulum of power toward the executive branch. The very same collective action dilemmas and cumbersome institutional machinery that encourage such a shift to the executive also hinder Congress's capacity to police the executive branch and retain a check on delegated powers by acting legislatively. Instead, Congress has repeatedly turned to the oversight and investigative powers of its committees to police the executive branch...when Congress wields its oversight powers forcefully, it can lead to genuine changes in public policy...many of the most potent symbols of congressional power in our system of separated institutions sharing power have emerged not from the chamber floors, but from Congress's committee rooms. In a diverse range of cases from investigations of misconduct by executive agencies to Iran Contra, from Watergate to Whitewater, Congress has used its bully pulpit again and again to expose executive wrongdoing, challenge presidential policies and even to bring presidential administrations to the brink of political disaster."Buut, in case my opponent wishes to abandon his rules Here are more arguments, if he doesn't or conceedes don't consider theseIndia - Pakistan ADVIndo-China disputes do not escalate[3]: "neither China nor India have an interest in overt or uncontrolled hostility. Both will work for their respective long-term interests within the rules of the present global order, with China having greater deliberation and speed than India. It is most unlikely that China will attack India, even in the Northeast. Any military action by China towards any of its neighbors, especially a democracy like India, will erode the carefully crafted image of its "peaceful rise" and will only serve to reignite the Tibet issue. It would also provide a diplomatic opportunity for the U.S. to justify its continued militarily presence in Asia."Democracy DisadvantageSurveillance Reforms Spill Over to the Middle East, creates more legitimate democracies[4]:"Sending the signal that the United States is cleaning up its act on these fronts is a necessary step for reviving U.S. credibility on democracy promotion in the Middle East. Without some progress on these measures, anything else that the new administration tries to do on democracy promotion...How the United States reintroduces itself to the world—keeping its national security policy in line with the highest human rights standards—will set the framework for how U.S. actions on the democracy promotion front are perceived throughout the Middle East."Middle Eastern Democracy will be exploited by populist leaning Islamist forces which causes terrorism and an emboldened Israel which will first strike Iran[5]:"Islamists are in the best position to exploit democratization today, and their entry into public life is inevitable given the lack of alternatives...Given the populist credentials of Islamists, the rise of Islamist governments may transform the political and foreign policy orientation of traditional allies. This possibility should be of concern considering the credibility problem Washington faces in the region...45 Israel might exploit regional instability by taking preemptive action against its neighbors, engulfing the region into all-out war. Iran can enhance its position as the region remains in a state of strategic flux. Israel’s nuclear capabilities and Iran’s nuclear ambitions raise the stakes in any impending instability. This all could erase any possibilities for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...It is imperative that Washington realistically account for the complexities inherent in its pursuit of a democratic Middle East, especially in authoritarian states divided along ethnic, sectarian, and tribal lines."An Israeli first strike of Iran will destabilize the Middle East, drawing in the US and Russia, causing planetary extinction[6]"the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons...The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed." Citations[1] http://www.newrepublic.com...[2] http://www.bu.edu...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] https://www.tcf.org...[5] http://connection.ebscohost.com...[6] http://antiwar.com...- TheJuniorVarsityNovice