NSA's Data Mining (See for details) [Copy 2]

My opponent has continued his argument against the methods of the NSA, I'll keep my rebuttals brief and to the point, since I'm sure the voters don't want to see us talk in circles for too long.One argument that my opponent is making is that he isn't actually saying the NSA is ineffective, it's just got a way of doing things we don't like. "It is an effective way of stopping a terrorist. But it is also a good way to create a lot of civilian casualties also."To counter this thought I'd like you to think of a hammer whose head is so big it'll mash your fingers when you try to hit a nail. Would you consider that a useful hammer? "Once again, i never said it was ineffective, but it could be more effective. The NSA's data mining does work, but not as well as it could."My opponent is lying here: "...do not work simply because the NSA is collecting too much information they do not have the time to go through all of the information needed to stop a terrorist attack." My opponent has clearly said they wouldn't be able to get through all their information in time to stop an attack, therein saying they wouldn't be effective in stopping an attack. Ergo this argument is invalid. "If we cannot let people speak their minds, we have no first amendment."True. But we're not talking about a law that prevents free speech. I have already given reasons why people shouldn't be bothered by their speech being observed. Frankly, my opponent has ignored my previous argument in regards to the first amendment. "Two of the three most important parts of the constitution agree with me, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."Liberty is related to being able to express yourself and your religion. For reasons already outlined, NSA observation wouldn't stop you from doing this. Data Mining is not repression of your free speech. You can still stand up and say whatever you want. Pursuit of happiness is related to being able to rise to whatever station you want in life. It's about being able to pursue that life you want, and feel no constraints in that regard. The NSA stalking your Facebook posts is not going to prevent your freedom to work hard and make a good life for yourself. Not only are the two parts of the Constitution he brings forth not pertinent to the debate, he also can't make assumptions about what the most important parts of the Constitution are. "We as a people cannot ignore the constitution because lives are more important."Why not? My opponent has not explained why not, he has simply assumed we all treat the Constitution as Christians do the Bible. How do you explain to a family of a victim of an attack that could've been averted that their son/daughter died because rules on a piece of paper were more important than their lives? Lastly, I'll leave an argument for those of you who buy my opponent's main argument. Even if you accidentally cause damage of a collateral nature, look at the big picture. Let's say they blow up a terrorist who is going to bomb a bank and three civilians. They still save more civilians than they lose, as long as the terrorist isn't the biggest idiot on the planet and goes into an empty bank. It sucks, certainly, but the alternative (such as 9/11) sucks way, way more.Thanks for reading. Con, thanks for getting this debate over with quickly.