San Bernadino

I think its safe to say that my opponent is a bit inexperienced, but that doesn't mean we should discount his arguments. No, instead we should discount them because they simply don't make sense. My opponent has contended that I lose this debate because I haven't proposed an alternative to his framework, but his framework ("the well being of the people") is broad and I've shown that I meet it. I originally said that we should discount his framework because there are no warrants giving us reasons to accept it, but I really don't know why I would show opposition to it, I completely accept it. Just keep in mind that he hasn't given a single reason that I don't meet, or violate it. I have shown several harms that would stem out of compliance with the government court order. The first thing I've argued is the worthlessness of the phone in the investigation, this attack was well thought out, and although terrorists are evil, they are not completely stupid. Syed, knew not to use his *government* work phone for terrorists plots. that's why he didn't destroy it like his other two phones. The police chief of San Bernadino, where the terrorist attack happened, even said 'this phone will have ZERO valuable information towards the investigations. Time and time again researchers have found that traditional investigative methods solve terror cases. According to my opponent this means I win the round. He even admitted last round that if I show the phone is useless for the investigation, I win. Because we know the phone is investigationally useless, we also know that there are ulterior motives for the insistance of the executive to force Apple to alter their software and create a backdoor skelleton key. Primarily, to circumvent the current judicial debates about the right of governments to hack encryption source-code. The major problem is, again, that the U.S. leads the world and once we set this precedent, not only will our government hack all the encryption they can in the name of the "fight against terrorism," but other governments will do the same. This will effectively turn every major coorperation into automatons that supply the surveillance state with informations and violate our fundemental right to privacy. How will that benefit the well-being of the people?I've also emphasized and proven that the encrytion source-code the government will then have the right to hack, will not stay in their hands. Hacker always get this information, in fact it was but a couple months ago that a 14 year old hacked the F.B.I and got a list of all current F.B.I secret agents. This will ironically enable terrorism and hacker-crime. In fact it will collapse the economy when terrorists blow out our critical infrastructure like power grids, which will cause between $223,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000,000. We have to ask ourselves, how will that much damage to the economy benefit the well-being of people? This doesn't include the amount of people who will be stranded without a way to call the police when their power goes out and they've fallen and can't get up, or when Ted Bundey is knocking at their door.But here's how things are going in terms of the debate. My opponent has dropped my arguments about why he and only he has burden of proof. Becuase silence is compliance in the debate world, he has conceeded these arguments. As for the arguments he makes about why I share the burden of proof, I have met them word for word, but either way he litterally gives NO WARRANTS to substantiate them, which makes them absolutely and completely null in this debate. Another crazy argument he makes is that our impacts have to occur within the likely timeframe of this debate, which makes no sense. He gives no reason for this except that I use the word contention which relates to certain forms of debate. But this still isn't a cogent argument because in parlimentary debate, academic policy debate, licoln douglas debate, and any other form of debate we could bring up, the impacts they argue don't likely have to occur in the hour or so in which they take place. Allowing impacts which occur over any length of time allows for a greater evaluation of what will effect the well being of the people and therefore we should allows impacts which occur long-term. He'll have to provide substantiative as to why it harms education, or debate quality to have later impacts when his own framework says otherwise. But there is one simple reason I'm by far winning this debate right now and that's becuase he doesn't respond to my rebuttal of his points. Because he has the full burden of proof, and becuase silence is compliance, he has already agreed that he is wrong and losses automatically. I extend all of my conceeded arguments and thank you for taking the time to read. I encourage a vote for pro.-The JuniorVarsityNovice