Retaining Privacy Is More Important Than Forfeiting It In The Fight Against Terrorism

My opponent starts off his claim stating that he believes that the size is irregardless for them to collect our personal information. Now, I somewhat agree with this. First, a terrorist organization when they get bigger will extend to more people. Syed Farooq, an American all around, was able to murder people he spent time with. If we do "invade privacy", and we find out this man is connected to terrorist groups, who knows what leads will follow. We could stop, maybe, other potential attacks. I understand this man is a person, but he has murdered others. In this case, there needs to be actions taken. Next, my opponent also states that "privacy" can also be demonstrated with a warrant. That we are still respecting one's privacy with a warrant. However, this is false. Privacy is not being able to keep your business to yourself, but when U.S. law requires, there is exceptions. No, privacy is not that. Privacy is "the state of being alone : the state of being away from other people" per Merriam Webster. The U.S. constitution or the legal or not battle should not affect whether they are respecting privacy or not. Therefore, they are invading your privacy for the greater good. If potentially, Farooq's phone was invaded and that saves even 1 person, I would choose the latter. Now, then my opponent goes into great detail about smartphones and the data involved with it. I don't understand the relevancy nor the jist of the argument itself, so if my opponent could elaborate in the next round that would be beneficial. Next, my opponent continually states that the debate is a "pick and choose." You have to pick combating terrorism or retaining privacy.I also think my opponent is assuming that all of our privacy is ultimately taken away. While that is not likely or factual, let us then, I guess, look at the extreme of terrorism. Because my opponent would like us to examine the extreme of privacy, the extreme of terrorism is much worse. Think of millions killed or think of millions with their privacy invaded. Choose wisely. Of course, people would choose to live. If you allow an individual or a terrorist group to become big, they will also invade your privacy. What I'm touching on is what I'd like to spend a good amount of time on. What I am trying to say is that if we don't try and combat groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda then they will grow. If we let them grow and spillover in Americans our privacy is lost, too. So if we ignore groups with the intent to harm, ultimately the same outcome will occur with even worse side affects as well. Retaining privacy isn't as important if so many are killed. Another problem my opponent has is the NSA and their corruption, but what my opponent is forgetting is that our government is connected. Also, I would be willing to risk that being used in the government than terrorist groups. My opponent also mentions that many have been killed in governments run amok. But my question is: what changes? With your phone data, its not "easier" to kill you. If the government becomes that corrupt, then they don't have to obtain your information to kill you. Ultimately, the side affects of terrorism are more adverse than those of privacy. I understand that to my opponent and others privacy is a right; an American right, but so is the right to live. At the end, my opponent, the voters and I have to decide, is privacy worth lives?