Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.

I'll start off with my case, then my opponents case. And yes, I agree that this debate is specifically about the United States. On my number 1. What I am arguing is that public area are free of watch, and have less strict rules. Adding the cameras takes away this idea. On my number 2. I never said you have to provide a plan, all I am saying is that your plan will be too expensive. Also, in debate, you are supposed to persuade the judge or audience to vote for you, by stating why your world would be better than mine. And by not saying how much this will cost, or HOW it will be done, the judge can't know what will happen in your world. Also, guards cost less than cameras(Ill further explain in my number 4) On my number 3. First of all, don't listen to his argument of no counterplans. I am saying why surveillance cameras should not be substantially increased(Cost, and efficiency) And giving an alternative.(Linking back to my number 2) I am giving why cameras should NOT be substantially increased, and why guards should be, so disreguard this argument. Next, The cameras can show where they are. Thats it. They don't physically stop them. What if the viewing area for cameras is on the 3rd floor of a building, and the criminal is getting away THAT SECOND. Immediate action is needed! So in this case, guards do that. On my number 4. So lets continue this cost argument. For a Target that has, lets say, 2 cameras, you're going to need about 10 cameras, one for each corner, one near door, one near electronics, and others spread throughout. So if I agree that they cost around 2 thousand dollars(I do) Thats 2 thousand times 10, which is 20,000. Compare that to my 4760. Its a huge difference. My plan is more cost efficient. Also, cameras don't always keep criminals off. If they did, there would be no crime in places with cameras. Period. Which isn't true. In my area, there are flashing blue lights(Police cameras) around many corners, and are crimes committed? Yes. Guards would be more efficient. Also, his argument about no counterplans is abusive. He provides a plan/idea, and I counter it with disadvantages, and another plan/idea. Without my say in the debate, its not a debate, and not fair. I said why Surveillance cams should NOT be substantially increased, and what to do instead. This is fair. Now, to my opponents case. 1) You don't accomplish complete saftey. What trustworthiness do you get from a guard on the third floor, running after someone on a skateboard? And fine, for this part of the argument, I'll specifically talk about why cameras shouldn't be added, and don't help. 2)To keep security guards out, extend my number 2 and 3, stating that cameras are expensive, and don't stop the criminal. 3)His definition of substantial is right, but not appropriate for this debate Substantial-to a great extent or degree A set number of cameras isn't needed. All I am saying is explain why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way. This is a Should resolution, yes. And with that, these answers are needed WHY should this happen? HOW is this going to help? HOW is this the BEST solution(Most important) The argument of why it is best will be key in this debate. If my opponent says that all computers should be white, I want to know why this needs to happen, why he wants this, and how white is better than black. Because of my definitions, my counterplan, and those questions(If not answered) I encourage a Negative Ballot. Thank you for a great debate so far!