Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

I thank them for being so fortuitous, and principled. I am not purposefully contentious in this debate, and I wish to clear this air here and now, that I have never intended to discard my opponent's arguments. I feel I have rebutted them appropriately, and I will clarify how. Argument A: Reprise As I said in round one, many of the politicians in D. C whose responsibility it is to legislate according the Constitution, both support NSA surveillance and the gradual revocation of Americans' guns. I believe that these two ideas go hand in hand, a disarmed populace is easier for the government to control, and to survey. The less we are armed, the more vulnerable we are to government overreach. In round two, I acknowledged my opponent's idea that by surrendering our liberties to the government we are even being ensured a stronger 'national security'. They claimed that the U. S stopped some 71 odd terrorists and arrested them through the use of surveillance. What they meant was that 71 terrorists have been sent into our country by ISIS according to their own claims (for that source, see: round two, exhibit b). My opponent has made little effort to prove the correlation and causation between increased surveillance and increased domestic tranquility. I ask for voters to consider this as the judge the debate's contestants. Argument B: RepriseMy second argument was government failure to actually provide effective results in the field of 'national security'. I do not have tremendous confidence in the NSA's ability to keep us safe. Rather, I only seem them as a source of government neglecting us of our liberties. The more power it is given, the more it will ascertain of our private lives. The government has put hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans on lists that bar them from the ownership of a gun and from boarding planes, but yet we are still just as vulnerable - if not more so - to terrorism. The Orlando shooting of 'Pulse' occurred in spite of the fact that the offender legally purchased their firearm and was previously under the eye of the FBI[1]. Our government is not competent enough to handle our 'national security' concerns, and that is why we as Americans must own up to our Second Amendment rights to bear arms. We have additionally hurt our own diplomacy by spying on our neighboring, allied countries. Brazil and Germany were not particularly pleased to find out that the U. S was listening in on their leader's private lives (for sources on this, see: round two argument: surveillance and foreign policy). If we continue to give the government incentives to spy on our own citizens, and on leaders abroad, we will growingly become distrusted and Americans' lives will be endangered. We must learn that privacy is a right under the Constitution under the Fourth Amendment, and that we must own our civil liberties. The government does not produce effective results, and our liberties are encroached on as they expand the NSA programs. Debate Conclusion In conclusion, the United States government's job is not to protect our 'security' at the cost of our liberties. Any society which surrenders their liberties, to any degree, for temporary security deserves neither liberty or security. Our country will be in danger when we set this precedence that government is a monolithic and infallible institution to whom we owe our rights and trust. My opponent has not adequately accepted their burden of proof, and proven that the government is effective at protecting our nation's security when surveillance is expanded. I thank my opponent, thank any viewers and/or voters, and God bless you. Sources Cited[1]. http://www.latimes.com...