National Security is more important than privacy.

Before I state my conclusion for this debate, I wish to Rebuttal some of my opponents flaws within his argument. Quote from Last Round:In the previous round, I mentioned a quote, which my opponent has brought up in the last round, which was: "If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken." I will admit on one thing, I spelt the word "withheld" wrong; forgot an "H", but the main point is that my opponent either didn't see, or wanted Voters to see, what else I said following the quote. What I said previously was: "Stated by Ron Paul, he said 'Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed'. If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken". This basically means that our Constitution is not being followed all the time, and if it isn't; the advantage of it can be used for the safety of our people. Also, my opponent says "If our nation is taken over, what would be the difference if we are not adhering to the values of limited government our nation should be about"; in which I respond with that if we focus more on National Security than privacy, we wouldn't even be invaded in the first place. We would be one step ahead, than the enemy and the only price is to give up a little privacy. If you think about it, giving up a little privacy for protection is far greater than not being safe at all. Then my opponent continues on with saying "If we reject the notion of privacy, as we have, what would be the issue with a nation that has an evil government taking us over if we have the same style of evil government". Some fatal flaws and contradictions in this statement, the first is that my opponent admitted about the Government is already rejecting privacy, and claims that we have an "evil" government. Let me ask, has the Government done anything wrong with rejecting our privacy recently? No, they have not; and I even stated this within my last argument. I stated: "In society, everyone is someone random; even me and you. What are the true chances that you will be spied upon daily for just doing your average daily duties". So if my opponent has stated that we are being spied upon, has any "evils" impacted us recently?The ConstitutionIn this section of arguments my opponent asks if I support some parts, even if I admit that its dead. I first like to say that I am all for the Constitution, but stating the fact that no one follows it all the tme. If I had to make the decision between the choice of following a set of ideas, or the safety of this country; I would pick safety first. My opponent claims that the Bill of Rights supports the idea of privacy, but I will prove how it is not. Stated under "The Right of Privacy" it states: "The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial". This means that there is really no "true" indication of the Bill of Rights having a requirement to not spy upon anyone. The situations they brought up include "Privacy of Beliefs" and "Privacy of Home", When the Government, stated under "The Government is Spying on Us...", spies on us through our electronics cameras. This does not interfere with the two situations of respecting privacy, where the Government is not making a belief be a law, and does not search your home; but more looks upon the holder of the electronics face. This, in no way, is breaking the rule of privacy stated under the Bill of Rights.And my opponent continues on about the possibilities of the Government taking over everything, but we must refer to my previous statement I made. I stated: "Do human beings have morals? Yes, they do. Most humans will have a love of some sort, and when we look at the people running the government; they are like just me and you. Regular old citizens that have a little bit more power. I do not expect a member of the government to go insane because of having power, especially when the people elect that individual in the first place. And if we want to get factual, instead of philisophical, stated under 'Only Humans have Morality'; it states that we, in society, will always make the right decision, compared to others who have mental issues. Do people within our government have mental issues? No they do not, so my opponents claim is just ridiculous on making an assumption without facts". And to add on to that, if the President does go insane, there are many members of the Supreme Court who can take down the President if it comes down to it. There are more people in the Government, than my opponent claims; and we must remember that earlier my opponent even claims that privacy was already interfeered, yet we still continue in society like normally. If my opponent admits that we are being spied upon, what has the Government done currently to "control" all of our thoughts and beliefs.Facts and Ideas:My opponent even has the guts to say this quote: "Another thing my opponent did that was faulty was their assumption that diving into the percentages and statistics of the desires of the American people is a good way to determine whether it's a good policy". First off, my opponent basically says that Facts do not matter, even though they do. Facts have helped shape our society in knowing what is true and false, and if my opponent claims that statistics does not prove a point; that is a simple indication that my opponent doesn't want to agree with the facts I have given him. And if we look at my opponents case, he has not brought up really any facts, but instead has brought up more ideas from Founding Fathers. Their quotes do not always mean that one thing is true, unless supported by facts which my opponent has failed to do.But if we do folllow my opponents logic of using quotes to prove a point, I did in the previous round. In this round, my opponent says: "Our founding fathers would have gladly joined my side on this issue, as it was one of the main reasons the Revolutionary War was fought". First off, you did not know what the Founding Fathers wanted, even though I provided a few quotes about them wanting the safety of their people than privacy. A few quotes include: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man (Samuel Adams), and George Washington's idea was: "Washington warned against leaving the nation’s security 'to the uncertainty of procuring a warlike apparatus at the moment of public danger. By then, it would be too late. In his Farewell Address, Washington urged Americans to remember 'that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it". If they are saying we need to bring protection to our people, we will need to do it with National Security. To conclude, my opponents argument simply laid upon the idea of following the ideas of the Bill of Rights without no facts. While I provided many facts and ideas about how National Security is far greater than privacy. I looked into many situations with National Security, and have provided a justable answer to each situation. I brought up the fact of Government Transperency and how it impacted this whole debate, yet my opponent argues that it breaks the Bill of Rights; even though National Security is protecting us. As we can see, my opponent puts a heavy focus on a set of ideas than facts, which is his fatal flaw in his argument. In a debate, you give an opinion supported by facts; not give an opinion and support it with ideas.As well as I brought up the fact that if we came down to a situation where we will need protection, we would go directly to protecting than privacy. Why wait, instead of putting out safety in the first place? On that note, voters I must ask you a question. Are you doing anything wrong? If you aren't, why worry about being spied upon? Also, we must undrstand that if we are being spied upon, the NSA is in charge and not the Government. With that in mind, I urge you to vote Pro! Also, thanks for a good debate my opponent!Sources (All): http://law2.umkc.edu... http://www.washingtonsblog.com...-http://www.shaheen.senate.gov...... http://www.dhs.gov......http://www.huffingtonpost.com......http://www.npr.org......https://www.truste.com......http://www.heritage.org......http://www.pewresearch.org......http://www.newrepublic.com......http://www.theguardian.com......https://books.google.com......-http://www.heritage.org......http://www.freerepublic.com......http://www.newswithviews.com......http://articles.latimes.com......https://www.psychologytoday.com......