NSA's Data Mining (See for details) [Copy 2]

Before I begin I will just organize my speech so the judges can follow along better. First I will be defending my case from my opponents attacks, second I will attack my opponents case. Lets begin. I'd like you to think of a hammer whose head is so big it'll mash your fingers when you try to hit a nail. Would you consider that a useful hammer? Yes I would. The nail is still hammered in. The hammer did its job. Could the hammer do a better job? Yes it can. "Once again, I never said it was ineffective, but it could be more effective. The NSA's data mining does work, but not as well as it could." My opponent is lying here: "...do not work simply because the NSA is collecting too much information they do not have the time to go through all of the information needed to stop a terrorist attack." My opponent has clearly said they wouldn't be able to get through all their information in time to stop an attack, therein saying they wouldn't be effective in stopping an attack. Ergo this argument is invalid. This attack tried to prove that my argument is invalid. It failed to do so because through the evidence I have shown and the arguments I have made to prove the NSA could do a better job that my opponent never attacked, the NSA is stopping terrorism, but is stepping over its boundaries to do so. If we cannot let people speak their minds, we have no first amendment." True. But we're not talking about a law that prevents free speech. I have already given reasons why people shouldn't be bothered by their speech being observed. Frankly, my opponent has ignored my previous argument in regards to the first amendment. I never ignored my opponents previous remarks about freedom of speech, in fact, its quite the opposite. Peoples speech isn't just being observed, it is being used as evidence for sentencing people who are being persecuted for crimes they never committed. "Two of the three most important parts of the constitution agree with me, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty is related to being able to express yourself and your religion. For reasons already outlined, NSA observation wouldn't stop you from doing this. Data Mining is not repression of your free speech. You can still stand up and say whatever you want. Pursuit of happiness is related to being able to rise to whatever station you want in life. It's about being able to pursue that life you want, and feel no constraints in that regard. The NSA stalking your Facebook posts is not going to prevent your freedom to work hard and make a good life for yourself. Not only are the two parts of the Constitution he brings forth not pertinent to the debate, he also can't make assumptions about what the most important parts of the Constitution are. First I would like to say I actually presented evidence in my last speech about what the most important parts of the Constitution are. Obviously my evidence was ignored. My opponents specific attack should be ignored on the part about most important part of the Constitution. Continuing on with the beginning of my opponents attack, you cannot have liberty if you are being killed for saying something. This falls hand in hand with the NSA watching us. I for one cannot be happy if I know my government is watching me. That stops my pursuit of happiness. "We as a people cannot ignore the constitution because lives are more important." Why not? My opponent has not explained why not, he has simply assumed we all treat the Constitution as Christians do the Bible. How do you explain to a family of a victim of an attack that could've been averted that their son/daughter died because rules on a piece of paper were more important than their lives? This is simple. More people will be affected in a negative way by the NSA's actions than the actual terrorists the NSA is trying to stop. Lastly, I'll leave an argument for those of you who buy my opponent's main argument. Even if you accidentally cause damage of a collateral nature, look at the big picture. Let's say they blow up a terrorist who is going to bomb a bank and three civilians. They still save more civilians than they lose, as long as the terrorist isn't the biggest idiot on the planet and goes into an empty bank. It sucks, certainly, but the alternative (such as 9/11) sucks way, way more. This attack couldn't be more falsified. You are eight times more likely to be killed by a POLICE OFFICER than a terrorist. The NSA giving police your private information can be more detrimental, and is more likely to get you killed than terrorists themselves. Now to attack my opponents case I acknowledge that with the NSA doing its data mining, Americans and people abroad lose certain freedoms, privileges, or aspects to their lives, take whatever label you wish. My opponent left out the killing of innocent people to stop terrorists. That doesn't seem like a good way to preserve the lives of innocent civilians. , is it very likely what you do on the internet is unique? Nobody sitting around in the NSA is actually going to care if you watch porn, you won't be judged when they see hundreds of thousands or millions of people doing that every day. This argument does make sense. But people working at the NSA will misuse their power. People working at the NSA have been caught looking at ex girlfriends, ex boyfriends, pretty much anybody that want to look at. I do have proof for this. It will be cited. Lastly I would like to thank my opponent for choosing such a great topic! Sources: 1 http://www.cato.org... 2.http://www.cnn.com...