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

My judges need to understand that the moment the government files charges for something somebody has said, that interferes with the First Amendment right. More specifically freedom of speech. Americans have the right to say what they want. The only way, and my judges need to understand this, is for the NSA to continue with Meta data "mining" they and my opponent need to prove how it is constitutional for the NSA to obtain information to use in a court case (and often, their isn't even a court case) and use it to sentence someone. My opponent stated that we need to agree that the NSA works perfectly essentially. I cannot agree to this because it gives unfair ground to my opponent, making it impossible for me to debate. My opponent says that my arguments are not topical. they are in fact. pertaining to the resolution Resolution: Let's pretend we know for sure that the NSA's Data Mining is a useful tool in protecting America from attacks, both domestic and foreign. I will argue that the NSA's Data Mining should continue, my opponent should do otherwise. I never said once in my debate that the NSA is not a useful tool in protecting the United States. What i am arguing is how the NSA is going about doing it. "A person of interest who is carrying this phone could give the phone to a family member/friend/acquaintance/a child it does not matter. The NSA gives the information on the phone to the CIA. From their the phone is bombed by a drone who does not make any effort to know who they are bombing." This quote is the heart of my opponent's argument, and it clearly isn't pertinent to this debate, based off the terms set in my resolution. Drones bombing innocents is not an effective way of stopping attacks, and my resolution calls for an NSA that is effective in stopping attacks. Not only is the example he's using involve killing civilians instead of terrorists, it talks about the terrorists getting away, which can hardly be considered effective. It is an effective way of stopping a terrorist. But it is also a good way to create a lot of civilian casualties also. One reason why the NSA's data mining shouldn't continue. If innocent people are killed in the effort of stopping terrorism, it is not effective enough. "We cannot say the NSA's method solves terrorist problems 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." Here is another example of a statement made by my opponent that is not pertinent to this debate. He is supposed to assume that the NSA is effective, and saying they gather too much information to stop attacks runs directly counter to this. 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. The government acting on the things we have said be it through the phone, texting, emails, Facebook, other types of social networking is infringing on our First Amendment right." "..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.."[1] The First Amendment is about giving people the ability to speak their minds and express their religion. Observing someone when they speak their mind is not the same thing as making laws preventing them from speaking their minds. My opponents argument actually flows to my side. If we cannot let people speak their minds, we have no first amendment. "..unfair, unconstitutional, and not American." Even if the NSA is doing things that are considered by some to not meet these subjective terms, it doesn't matter. As I covered in my first round, certain values cannot take precedence over saving lives. The same applies here. Just because it may not be constitutional doesn't automatically mean it's not right. Certain values can be valued as much as saving lives if the NSA's data mining worked better. I would just like to add, i never said in the previous sentence the NSA doesn't work, just that it could be better. The use of founding principles or major American values in opposing the resolution is ineffective because there are Core Democratic Values that support my position. Like Life and Common Good[2]. What I'm trying to show here is that 'American values' or founding principals should not have a definitive say in this debate due to their contradictions. We need to value the constitutions writings. We as a people cannot ignore the constitution because lives are more important. According to the constitution, Americans have the right right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Two of the three most important parts of the constitution agree with me, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can we have liberty without freedom of speech? How can we have happiness with the government constantly watching us? Sources: 1. http://constitutioncenter.org... 2.https://www.aclu.org... 3.http://www.boston.com...