do you think the government spying on us is a very sufficient way of finding "terrorists"

Although it may be unsatisfying for the government to spy on our devices, there is a great benefit out of said action that makes up for the lack of showing privacy. The government (as you state in the resolution) spies on us so that they may know what sort of terrorism is being planned in the U.S.A. I am going to be arguing that it is more important to make sure terrorists do not create major problems in the future than to make sure that those with devices are getting privacy. I will be leaving you with two questions to consider: 1. Is it really worth having a second 9/11 or mini Holocaust just so people can have their privacy? I believe it is not. If we have government officials spy on us through devices, the chance that they will catch a terrorist red-handed will be increased. If not, terrorism will occur more often and will increase. The government needs to know if someone is planning to form a terrorist party similar to that of the well known ISIS. People will then get murdered and tortured hideously more often then they already do. I don't want this to happen. 2. How can we be so sure that just some average citizen is not a terrorist? You could be a terrorist, the guy who lives next to me could be a terrorist, etc. The government needs to make sure that certain people are not terrorists. After all, not every terrorist has to be your stereotypical thug with a ski mask. A terrorist could be a psychopathic 17 year old with a gun who (for inserted reason) wants to kill people. The government cannot know for sure who is and isn't a terrorist who may be planning something horrible unless they spy on citizens. I also have a few rebuttals for your argument. " when i take a photo, i don't want it to be analysed at the government , i don't want to feel the pressure. imagine capturing a bad picture , and then they saw it and u feel paranoid ." You wouldn't feel paranoid if you aren't a terrorist. If you are not a terrorist, then they wouldn't share your information on media or news. They are not interested in a bad photo taken by someone. The government makes sure that a citizen like you doesn't even KNOW that they're being spyes on. But you wouldn't find out because a) they are secret about their work and b) they are uninterested in your bad picture. But if you are a terrorist (I am not saying you are), then you deserve to be spied on. Bottom line: Either way you slice it, you either are unaware of being spied on, or you simply deserve it. If the government were to share the information where other citizens can know about, that would be unfair. But they are completely uninterested in bad pictures. "your phone, laptop, radio is yours and the government has no right to spy on us ." Kind of like how terrorists don't have the right to kill people. If the government chooses to be nice, then terrorists will break WORSE laws. If they productively spy on us to decrease terrorism and prevent big attacks like 9/11, they are breaking a law, but are doing more right than wrong. See my rebuttal above for clarification. Whether they spy on us or not, lies are going to be broken. And like I said, bad things will not come out of the government spying on you in terms of embarrassment. You won't even know when a government official is spying on you. And even if it was that big of a deal, we still need to decrease and slow down terrorism, which is MUCH worse. I would like my opponent to talk about terrorism in his next argument, since he mentions it in the resolution, and doesn't even argue about it. I would like you to consider my rebuttal as a challenge for you to step up your argument. I feel as though you haven't fully justified why it's not necessary for the government to be spying on us. Your point may be a little bit convincing, but is weak and should be expanded on. It was quite easy to rebut your argument, so I would like you to add on to your argument.