Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

First I would like to attack my opponents case and then rebuild my own. My Opponent stated in their case that "Surveillance does not prevent terrorism" and goes on to talk about terrorist plots. I have evidence that a recent plot that had been foiled by the NSA, a man in Yemen was contacting a Kansas City man, helping him execute a domestic terrorist attack in New York. The Kansas City man had been caught. With the surveillance of the NSA on calls made to and from other countries to the United States the NSA was able to stop this from happening. The Kansas City man had planned to bomb the New York Stock Exchange, that would more than likely disable the country and affect the economy. Thanks to the NSA we are still going now. (Evidence: . http://foxnewsinsider.com... ). To further go into detail with the NSA surveillance and terrorist plots I would like to bring up the advancement in technology. "Advancing technology also makes it easier for terrorists to kill large numbers of people in single attacks, even absent potential attacks with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The new attacks, changing communications technologies, and the possibility of more advanced weapons meant that the government had to step-up its game in order to reduce the risk of another terror attack. The post 9/11 surveillance measures are designed to take these changes into account. " (bauscharddebate. com) Would my opponent not agree that to prevent more attack that what the NSA is doing and have been doing since the PATRIOT Act has been in place is working as best as they can with the laws that they have? What the NSA is doing is watching those with contact to known terrorists/ terrorist states. This being if you are not in contact with either than you have nothing to worry about. The government is trying to detect crimes before they happen, would it not be safer to do it this way? The NSA is not breaking the fourth amendment if they think you are going to commit a crime. Lets think of it this way, a few civil rights, if being broken, are better to give up than your life. The NSA is trying to do their job to protect us. The truth being debating over this and putting the NSA on the news is only hurting ourselves. The NSA can not answer questions when they are trying to keep us safe. If you have an issue with the NSA looking over your calls, texts, tweets, or status updates then they have reason to believe you are trying to hide something. National security is essential, always has been always will be. The resolved talks about current surveillance measures and that if there is another significant terror attack that the NSA can stop then what they are going will outweigh the harms it may be causing. My opponent brings up the possibility of over-sight failing. First I would like to bring up that 22 NSA workers are authorized to go and look through information collected. If and only if they have a warrant. The NSA's program is totalitarian. I disagree, If the NSA is anything it is utilitarianism, it is bringing the country together to protect itself. As I brought up in my first speech, what the NSA is doing is completely constitutional, The NSA has rules to abide by. With PRISM and the PATRIOT Act nothing has been broken law wise and never will be. Washington post on July 30th, 2013 wrote "On May 26,2011, the House passed the 2011 Patriot Sunset Extension Act , which reauthorized section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the provision that underlies the NSA's telephone metadata program. The house approved the bill by a 97-vote margin, with 196 republicans voting in favor. " So not only did Congress know about the NSA program they created it, to keep us safe and to keep everyone at peace.