Resolved: we must remove the patrioct act

I thank Con for his arguments. Rebuttals: 1. "Stops terrorism" I believe Con hasn't read point number 6 in the previous round? There I made it clear that "The PATRIOT Act has actually not stopped any attacks". This was actually admitted by the NSA spokesperson. 2. "Enhances security" The good effects of the Act stated by Con are not unique to the PATRIOT Act. Normal police databases and Interpol actually have that function too. We do not need something that intrudes on everyone's privacy to "protect" businesses by offering them security that they can get elsewhere. 3. "Saved lives" While Con manages to give two examples in which the Act has saved lives, let us be reminded that should there be preparer evidence, the FBI, NSA or police can actually get a court warrant and spy on selected targets to protect lives through proper and legal channels. 4. "Find ways to eliminate some of the things patriot act has access to" Con says here that the PATRIOT Act should be altered instead of removed completely. However, Con seems to be not aware that the major problem is the core of the PATRIOT Act-the violation of privacy. The PATRIOT Act allows the spying of telephone calls of every single American citizen, which is why people feel that their privacy has been violated. Removing this violation of privacy would actually be removing the entire Act, since this collection of data is what the entire Act is about. 5. "Even if you remove the patriot act privacy and violations will still be a problem since the NSA will still be active." True, but does that justify an evil? Would you say that ISIS should not be pursued because even if it is removed, terrorism will still be a problem? This type of logic doesn't work. What the PATRIOT Act is condoning is the violation of privacy. In order to establish a world where human rights are truly protected, the PATRIOT Act has to be removed. My response to Con's rebuttals: 1. Privacy Privacy isn't about having nothing to hide. It's just like how stealing isn't about having nothing to be stolen. You cannot say that there is not problem with a thief stealing from you simply because you have no valuables. The act itself, not including the consequences, is illegal and should not be condoned. 2. "Patriot act has supervision" I suggest Con to reread point 5 in Round 2. NSA agents have been clearly violating their power. Concerning it being "impossible" to be spied on 24/7, I must stress that it is not. Being spied on 24/7 doesn't mean that a team of agents are dressed in camouflage and hiding in the bushes with binoculars spying on a person. These scenes only happen in movies. Spying 24/7 can be a machine tapping your phone non-stop, or a bug planted in your house. These things are machines, and they can carry on for months not just days. 3. I see that Con has failed to rebut my points here. 4. "hackers" I am unsure as to how Con imagines the PATRIOT Act can stop hackers. Also, just because all databases are at the risk of being hacked doesn't mean that we should create an ultra-large one to increase the incentive. Additionally, The PATRIOT Act's databases contain the information of every single civilian, not that of terrorists in CIA bases, and so hackers will want to get their hands on the information there more. This is because terrorist information is useless to them, while bank account numbers and addresses people give via phone when communicating wight heir bank or ordering a pizza delivery are more useful to them. 5. "may use info for tracking lovers ,selling info." Let Con be reminded that this is not "may', but rather "do" or "has". These have happened and there is concrete proof; a Senate investigation proved that. Secondly, Con's point about major websites not releasing information is invalid. The PATRIOT Act mainly targets phone data such as calls and messages, not internet browsing. 6. "didn't stop Boston bombing/not needed for one attack" I see that Con has failed to give examples but merely figures. Also Con has ignored my points about the PATRIOT Act having actually stopped zero attacks. 7. "Since there has only been 1 major attack since 9/11 counter terrorism tools like the patriot act are working" As mentioned previously, the PATRIOT Act stopped no attacks. Other attacks that were prevented were stopped through other methods, such as drone-bombing terrorist strongholds before terrorists can take action. 8. "What my opponent is saying is that since the patriot act failed once it is done but that is unrealistic. " I don't understand this statement so I am looking forward to Con's elaboration and explanation through a comment or message. What is meant by "failed once it is done"? I am unclear as to the meaning of this. Here I will reiterate my points: 1. Privacy Con has failed to respond to this point. While Con says that "the benefits of lives outweighs privacy", I do not think that this thought applies to the PATRIOT Act. There are many other proper ways to prevent crime or terrorism without using the PATRIOT Act and without deploying secret intelligence on civilians, such as obtaining a court warrant and selecting target individuals. 2. Government's Role and Freedom of the Press I see that Con has failed to respond to these points 3. Not as efficient as thought Con has only picked out one sentence from the four paragraphs of arguments that I gave. Con has failed to respond to the PATRIOT Act being inefficient due to over-collection of data, the core of the point. 4. It violates trade principle Again, Con has failed to respond to this point. Con has stated how the PATRIOT Act can enhance security, but he has not given a proper response concerning how the PATRIOT Act violates the trade principle of promoting fair trade, which is the core of the point. Conclusion: The PATRIOT Act not only violates the basic right of privacy, a human right; but also infringes on trade principle, freedom of press and twists government's role. It provides an opportunity for data theft and abuses the power of the government. Lastly, it is inefficient. The PATRIOT Act has failed to stop any attacks and actually makes it harder to find the criminals within the may innocent civilians. Thus, this act should be removed. References: http://www.washingtonsblog.com... (Also references used in Round 2)