The Instigator
Spamkybones
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,764 times Debate No: 43193
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Spamkybones

Pro

Resolved: the benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the costs.

Defining terms:
Outweighs... is defined as being more significant than or greater
Surveillance..we define as being a close observation

Contention 1:
Claim: the NSA provides a lot of jobs

Warrant: they have a continuous need for people who have skills in everything from Logistics to Law, Collection to Telecommunications, and Research to Security. Prior investigative experience is not required.

Impact: we should support the NSA because it employs many Americans who would otherwise be not working.

Contention 2:
Claim: the NSA prevents future terrorist attacks

Warrant: "the is in the front of our Information Assurance, from providing hands-on, real-time support to the development of more secure communications, to operating sensors that detect malicious activity, providing expertise in both building and maintaining secure communication, to being a key national leader on cyber defense." Debora A. Plunkett, Information Assurance Director, National Security Agency. Delivers enhancing cyber security, and services that enable customers and clients to secure their networks; trusted engineering solutions that provide customers with flexible solutions.

Impact: our country is much safer because of the monitoring that the NSA does for us...

Contention 3:
Claim: If you have nothing to hide, then you should not be concerned

Warrant: ...most Americans are more worried about their privacy than national security. Those concerns are not as important as protecting the nation from terrorism. If "Big Brother" is watching then it is a good thing. Preventing terrorism in the U.S. is more important than wondering if anyone cares about your internet or cellular phone activities.

Impact: terrorists and criminals are the only ones that should be fearful of the NSA's actions with their observations.
Magic8000

Con

Jobs


This is a really bad argument. If something is wrong, it doesn’t matter if jobs are created. The mafia can also create tons of jobs, but this doesn’t mean what they’re doing should continue.


Terrorism


Terrorist threats aren’t that widespread. You’re more likely to get killed by a deer than a terrorist [1]. Even if the NSA found a terrorist, since the data farming is incredibly huge the probability that it’s a legit terrorist is only a 1 in 10,102 chance [2]. Furthermore, the terrorist plots that the NSA have claimed to prevented showed they played little role [3] [4]. The NSA could easily do surveillance if they had probable cause. Since they are doing mindless data collecting, they are violating the fourth amendment. Finally, terrorists can avoid the NSA. First, it is unlikely that the NSA can crack encrypted messages from programs like PGP, since many cryptographers and mathematicians are trying to do so and there is no evidence that they have succeeded. [5]. Second, one can use a VPN to encrypt their internet traffic making it hidden from their ISP [6]. Even using the free infamous onion router can make it difficult for the NSA. The NSA themselves have said


“We Will Never Be Able to De-Anonymize All Tor Users…..With manual analysis we can de-anonymize a very small fraction of Tor users, however no success de-anonymizing a user in response to a TOPI request/on demand." [6]


If you are using a VPN with Tor with a SOCKS5 proxy with encryption with coded words for phone communication the NSA is virtually irrelevant to a terrorist plot


Hide


The US law is so huge, I have no idea if I have something to hide. Research has shown the average person commits three felonies a day [7]. Daniel J. Solove [8] has argued that this argument is irrelevant. We don’t want someone taking nude pictures of us and publishing our credit card purchasing history with pictures of where we live and work. Not because we’re criminals, but because we care about our privacy.


Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
Spamkybones

Pro

So yes terrorist can avoid it just makes it harder for them and it saves life. From msnbcnews.com The National Security Agency surveillance programs made public this month have helped foil more than 50 terrorist plots since Sept. 11, including one to blow up the New York Stock Exchange, top intelligence officials told Congress on Tuesday. In the stock exchange plot, the NSA used Internet surveillance to find an extremist in Yemen who was in contact with an operative in the United States, said Sean Joyce, deputy director of the FBI.
He said that intelligence agents were able to detect "nascent plotting" to bomb the exchange. So with this the NSA has actually stopped terror. While yes the mafia provides jobs the NSA provides jobs for a good organization. As you can see the NSA has stopped terror. Both of the plots stopped could have been 9/11 sized by NYtimes. We need to use every resource to stop terror. The loved ones that can be affected are so important.
Magic8000

Con

Pro expands his second argument by claiming the NSA has stopped several terrorist plots. I have already shown this is wrong in my previous round. Evidence has shown the NSA played little role in preventing these plans.


“Gen Alexander's testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA's bulk phone records collection program helped thwart 'dozens' of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods," Wyden and Udall said in a statement. "The public deserves a clear explanation."[1]


A member of the presidential task force agrees


“Law professor Geoffrey Stone, a member of the presidential task force charged with reviewing NSA programs, told NBC News the group specifically looked for times when the program may have helped prevent a terrorist attack, but "found none." The task force's final report reflects that, saying:


Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders.” [2]


If a terrorist plot comes to be, it can easily avoid the NSA by doing a little research.


This invalidates Pro’s jobs argument since it hinges on this one. Pro dropped his third argument. Pro has not addressed my argument from the fourth amendment. My position is justified while Pro’s is refuted.



Sources in comments
Debate Round No. 2
Spamkybones

Pro

That's great someone on the task force believes that. However a deputy director of the FBI is more reliable. He said there is no way that the subway system could have been stopped without the NSA. Also again I go back to the fact that this should not be an issue if you have nothing to hide. Newsmax reported that ex director said that the der spiegeleisen story show that NSA is keeping Americans safe. Also BLS.gov reported that unemployment is at 7 percent. Anything we can do to help these people support their families is needed. As I have shown the NSA is good and it is a well paying job.
Magic8000

Con

I have provided a source three times now refuting Pro’s claim. It specifically deals with Pro’s claim of the NSA preventing the subway bomber.


One of the examples Alexander mentioned, the case of would-be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi, appears to have been prevented by conventional police surveillance, including efforts by UK investigators. [1]


Furthermore, court records disprove Pro’s claim


“According to interviews and court records, the 2008 plot failed, not because the authorities broke it up, but because the alleged attackers decided against it.


The Kansas City man’s attorney today said that Joyce’s comments were news to him. Among other things, his client pleaded guilty in 2010 to providing money — $23,000 in “material support” to Al-Qaida. He also pleaded to a count of money laundering and bank fraud, and is set for sentencing next month.” [2]


Pro brushes off the task force’s report. I don’t think Pro understood this. This isn’t some guy who happens to be a part of the task force, he is the guy who is in charge of reviewing NSA programs. This was an official report, not some blogpost he wrote. Joyce is not a valid authority.


“A U.S. official familiar with the case acknowledged that Joyce had "misspoke" about a jury finding. “ [3]


Pro goes onto repeat the “you have nothing to fear” argument. However, he does nothing to respond to my objections from round 1. I have already refuted his argument. Simply providing jobs does not mean we should continue something. You must first demonstrate it is a good organization that should continue its surveillance. Ultimately, Pro’s jobs argument is only valid if he has already proven the resolution of the debate. Making it irrelevant.


[1] http://www.theguardian.com...

[2] http://www.wired.com...

[3] http://abcnews.go.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Spamkybones

Pro

First to start with the subway station yes bombing may have been stopped by police work but first as the guardian reported it was assisted by the NSA. In the fall of 2009, Joyce said, the NSA intercepted an e-mail from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan. That person was talking with someone in the United States "about perfecting a recipe for explosives," he said.
Authorities identified Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi of Denver. The FBI followed him to New York and eventually broke up planning to attack the city's subway system. Zazi pleaded guilty and is currently in prison. That from cnn at an actual later date. So thus using a more recent source I win that argument. Also this happens in the fall of 2009 not sure where he got 2008. Also, there is no way an FBI director is a bad source. How having nothing to fear has anything to do with jobs I'm unsure. His argument says that I have to prove that the NSA is a good organization. I have however no where in the resolution does if say I have to. All it says is that the NSA should continue domestic surveillance. One of the reasons it should is because it provides jobs. Also on the nothing to hide argument. He never attacked this and I'm simply saying that if you have nothing to hide doing be afraid.
Magic8000

Con

Pro says the NSA stopped Najibullah Zazi. However, the evidence says otherwise.

“The Associated Press’ Adam Goldman explained that the NSA program was very likely irrelevant – British intelligence had already identified an al Qaeda email address, and shared that information with U.S. officials. Zazi did, in fact, send an urgent message to that address, which ultimately led to his arrest before he could successfully murder a lot of people.

So, what does this have to do with NSA surveillance, metadata, and PRISM? Given what we know, nothing.

But maybe, the argument goes, British intelligence learned of the al Qaeda email address in the first place thanks NSA programs. Right? No, as it turns out, the address was found on a laptop when a different terrorist was captured in 2009.

It appears, then, that conventional intelligence gathering saved the day” [1]

The case from 2008 was from the NYSE potential bombing, which you dropped. As I showed in my last round, U.S. officials have stated the director misspoke. A member of the task force in charge of the NSA program is much more reliable than some FBI director’s comment.

I never said having something to fear has to do with jobs. Anyway Pro claims I have said nothing about his you have nothing to hide argument. I'm unsure what debate Pro is reading, but I had an entire section on that argument in round 1, which was never objected to. The resolution doesn't say you have to prove the NSA is a good organization, but in order for your jobs argument to be valid, you need to prove that. As I’ve said before, creating jobs is not a good sole reason to continue anything. Crystal Meth cooking could employ thousands of chemists, but it shouldn’t be done. You have to prove the resolution in order for this argument to work.



[1] http://www.msnbc.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Spamkybones

Pro

First on the hide argument. The fact we commit 3 felonies a day is ridiculous. I'm confident that I don't do this along with most of the people I know. On to the jobs argument I actually don't have to prove the agency is good. The topic is that the NSA should continue domestic surveillance. So by providing that it makes jobs I'm proving that it should. The NSA uses the data it collects to help the FBI deal with international terrorist threats, to assist our military in fighting wars, and to help the CIA gain needed information about foreign governments. All of these are critical issues of national security. This proves why it is needed. It saves our lives in many ways while also providing well paying jobs. To prove the necessity of these programs, Sean Joyce, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, described four of the instances in which, under the authority of either Section 215 or Section 702, an attack was thwarted. Two of the cases were previously undisclosed, according to the Guardian newspaper. The examples show a process whereby the NSA's programs detected a suspicious individual within the U.S., and the FBI then moved to identify and investigate that person. That from ibtimes. So with this I show yet again that the NSA has stopped terror. Also somebody that is in charge off stopping terror is more reliable then one of the many many lawyers in this world.
Magic8000

Con

Pro says it’s ridiculous to think we commit three felonies a day. He says he’s pretty sure he doesn’t. The US law code is very, very thick. You can’t be sure. Pro’s rebuttal here is a bare assertion fallacy. The book was written by civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate [1], unless Pro can prove he knows more about law than him, my argument still stands. Furthermore, my second objection to the nothing to hide argument was left untouched. If Pro thinks jobs are a good sole reason for keeping the NSA, then he must be consistent and say the mafia’s actions must be legal. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, Pro keeps ignoring this objection. Pro then goes to claim the NSA helps collect data for anti-terrorist groups. However, I have disproven this time and time again. The government also has a huge history of abusing data collecting. For example, HTLINGUAL[2] COINTELPRO[3] and Operation CHAOS [4] are just to name a few. Sean Joyce has been shown to have misspoke about cases before. Pro then states Joyce is more reliable than one of the many lawyers. The man I quoted wasn’t a mere lawyer. He was in charge -hired by the white house- of reviewing NSA programs for an official report. He would have had access to all the cases.


My position has been justified. As Pro left my argument from the fourth amendment and the second part of my hiding objection untouched. He also ignored my rebuttal to his jobs argument and kept making claims that were shown wrong.



Thanks to all, including the NSA for tracking us through this debate.


[1] http://kottke.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
Good debate I hope I didn't do too badly for my first debate
Posted by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
CNN msnbc
Posted by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
BLS.gov
Newsmax.com
Posted by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
Sources again MSNBCnews.com NYTIMES and washingtonpost
Posted by Spamkybones 3 years ago
Spamkybones
My sources our ny times washington post and last the guardian
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Can I post my sources in the comments?
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Never mind. You fixed it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
SpamkybonesMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more mistakes in his grammar, and con made better arguments. Con was also the only one to use sources, repeatedly at that.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SpamkybonesMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continually displayed poor conduct by implying Con had not answered arguments which was not true, as such conduct points go to Con. Con made more convincing and consistent arguments backed by sources that referenced particular articles. Pro on the other hand referenced only websites as sources. Well done Con a very well deserved win.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SpamkybonesMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were more convincing and sound. Pros arguments were kind of shallow and easily refuted. Con was the only one to use sources