offsets cp -- wave 1

notesa lot of the net benefit stuff (including aff answers to it) are in the terrorism da file (or any updates to it/the overload core that get put out). the aff answers should all come from there, and you can find more neg cards there too. this file was designed to just be the theory/perm blocks.

the theory blocks should basically explain what this argument does, but essentially the cp does the aff and also does something to increase surveillance that has a greater overall effect on the level of surveillance happening. the plan results in a net increase in surveillance. the real question here is just whether perms have to be net topical- the neg says yes because the aff has to affirm the resolution, so perms that prove the resolution is wrong don’t make sense, and the aff says no, it’s just the 1ac plan text that has to be topical.

**neg**

1nc shells

1nc- offsets (policy)1NC CP (policy) – The United States federal government should [do the plan] and substantially increase its domestic surveillance of terrorist organizations.

The plan decreases surveillance. The Counterplan increases surveillance. Any permutation would sever out of the part of the plan that requires a substantial curtailment. Severance destroys negative ground by undermining the ability of any counterplan to compete.

Curtail means to limitMacMillan Dictionary, 15 (‘curtail’, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/curtailcurtail VERB [TRANSITIVE] FORMAL to reduce or limit something, especially something good a government attempt to curtail debate

A substantial curtailment must occur across the board Anderson 5 – Brian Anderson, Becky Collins, Barbara Van Haren & Nissan Bar-Lev, Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services (WCASS) Committee Members. 2005 WCASS Research / Special Projects Committee* Report on: A Conceptual Framework for Developing a 504 School District Policy http://www.specialed.us/issues-504policy/504.htm#committeeThe issue “Does it substantially limit the major life activity?” was clarified by the US Supreme Court decision

on January 8th, 2002 , “Toyota v. Williams”. In this labor related case, the Supreme Court noted that to meet the “substantially limit” definition, the disability must occur across the board in multiple environments, not only in one environment or one setting. The implications for school related 504 eligibility decisions are clear: The disability in question must be manifested in all facets of the student’s life, not only in school.

New surveillance critical to quell terror threats Sulmasy, 13 --- Professor of Law and Governmental Affairs Officer at Coast Guard Academy (6/10/2013, Glenn, “Why we need government surveillance,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy-nsa-snowden/, JMP)The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways. This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "home-grown" terror will necessarily require, by accident or purposefully, collections of U.S. citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest. An open society,

such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures. But what might

have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens.

Terrorist attacks escalate – killing billions Myhrvold 2014 (Nathan P [chief executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures and a former chief technology officer at Microsoft]; Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action; cco.dodlive.mil/files/2014/04/Strategic_Terrorism_corrected_II.pdf; kdf)Technology contains no inherent moral directive—it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient

world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of our present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain access to weapons that are as destructive as—or possibly even more destructive than— those held by any nation-state. A handful of people, perhaps

even a single individual, could have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is possible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man, woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging. Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. The goal of this essay is to present the case for making the needed changes before such a catastrophe occurs. The issues described here are too

important to ignore. Failing nation-states—like North Korea—which possess nuclear weapons potentially pose a nuclear threat. Each new entrant to the nuclear club increases the possibility this will happen, but this problem is an old one, and one that existing

diplomatic and military structures aim to manage. The newer and less understood danger arises from the increasing likelihood that stateless groups, bent on terrorism, will

gain access to nuclear weapons, most likely by theft from a nation-state. Should this happen, the danger we now perceive to be coming from rogue states will pale in comparison. The ultimate response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear counterattack. Nation states have an address, and they know that we will retaliate in kind. Stateless groups are much more difficult to find which makes a nuclear counterattack virtually impossible. As a result, they can strike without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and thus they wield much more effective destructive power. Indeed, in many cases the fundamental equation of retaliation

has become reversed. Terrorists often hope to provoke reprisal attacks on their own people, swaying popular opinion in their favor. The aftermath of 9/11 is a case in point. While it seems likely that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hoped for a massive overreaction from the United States, it is unlikely his Taliban hosts anticipated the U.S. would go so far as to invade Afghanistan. Yes, al-Qaeda lost its host state and some personnel. The damage slowed the organization down but did not destroy it. Instead, the stateless al-Qaeda survived and adapted. The United States can claim some

success against al-Qaeda in the years since 9/11, but it has hardly delivered a deathblow. Eventually, the world will recognize that stateless groups are more powerful than nation-states because terrorists can wield weapons and mount assaults that no nationstate would dare to attempt. So far, they have limited themselves to dramatic tactical terrorism: events such as 9/11, the butchering of Russian schoolchildren, decapitations broadcast over the internet, and bombings in major cities. Strategic objectives cannot be far behind.

1nc- offsets (kritikal)Text: The United States federal government should [do the plan] and substantially increase its domestic surveillance of White supremacist terrorist organizaions.

The plan decreases surveillance. The Counterplan increases surveillance. Any permutation would sever out of the part of the plan that requires a substantial curtailment. Severance destroys negative ground by undermining the ability of any counterplan to compete.

Curtail means to limitMacMillan Dictionary, 15 (‘curtail’, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/curtailcurtail VERB [TRANSITIVE] FORMAL to reduce or limit something, especially something good a government attempt to curtail debate

A substantial curtailment must occur across the board Anderson 5 – Brian Anderson, Becky Collins, Barbara Van Haren & Nissan Bar-Lev, Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services (WCASS) Committee Members. 2005 WCASS Research / Special Projects Committee* Report on: A Conceptual Framework for Developing a 504 School District Policy http://www.specialed.us/issues-504policy/504.htm#committeeThe issue “Does it substantially limit the major life activity?” was clarified by the US Supreme Court decision

on January 8th, 2002 , “Toyota v. Williams”. In this labor related case, the Supreme Court noted that to meet the “substantially limit” definition, the disability must occur across the board in multiple environments, not only in one environment or one setting. The implications for school related 504 eligibility decisions are clear: The disability in question must be manifested in all facets of the student’s life, not only in school.

We need more surveillance to check white supremacist groups Robinson 6/23 (Eugene Robinson - Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, June 23, 2015, The Courier Journal, ‘We need to go beyond speeches and symbols’, http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/06/23/robinson-need-go-beyond-speeches-symbols/29151157/) //JS If American racism were a thing of the past, nine men and women who went to church last Wednesday

evening would be alive. What happened in Charleston is not unfathomable or even ambiguous. It’s a story much older than the nation, a story that began when the first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619: the brutalizing and killing of black people because of the color of their skin. The weekend displays of multiracial unity throughout the saddened city were inspiring, but they

cannot be taken as a sign that the country has moved beyond its troubled racial past. The young man who so coldly killed those innocent worshipers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal

Church did not exist in a vacuum. He inhaled deeply of the race hatred that constantly bubbles

up like foul gas from a sewer. The alleged assassin, Dylann Roof, left behind a manifesto that said he drew inspiration from the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a prominent white supremacist group. The organization’s proudly racist “statement of principles” declares that “the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character” and opposes “all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, describes the council as a modern-day incarnation of the “White Citizens Councils” throughout the South that fought so tenaciously against desegregation during the civil rights era. The council’s membership is thought to be small but its reach is vast, thanks to the Internet. Like hateful jihadists, white supremacists use cyberspace as a bulletin board and a meeting place. Come on in, young Mr. Roof, and let us tell you how those black people and those brown people are responsible for everything that’s going wrong in your life. Some conservatives have been quick to absolve society of blame by pointing out that the Charleston shooter was mentally disturbed. But of course he was mentally disturbed; normal, well-adjusted individuals do not commit mass murder. And the fact is that the Charleston killings were intended to advance a specific cause. To look past Roof’s racism would be like ignoring the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing, believed in a violent, twisted version of Islam. “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country,” Roof reportedly said to his victims before opening fire. This sick narrative comes straight from the Council of Conservative Citizens website, which inflates isolated incidents of black-on-white crime into some kind of race war and portrays the nation’s “European heritage” as being in dire peril. President Obama chose an unusual forum -- a podcast with comedian Marc Maron -- to deliver his most candid remarks to date since the Charleston massacre. Race relations have clearly improved in our lifetimes, he said, but “we are not cured” of racism “and it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public.” Slavery and Jim Crow discrimination cast “a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” Obama’s election in 2008 undoubtedly marked a milestone, one I never dreamed I’d live to see. I wrote at the time that it felt like morning in America. What I didn’t fully appreciate at the time was the extent to which the mere fact of a black family living in the White House would, at least in the short term, heighten racial anxieties and conflicts. I didn’t see that the spectacle of African-Americans in power would apparently lead some whites to feel powerless, aggrieved and victimized. In the long run, I’m an optimist. But a post-racial future will not just appear. There is urgent work to do. By all means, South Carolina, get rid of the Confederate flag, which has become an emblem of the white supremacist movement. The flag first flew over the statehouse in Columbia in 1961, not 1861; it was essentially an act of defiance, a raised middle finger toward a federal

government that was forcing the end of Jim Crow. But we need to go beyond speeches and symbols. Law enforcement should subject white racist organizations to the same surveillance and scrutiny as groups devoted to jihad. Governments at all levels should enforce fair housing and employment laws as vigorously as they enforce the Patriot Act. Police departments and court systems must be compelled to administer justice equally -- with African-Americans, too, considered innocent until proven guilty.

Right-wing terrorists are racist af (if the aff has a racism impact, retag this and don’t read the last card)Iyer 6/19/2015 (Deepa; Charleston Shooting is domestic terrorism; america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/charleston-shooting-is-domestic-terrorism.html; kdf)A gun rampage. A hate crime. An act of domestic terrorism. The shooting deaths of nine people in the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on Wednesday night must be characterized as all three. While we await further information about the suspect, Dylann Roof, and as we mourn with the families of the victims, it is

important that we categorize this tragedy accurately. Roof, apprehended by police on Thursday, is a 21-year-old white man. Before he opened fire on a group of adults and children who had gathered for Bible study, Roof apparently told the congregation, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have got to go.” According to his roommate Dalton Tyler, he had planned something like this attack for six months. “He was big into segregation and other stuff,” Tyler told ABC News. “He said he

wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill

himself.” The Charleston shooting is a violent act of racial hatred, intended to terrorize and intimidate black people . It exists on the alarming spectrum of other acts of hate in places of worship, including the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963; the spate of arsons against African-American churches in the late 1990s in the South; the anti-Semitic graffiti regularly sprawled on the walls of synagogues and murders at Jewish community centers; the burning of Korans and throwing of Molotov cocktails at mosques; the vandalism of Hindu temples; and the 2012 shooting of six Sikh

worshippers at a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, by a white supremacist. Indeed, acts of

violence are perpetrated regularly in this country, on the streets and in places of worship, and on the basis of racial bias, sexual orientation, religious bias, ethnicity, disability, gender bias and gender identity. Annual

reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

sketch a national landscape filled with hate crimes against people, including assaults and homicides, and property, including vandalism to places of worship or cross-burnings. The BJS reports that the percentage of hate crimes involving violence increased from 78 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2011 and 2012. Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking the organized activities of anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-Muslim and anti-government “patriot” groups, many of which are forming in response to changing American racial demographics, immigration patterns and the election of a black president. They are motivated by the belief that the balance of power will shift away from white Americans — a sentiment apparently

voiced by Roof when he said “you are taking over,” before opening fire at the church. These domestic right-wing hate groups should not be taken lightly. Their ideologies of white supremacy and white nationalism are seeping into mainstream political activity and rhetoric, and influencing “lone wolves” who are committing the majority of hate violence in the country.

Racism should be the impact filter for this debate Barndt 91 (Joseph R. Barndt co-director of Ministry Working to Dismantle Racism "Dismantling Racism" p. 155)To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and

limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison of racism confines us all , people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our

separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled . We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to

teardown, once and for all, the walls of racism. The danger point of self-destruction seems to be drawing even more near. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent aggression , of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return . A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege from the sufferings of vast majority of peoples of all color.

For the sake of the world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.

2nc/1nr blocks

at: perms

at: perm do the cp

1. Mutually exclusive with “curtail”- they need to be a net reduction in overall surveillance- prefer definitional support. Calling for a decrease in current levels of surveillance means there’s something happening now that they have to decrease from. [would we insert definitions here, or in the 1nc?]

2. Proves the resolution is insufficient- arguing we should reduce surveillance in some areas, but not overall means they’ve failed to affirm the resolution and you should vote neg.

3. Perms have to be net-topical- perms against other CPs or Ks are extra topical- they prove resolutional action is good, but that we can do other good things at the same time- anti-topical perms are different because they prove we shouldn’t increase government surveillance.

Substantial requires an expansion of current curtailmentWords & Phrases ‘64 (40 W&P 759)The words outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive, in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially

the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine;

certain; absolute; real at present time , as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.

Its means existingButler ‘8 (Annemarie-, April, Hume Studies, “Natural Instinct, Perceptual Relativity, and Belief in the External World in Hume's Enquiry”, Vol. 34 # 1, Project Muse)DTA concludes from perceptual relativity that the visual perception of the table is caused by and resembles an externally existing table. One

might try to hold that the representational thesis is tacked on at the end, as one of the "obvious dictates of reason."24 But it seems clear that the possessive pronoun "its " in the description of the perception ("its image") is intended to refer to the externally existing table . So the phenomenon of perceptual relativity is somehow supposed to lead to the conclusion that there exist perceiver-independent objects over and above perceiver-dependent perceptions, where the latter are caused by and resemble the former.

Substantial means having importance.Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=substantialMain Entry: sub·stan·tial Pronunciation: s&b-'stan-ch&l Function: adjective 1 a : of or relating to substance b : not illusory : having merit <failed to raise a substantial constitutional claim> c : having importance or significance : MATERIAL <a substantial step had not been taken toward commission of the crime —W. Railroad LaFave and A. W. Scott, Junior> 2 : considerable in quantity : significantly great <would be a substantial abuse of the provisions of this chapter —U.S. Code> —compare DE MINIMIS —sub·stan·ti·al·i·ty /-"stan-chE-'a-l&-tE/ noun —sub·stan·tial·ly adverb

The permutation severs out of substantial by rendering it a meaningless term. A substantial curtailment has literally no meaning if the aff can advocate a decrease of any amount, a change, or an increase in surveillance

at: perm do the plan then cut other things

1. The perm’s intrinsic- it adds the element of delay. Intrinsic perms are a voting issue- they make every CP or K competitive and allow the aff to isolate contrived net benefits to perms that the neg can never beat.

2. Delay DA- the threat from [insert whatever the internal net benefit it] is time sensitive- the risk increases every moment we don’t ask.

3. Functionally the same as perm do both- distinctions are arbitrary and the perm still results in a net decrease- all our answers to perm do both apply.

at: perms don’t have to be topical

Our interpretation is that perms have to be net topical- perms against Ks or other CPs prove we should do things in addition to resolutional action, not that we should do the opposite of the resolution. It’s the aff’s burden to affirm that the resolution is a good idea- untopical perms do the opposite.

answers to answersoffsets edu good- surveillance specific

Surveillance policy is complicated- we need increases in some areas, and decreases in othersNewswise, 2013- quotes Neil M. Richards, a privacy law expert and professor of law at Wash U (12/19/13, “Spot-on NSA ruling rightfully questions effectiveness of phone surveillance, says privacy law expert,” accessed: 6/26/15 in lexis, fg)"It's exactly the sort of information that should require a warrant before the government obtains it." Richards was struck by Judge Leon's willingness to question whether this surveillance program was

effective. "All too often over the past decade we've seen politicians, judges, and citizens take the government at its vague word that surveillance is useful without asking the hard questions about how useful particular kinds of surveillance are, and what we are losing in exchange," he says. "Asking hard questions may seem disrespectful or like it is getting in the way of officials doing their job, but it is essential. In a democracy, the people (and their elected and appointed representatives) have a duty to ask what the government is doing in their name, and what the costs of those actions are."The

Snowden revelations started a conversation in this country and around the globe about what kinds of government surveillance are appropriate in a democracy, and I think this case (which will likely end up in the Supreme Court) will be an essential part of that conversation. Richards says that it is unfortunate that the spectre of terrorism has caused most people to be highly deferential to any question of national security at the same time that the digital revolution is permitting kinds of surveillance that would have been politically and technically impossible as recently as fifteen years ago. "It's also revealed -as Judge Leon noted- that many of our legal rules and precedents presuppose a non-digital, analog world," Richards says. "I'm hopeful that our conversation about these questions will produce not just lihe mtigation but legislation that is tailored to our new technologies.

These new laws should allow government surveillance where it is appropriate, but place meaningful constraints on the government's ability to peer into the lives

of ordinary people. These sorts of issues are exactly why we have laws - a set of rules that allow the government limited powers to do its job, but which protect the vital civil liberties our system of self-government is supposed to cherish."

Offsets tests the core controversy in the resolution- how much surveillance is too much, and how much isn’t enough? McManus, 2013- former editorial writer at the New York Post (Bob McManus, 6/12/13, “Terror & Surveillance Of balance - and trust,” accessed: 6/26/15 in lexis, fg)Today's enemies don't wear uniforms, an unremarkable observation except for what it implies: namely,

that effective self-defense in these high-tech times necessarily brings fundamental American privacy principles into conflict with the need to protect against threats of a perhaps near-existential nature. How much surveillance is too much, and how much is not enough? Certainly, Edward Snowden's revelations have re-energized a debate that had been on low boil; for better or for worse, it will proceed at its own pace. For better, because such matters are always worth discussing. For worse, because too many participants long ago decided that prospective anti-terrorism policing may be acceptable in principle, but never in practice - and many of them find the relatively benign efforts of the NYPD to be particularly offensive. Some are slippery-slopeists - folks for whom surreptitious police work of any sort is the same as climbing into that handbasket to hell. Others just hate the police. They resent

authority, or they believe cops are stupid and venal and not to be trusted. And still others object because Ray Kelly and his intelligence division - acting entirely within the law, and with specific approval from a

federal judge - have been searching in the city's Islamic community for Islamist threats. Resentment

of such attention is understandable, but is it reasonable? Where else are the cops to look? Or should they not be looking in the first place? Yet that track would

essentially leave counterterrorism to the same national-security apparatus that -

despite multiple warnings from the Russians - was caught flat-footed in Boston on Patriots' Day. A reasonable wariness of the power of the state is wise, even

necessary. And none of the prejudices listed above are totally unreasonable. But

taken in their totality, they amount to pernicious nonsense - and a prescription for inactivity that most New Yorkers, steeped in 9/11, probably would find unacceptable if they fully understood the potential consequences. As it is, the national

debate over Snowden, the National Security Agency and related issues is occurring in the context of an equally urgent examination of egregious privacy abuses within the Internal Revenue Service, and a growing public awareness of just how intrusive the Obama administration's health-care program is going to be.

“How much” is the central question of the resolution Ball 13 (James Ball - leading data journalist and editor at the guardian, lecturer at City University of London, and published "WikiLeaks: news in the networked era", and "The Infographic History of the World", http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-us-press-office/james-ball-joins-guardian-us-office) //JS In the case of phone records – who you call, when, for how long, but not the contents of the messages – that means collecting data on every customer of the networks, which then sits unexamined until there's a reason to look for a particular individual. For the intelligence agencies, this avoids a frustration: when the NSA want to know more about a person, they can get the appropriate authorisation (for a US citizen, a secret court order; for foreigners, far less) and obtain their history, their associates, and their location from the data. This prevents a previous frustration: by the time the NSA or intelligence bodies identified

a suspect, their previous phone data (and more) had already been wiped. Mass surveillance and storage solves a real problem. So too, of course, would a camera in every home; a bug in every computer. The question becomes: how much is too much? When it comes to metadata, the defences are simple: the information collected is basic; your data almost certainly won't ever be looked at; and even if it is, unless you're a terrorist, it'll be completely innocuous. None are necessarily that satisfying. One example that's been cited for the significance of metadata runs like this. Location records obtained from phones show the following people have been at a certain address: Person A made a short visit, and then a few days later returned for four hours. Person B spends eight hours at the address, on a Saturday. Person C spends 10 hours at the address each day. Person D visits for a short period, weekly. In this hypothetical, the address is an abortion clinic. A has had a consultation followed by an abortion. B works at the clinic, C is a protester, and D is a trans person who needs to visit regularly for hormones. Even a single piece of basic location detail can reveal some of the most sensitive secrets a person may have. The affair of the former head of the CIA, General David Petraeus, was revealed through email metadata. Metadata is also the "signature" of signature strikes – enough information to authorise a fatal drone strike. Metadata matters. What might be found within yours? It might not take much for the NSA to seek an order to pull up your information: a misdialled call from an overseas terror suspect; a misfiring algorithm suggesting you're acting oddly; an acquaintance from 10 years ago who's now up to

something shady. The intelligence services are working to get information to prevent potential atrocities. That's a serious task, and so collection is important. What could be in your records that help that? Phone calls with a pot dealer, evidence of file sharing, or more, are all things that generally intelligence agencies would ignore. But if you're caught in the dragnet, even wrongly, they could be applied as pressure to get your co-operation. Either could be enough to begin a process ending in a lengthy prison sentence. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. But everyone has a few little secrets. Mass collection ensures that intelligence agencies have the skeletons in everyone's closets stored away in case they ever become useful. That's without even going into the free speech implications of large-scale surveillance. We talk differently when we're being watched: after all, who talks about their job in exactly the same way when their boss is in the room and listening? This is just what one small aspect of the NSA's activities revealed over the course of a week. In time, we may know more. But

this is the debate the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden wanted to start. What's being collected, what's allowed under the law, and how much is being done? Scrutiny so far has been limited: some question whether senators understand the full extent of what's permitted under anti-terror laws they have passed, given the technical knowledge needed to know what is possible. Others worry some congressmen fear to vote in any way which could have them painted as soft on security. Others point to generous campaign contributions from large security contractors – with no comparably generous donors in the privacy lobby. Snowden's hope is that

debate gets wider, more details, more informed, and moves the public. Perhaps one of the most famous historical quotations on surveillance is attributed to the brutal French 17th-century clergyman and politician Cardinal Richelieu. "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man," he wrote. "I would find something in them to have him hanged." The NSA, we now know thanks to Snowden's leak, collects more than 200bn pieces of intelligence from computer and phone networks every month. How many could Richelieu hang with that?

CP vital to surveillance discussionsBaker 98 (Garry Baker - former international relations and U.N correspondent for Herald and Weekly times, Technology editor at The Age (Melbourne), October 10, 1998, The Age, Every move you make, someone is watching you; Be careful: in the electronic information age, your personal life may not be your own, and the right to privacy may be the victim. Just ask Monica Lewinsky, Lexis, //js) The wired-up world is beginning to look like a spyfest at the height of the Cold

War - there are eyes and ears everywhere. And, in most cases, there is nowhere to hide. In the modern digital age, everyone leaves electronic footprints and fingerprints wherever

they go - physically or in cyberspace. Monica Lewinsky discovered that when technicians easily retrieved from her Pentagon computer copies of e-mails she had sent to President Clinton. Never mind that she had hit the delete button on her mail browser; the messages remained on the hard disk and, indeed, at several points on the Internet where they had been stored, then retransmitted to the Oval

Office. But surveillance doesn't stop with computers. Networks such as Telstra and Optus can track and record the position of mobile phones; data can be traced as it moves over local and wide-

area networks; and any Internet service provider could, if they chose, keep track of every site visited by any of their subscribers. Many companies keep track of telephone numbers dialled by their employees. Stockbrokers, for instance, do it so that verbal deals cannot later be denied. Even the keystrokes you make on your computer keyboard and the movements you make with your mouse may be remotely tracked and recorded. One software surveillance system, by Omniquad, is available for just a few dollars as shareware on the Internet. If you use an automatic teller or an Eftpos machine, the transaction is recorded. If you use a swipe card to gain access to a part of the building where you work, that entry is recorded. Couple that with the usual surveillance video camera and you're a fly in a web. Faxes can be monitored remotely, so don't bother making a trip to the shredder. Someone

else may already have a copy. Now legislators in Australia and elsewhere are asking how much of this surveillance is acceptable and whether new laws are needed to protect individual rights. The transducers that will be used to digitally pay tolls on the CityLink expressways and tunnels record a car's passage under the sensor rails. But they could, equally well, be used to track a vehicle anywhere with no more trouble than setting up a system of video-surveillance cameras similar to that used by VicRoads to keep an eye on the state's traffic lights and roads.

at: 2ac additions

1 - Stable aff advocacy key -- alternative kills strategy and makes it impossible to be negative 2 - No justification for changes -- don’t privilege unprepared teams 3 - Infinitely regressive -- justifies subtractions in the 2NC -- turns their plan focus and breath over depth key args 4 - If you spot them this, they accept our interpretation of theory -- means reject them on aff conditionality, (severance and/or Intrinsicness)

at: aff right to select ground is destroyed

1. Nope- they chose their ground, the status quo plus the plan.

2. The resolution determines ground- the core question on the topic is whether we should curtail domestic surveillance or not. Increasing or maintaining levels of surveillance is neg ground. The question in debate isn’t whether the plan is good or bad, it’s whether the resolution as a whole is good or bad. Plans just act as examples of why it’s good.

3. The aff has no right to select ground- they can’t determine what CPs are competitive or what Ks or DAs link.

at: can’t quantify overall level

1 - Net benefit proves this is untrue - CP demonstrates large increase in surveillance 2 - Double Bind - either the aff cannot prove they are substantial increase, and we win on T or the CP results in the same increase as they curtail 3 - Hold the CP to the same standard as the aff - no precise numerical values for Substantial increase -- rough measures are the best estimate

at: curtail =/= net curtailment

1. Yes it does- the aff has to prove that a reduction in overall surveillance is more desirable than the status quo. Any risk we need to increase surveillance from status quo levels disproves thesis of the resolution and means you vote neg.

2. Their interpretation destroys neg ground- it makes affs that just change how surveillance works while maintaining existing levels topical, which takes out all core neg ground based on a reduction in surveillance.

3. Yes it does- extend the 1nc Anderson 5 evidence from the 1nc- the word curtail means a decrease across the board. That means the plan, or the perm, needs to result in a net decrease in curtailment.

at: depth over breadth

1 - The CP increases depth - the core question is “how much” domestic surveillance2 - Depth inevitable - every debate discusses some facet of the topic 3 - False depth - their form of debate results in discussions of minutia -- like how many senators backlash against the plan -- causes stale debate and kills discussions about actual surveillance policy 4 - Breath good -- key to argument innovation and better research skills 5 - If the affirmative cannot defend themselves against “Surveillance good” args -- like the CP -- then their education isn’t superior

at: forces the aff to defend the status quo

1. Obviously not- the aff has to defend the world post-plan.

2. If it’s true, it’s their fault- the impact of their plan is too small to prove that the resolution as a whole is a good idea. A bigger aff could leverage against offsets by proving that an overall reduction in surveillance is good.

3. No impact- we’re defending an increase in surveillance- plenty of offense and defense against that.

4. Non-unique- the CP doesn’t force them to defend the status quo, the nature of politics does. Obviously no policy changes every aspect in the status quo.

at: forces us to debate ourselves

Fundamentally untrue- you beat offsets by beating the internal net benefit- you can win offense against it, proving that type of surveillance shouldn’t be increased, or if you read defense and prove there’s zero risk of the net benefit, the judge votes neg on presumption.

at: includes the aff

1 - Not true, excludes “curtail” -- if the plan doesn’t curtail vote neg on T. 2 - No impact to this

- Structural side biases, infinite prep, and large topic mean CPs which include the aff are core negative ground

- Clear affirmative offense - impact turning the net benefit, or defending the thesis of the resolution

at: narrow logic

1 - This is untrue -- the question of how much surveillance should be curtailed is the center of this debate - just because resources are centered on the bigger picture doesn’t make them insufficient 2 - Aff could curtail surveillance in different categories, results in expansion in topic areas being covered

at: not textually competitive

1 - The counterplan textually competes with the word “curtail” -- CP results in a net increase in surveillance2 - Textual competition is a horrible standard --

- A - its infinitely regressive - no brightline -- changing the order of letters could compete - leading to artificial explosion of negative ground which makes debate impossible

- B - Doesn’t text exclusivity - things like Ban the Plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff could put “not” into their perm block

- C - their interpretation encourages vague plan writing to avoid counterplan debates 3 - CP doesn’t lessen the amount of surveillance -- reject any permutation on T 4 - CP sets the best standard - their interpretation makes debate into a game of scrabble - kills topic specific education - prefer debates regarding nuanced approach to surveillance policy

at: offense = arbitrary/self-serving

1. So are their arguments against the CP- obviously everyone’s specific points support their overall position.

2. Not true- our argument is based on the role the resolution plays in determining the topic of debate. Logically, the team affirming the resolution needs to prove that it represents a good idea by providing specific examples of how. Saying the opposite of the resolution is core neg ground.

at: pics bad

PICs are good--

1. Resolutional testing- the plan isn’t a policy in a vacuum, it’s an attempt to prove the resolution is true. The plan can be a good idea, but that doesn’t mean topical action as a whole is.

2. Real world policy-making- the question the CP asks would be part of a policy discussion about domestic surveillance. Excluding it because it does the aff would be arbitrary and ignores part of the topic.

3. Side-bias checks- they get the first and last speech and time to refine their 2ac blocks.

4. Competition determines legitimacy- if we win the CP is mutually exclusive with the plan any theoretical objections to it are contrived.

at: resolution focus bad

1 - No difference -- plan focus is only a subset of the resolution 2 - CP is plan focused -- judge is questioning the desirability and topicality of the plan 3 - Duality is best -- Resolution focus results in better understanding of specific policy issues surround surveillance, no loss in the advantages of plan focus

[AT: Counterwarrants] 2 - CP doesn’t justify Counterwarrants -- purpose of the CP is to say that the plan doesn’t prove the resolution true.

[AT: Hypotesting] 3 - Hypotesting isn’t unique to resolution focus -- plan focused debate demonstrates conditional advocacies

at: too many possibilities

1 - Isn’t true - default to specific Net Benefit - the CP focuses on core aspects of surveillance 2 - Reciprocal -- “infinite” number of programs the affirmative could curtail 3 - Lit checks -- only a limited number of things the neg could increase that have substantial lit basis 4 - They should be prepared anyway -- they can read any number of DAs to increasing surveillance, which the aff should be prepared to debate given their burden to be topical

net benefit

new surveillance good

Note

Use the impact from the terror DA/Core files

1nc -- terror (vs. policy)

New surveillance critical to quell terror threats Sulmasy, 13 --- Professor of Law and Governmental Affairs Officer at Coast Guard Academy (6/10/2013, Glenn, “Why we need government surveillance,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy-nsa-snowden/, JMP)The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways. This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "home-grown" terror will necessarily require, by accident or purposefully, collections of U.S. citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest. An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures. But what might

have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens.

2nc - surveillance good

The threat from terrorist groups is only growing- increased domestic surveillance is the only way to prevent an attackInserra, 6/8/15- research associate in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy (David Inserra, 6/8/15, “69th Islamist Terrorist Plot: Ongoing Spike in Terrorism Should Force Congress to Finally Confront the Terrorist Threat,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/69th-islamist-terrorist-plot-ongoing-spike-in-terrorism-should-force-congress-to-finally-confront-the-terrorist-threat, accessed: 6/29/15, fg)On June 2 in Boston, Usaamah Abdullah Rahim drew a knife and attacked police officers and FBI agents, who then shot and killed him. Rahim was being watched by Boston’s Joint Terrorism Task Force as he had been plotting to behead police officers as part of violent jihad. A conspirator, David Wright or

Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq, was arrested shortly thereafter for helping Rahim to plan this

attack. This plot marks the 69th publicly known Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland since 9/11, and is part of a recent spike in terrorist activity . The U.S. must redouble its efforts to stop terrorists before they strike, through the use of properly applied intelligence tools. The Plot According to the criminal complaint filed against Wright, Rahim had originally planned to behead an individual outside the state of Massachusetts,[1] which, according to news reports citing anonymous government officials, was Pamela Geller, the organizer of the “draw Mohammed” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas.[2] To this end, Rahim had purchased multiple knives, each over 1 foot long, from Amazon.com. The FBI was listening in on the calls between Rahim and Wright and recorded multiple conversations regarding how these weapons would be used to behead someone. Rahim then changed his plan early on the morning of June 2. He planned to go “on vacation right here in Massachusetts…. I’m just going to, ah, go after them, those boys in blue. Cause, ah, it’s the easiest target.”[3] Rahim and Wright had used the phrase “going on vacation” repeatedly in their conversations as a euphemism for violent jihad. During this conversation, Rahim told Wright that he planned to attack a police officer on June 2 or June 3. Wright then offered advice on preparing a will and destroying any incriminating evidence. Based on this threat, Boston police officers and FBI agents approached Rahim to question him, which prompted him to pull out one of his knives. After being told to drop his weapon, Rahim responded with “you drop yours” and moved toward the officers, who then shot and killed him. While Rahim’s brother, Ibrahim, initially claimed that Rahim was shot in the back, video surveillance was shown to community leaders and civil rights groups, who have confirmed that Rahim was not shot in the

back.[4 ] Terrorism Not Going Away This 69th Islamist plot is also the seventh in this calendar year. Details on how exactly Rahim was radicalized are still forthcoming, but according to anonymous officials, online propaganda from ISIS and other radical Islamist groups are the source.[5] That would make this attack the 58th homegrown terrorist plot and continue the recent trend of ISIS playing an important role in radicalizing individuals in the United States. It is also the sixth plot or attack targeting law enforcement in the U.S., with a recent uptick in plots aimed at police. While the debate over the PATRIOT Act and the USA FREEDOM Act is taking a break, the terrorists are not. The result of the debate has been the reduction of U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities, meaning that the U.S. has to do even more with less when it comes to connecting the dots on terrorist plots.[6] Other legitimate intelligence tools and capabilities must be leaned on now even more. Protecting the Homeland To keep the U.S. safe, Congress must take a hard look at the U.S. counterterrorism enterprise and determine other measures that are

needed to improve it. Congress should: Emphasize community outreach. Federal grant funds should be used to create robust community-outreach capabilities in higher-risk urban areas. These funds must not be used for political pork, or so broadly that they no longer target those

communities at greatest risk. Such capabilities are key to building trust within these communities, and if the United States is to thwart lone-wolf terrorist attacks, it must place effective community outreach operations at the tip of the spear. Prioritize local cyber capabilities. Building cyber-investigation capabilities in the higher-risk urban areas must become a primary focus of Department of Homeland Security

grants. With so much terrorism-related activity occurring on the Internet, local law enforcement must have the constitutional ability to monitor and track violent extremist activity on the Web when reasonable suspicion exists to do so. Push the FBI toward being more effectively driven by intelligence. While the FBI has made high-level changes to its mission and organizational structure, the bureau is still working on integrating intelligence and law

enforcement activities. Full integration will require overcoming inter-agency cultural barriers and providing FBI intelligence personnel with resources, opportunities, and the stature they need to become a more effective and integral part of the FBI. Maintain essential counterterrorism tools.Support for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and

combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism operations does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In

the American system, the government must do both equally well. Clear-Eyed Vigilance The recent spike in terrorist plots and attacks should finally awaken policymakers—all

Americans, for that matter—to the seriousness of the terrorist threat. Neither fearmongering nor willful blindness serves the United States. Congress must recognize and acknowledge the nature and the scope of the Islamist terrorist threat, and take the appropriate action to confront it.

New surveillance critical to quell terror threats Sulmasy, 13 --- Professor of Law and Governmental Affairs Officer at Coast Guard Academy (6/10/2013, Glenn, “Why we need government surveillance,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy-nsa-snowden/, JMP)The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our

citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways. This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "home-grown" terror will necessarily require , by

accident or purposefully, collections of U.S. citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest. An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures. But

what might have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens.

2nc- isis

Only expanding surveillance solves ISIS threat Perez and Prokupecz May 30 (Evan and Shimon; FBI struggling with surge in homegrown terror cases; www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/fbi-isis-local-law-enforcement/; kdf)The New York Police Department and other law enforcement agencies around the nation are increasing their surveillance of ISIS supporters in the U.S., in part to aid the FBI which is struggling to keep up with a surge in the number of possible terror suspects, according to

law enforcement officials. The change is part of the fallout from the terrorist attack in Garland,

Texas earlier this month. The FBI says two ISIS supporters attempted a gun attack on a Prophet Mohammad cartoon contest but were killed by police. One of the attackers, Elton Simpson, was already under investigation by the FBI but managed to elude

surveillance to attempt the foiled attack. FBI Director James Comey told a group of police officials around the country in a secure conference call this month that the FBI needs help to keep tabs on hundreds of suspects. As a result, some police agencies are adding surveillance teams to help the FBI monitor suspects. Teams of NYPD officers trained in surveillance are now helping the FBI's surveillance teams to better keep track of suspects, law enforcement officials say. Why ISIS is winning, and how to stop it NYPD Commissioner William Bratton has said he wants to add 450 officers to the force's counterterrorism unit, partly to counter the increasing domestic threat posed by ISIS sympathizers. The same is happening with other police departments around the country. The Los Angeles Police Department's counterterrorism unit is also beefing up its surveillance squads at the request of the FBI, law enforcement officials say. Comey said at an unrelated news conference Wednesday that he has less confidence now that the FBI can keep

up with the task. "It's an extraordinarily difficult challenge task to find -- that's the

first challenge -- and then assess those who may be on a journey from talking to doing and to find and assess in an environment where increasingly, as the attorney general said, their communications are unavailable to us even with court orders," Comey said. "They're on encrypted platforms, so it is an incredibly difficult task that we are enlisting all of our state, local and federal partners in and we're working on it every single day, but I can't stand here with any high confidence when I confront the world that is increasingly dark to me and tell you that I've got it all covered," he said. "We are working very, very hard on it but it is an enormous task." On Saturday, an FBI spokesman said the bureau doesn't have a shortage of resources and the Garland attack wasn't the result of lack of surveillance personnel. If agents had any indication that Simpson was moving toward an attack, they would have done everything to stop it, the spokesman said. The appeal for local help isn't intended to seek more surveillance, but more broadly to encourage local law enforcement to increase vigilance given the heightened threat, the FBI said. The Garland attack prompted a reassessment for FBI officials. Simpson's social media and other communications with known ISIS recruiters drew the FBI's interest earlier this year. The Americans linked to ISIS FBI agents in Phoenix began regular surveillance of Simpson, though it was not round-the-clock monitoring, according to a U.S. official. The agents watching

Simpson noticed he disappeared for a few days. Investigators looked into his communications and found social media postings making reference to the Garland cartoon contest. That discovery is what prompted the FBI to send a bulletin to the joint terrorism task force that was monitoring the Garland event. The bulletin arrived about three hours before the attack. Comey told reporters this month the FBI had no idea Simpson planned to attack the event or even that he had traveled from his home in Phoenix to Texas.

at: can still surveil terrorists

Surveillance of known terrorists doesn’t solve- unknown terrorists inflict the greatest harmLewis, 2014- Director and Senior Fellow of the Strategic Technologies Program at CSIS with a PhD from the University of Chicago (James Andrew Lewis, December 2014, “Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate,” http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf, accessed: 6/29/15, fg)The echoes of September 11 have faded and the fear of attack has diminished. We are reluctant to accept terrorism as a facet of our daily lives, but major attacks—roughly one a

year in the last five years—are regularly planned against U.S. targets, particularly

passenger aircraft and cities. America’s failures in the Middle East have spawned new, aggressive terrorist groups. These groups include radicalized recruits from the West—one estimate puts the number at over 3,000—who will return home embittered and hardened by combat. Particularly in Europe, the next few years will see an influx of jihadis joining the

existing population of homegrown radicals, but the United States itself remains a target. America’s size and population make it is easy to disappear into the seams of

this sprawling society. Government surveillance is, with one exception and contrary to

cinematic fantasy, limited and disconnected. That exception is communications surveillance, which provides the best and perhaps the only national-level solution to find and prevent attacks against Americans and their allies. Some of the suggestions for alternative approaches to surveillance , such as the recommendation that NSA only track “known or suspected terrorists,” reflect both deep ignorance and wishful thinking. It is the unknown terrorist who will inflict the greatest harm.

1nc -- terror (vs. k)

We need more surveillance to check white supremacist groups Robinson 6/23 (Eugene Robinson - Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, June 23, 2015, The Courier Journal, ‘We need to go beyond speeches and symbols’, http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/06/23/robinson-need-go-beyond-speeches-symbols/29151157/) //JS If American racism were a thing of the past, nine men and women who went to church last Wednesday

evening would be alive. What happened in Charleston is not unfathomable or even ambiguous. It’s a story much older than the nation, a story that began when the first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619: the brutalizing and killing of black people because of the color of their skin. The weekend displays of multiracial unity throughout the saddened city were inspiring, but they

cannot be taken as a sign that the country has moved beyond its troubled racial past. The young man who so coldly killed those innocent worshipers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal

Church did not exist in a vacuum. He inhaled deeply of the race hatred that constantly bubbles

up like foul gas from a sewer. The alleged assassin, Dylann Roof, left behind a manifesto that said he drew inspiration from the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a prominent white supremacist group. The organization’s proudly racist “statement of principles” declares that “the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character” and opposes “all efforts to mix the races of mankind.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, describes the council as a modern-day incarnation of the “White Citizens Councils” throughout the South that fought so tenaciously against desegregation during the civil rights era. The council’s membership is thought to be small but its reach is vast, thanks to the Internet. Like hateful jihadists, white supremacists use cyberspace as a bulletin board and a meeting place. Come on in, young Mr. Roof, and let us tell you how those black people and those brown people are responsible for everything that’s going wrong in your life. Some conservatives have been quick to absolve society of blame by pointing out that the Charleston shooter was mentally disturbed. But of course he was mentally disturbed; normal, well-adjusted individuals do not commit mass murder. And the fact is that the Charleston killings were intended to advance a specific cause. To look past Roof’s racism would be like ignoring the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing, believed in a violent, twisted version of Islam. “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country,” Roof reportedly said to his victims before opening fire. This sick narrative comes straight from the Council of Conservative Citizens website, which inflates isolated incidents of black-on-white crime into some kind of race war and portrays the nation’s “European heritage” as being in dire peril. President Obama chose an unusual forum -- a podcast with comedian Marc Maron -- to deliver his most candid remarks to date since the Charleston massacre. Race relations have clearly improved in our lifetimes, he said, but “we are not cured” of racism “and it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘nigger’ in public.” Slavery and Jim Crow discrimination cast “a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on.” Obama’s election in 2008 undoubtedly marked a milestone, one I never dreamed I’d live to see. I wrote at the time that it felt like morning in America. What I didn’t fully appreciate at the time was the extent to which the mere fact of a black family living in the White House would, at least in the short term, heighten racial anxieties and conflicts. I didn’t see that the spectacle of African-Americans in power would apparently lead some whites to feel powerless, aggrieved and victimized. In the long run, I’m an optimist. But a post-racial future will not just appear. There is urgent work to do. By all means, South Carolina, get rid of the Confederate flag, which has become an emblem of the white supremacist movement. The flag first flew over the statehouse in Columbia in 1961, not 1861; it was essentially an act of defiance, a raised middle finger toward a federal

government that was forcing the end of Jim Crow. But we need to go beyond speeches and symbols. Law enforcement should subject white racist organizations to the same surveillance and scrutiny as groups devoted to jihad. Governments at all levels should enforce fair housing and employment laws as vigorously as they enforce the Patriot Act. Police departments and court systems must be compelled to administer justice equally -- with African-Americans, too, considered innocent until proven guilty.

2nc - white supremacist

White supremacists are the largest threat -- need more surveillance Kruzman and Schanzer June 16, 2015 (Charles and David; The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat; www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0THIS month, the headlines were about a Muslim man in Boston who was accused of threatening police officers with a knife. Last month, two Muslims attacked an anti-Islamic conference in Garland, Tex. The month before, a Muslim man was charged with plotting to drive a truck bomb onto a military installation

in Kansas. If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States. But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists . Just ask the police. In a survey we

conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism. The self-proclaimed Islamic State’s efforts to radicalize American Muslims, which began just after the survey ended, may have increased threat perceptions somewhat, but not by much, as we found in follow-up interviews over the past year with counterterrorism specialists at 19 law enforcement agencies. These officers, selected from urban and rural areas around the country, said that radicalization from the Middle East was a concern, but not as dangerous as radicalization among right-wing extremists. An officer from a large

metropolitan area said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism. One officer explained that he ranked the

right-wing threat higher because “it is an emerging threat that we don’t have as good of a grip on, even with our intelligence unit, as we do with the Al Shabab/Al Qaeda

issue, which we have been dealing with for some time.” An officer on the West Coast explained that the “sovereign citizen” anti-government threat has “really taken off,” whereas terrorism by American Muslim is something “we just haven’t experienced yet.” Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing

one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement. These individuals on the fringes of right-wing politics increasingly worry law enforcement officials. Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal

investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout

notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.” Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half

years. In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie

Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012. Other data sets, using different definitions of political violence, tell comparable stories. The Global Terrorism Database maintained by the Start Center at the University of Maryland includes 65 attacks in the United States associated with right-wing ideologies and 24 by Muslim extremists since 9/11. The International Security Program at the New America Foundation identifies 39 fatalities from “non-jihadist” homegrown extremists and 26 fatalities from “jihadist” extremists. Meanwhile, terrorism of all forms has accounted for a tiny proportion of

violence in America. There have been more than 215,000 murders in the United States since 9/11. For every person killed by Muslim extremists, there have been 4,300 homicides from other threats. Public debates on terrorism focus intensely on Muslims. But this focus does not square with the low number of plots in the United States by Muslims, and it does a disservice to a

minority group that suffers from increasingly hostile public opinion. As state and local police agencies remind us, right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America.

Surveillance prevents Charleston like situations - senator Graham Krayewski 6/19 (Ed Krayewski - M.S. in journalism from Columbia and former editor for Fox News and Fox Business, June 19, 2015, Lindsey Graham: ‘Being Able to Track People, Put Them Into Systems’ One Way to Prevent Mass Shootings, Jun. 19, 2015, Reason, http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/lindsey-graham-being-able-to-track-peopl) //JS The mass shooting at an AME church in Charleston, S.C., Wednesday night perpetrated by a white man who confessed he was trying to start a race war has led to the predictable emotional appeals to old party lines, from gun control to more salvation and less government, especially in a 24 hour news cycle. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), who's running for president, says his niece attended school with

Dylann Roof, and that he seemed like an "Adam Lanza" type. While Graham didn't refer to other

seemingly obvious motivations, like trying to start a race war, he did offer a solution that matches the response to radical Islamist terrorism more closely policy-wise, if not rhetorically. Graham's comments, via CBS News: "I bet there were some indicators early on that this guy

was not quite there. Just being able to track people - put them into systems where they can be deterred or stopped. But it's very complicated in a nation of 300 million people where you have freedom of movement and freedom of thought. 300 million of us and unfortunately every now and then, something like this happens. And we'll see." The perceived treatment of white suspects as mentally ill "lone wolves" by the media where non-white suspects are treated as terrorists and thugs is a common complaint in the wake of mass shootings by white men. Lindsey Graham goes both ways here, using the lone wolf rhetoric, offering a counter-terrorism solution—tracking people in systems, and then almost dismissing it as the price of free society. Were Dylann Roof interested in joining ISIS, Lindsey

Graham would be ready to blow him up just for thinking the thought. For a government looking to

get people to trade more liberty for the promise of more security and looking to expand its domestic policing and surveillance apparatuses, it's easy to acquiesce to demands

Roof and the threat of white supremacist terrorism be treated more like the threat of radical Islamist terrorism. And such demands make it harder to realize that the threat posed by free people, white or non-white, Christian, Muslim, whatever, is exaggerated and exploited toward the end of more surveillance, more policing, at home and abroad, and more control.

**aff**note: you should probably put the answers to the net benefit between perms/theory args to make it easier for the judge to flow.

offsets cp

2ac- offsets cp

Perm do the CP- CPs must be textually competitive- it’s the only objective standard.

Curtail means to reduceAmerican Heritage, 15 (‘curtail’, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=curtailcur·tail (kər-tāl ) tr.v. cur·tailed, cur·tail·ing, cur·tails To cut short or reduce: We curtailed our conversation when other people entered the room. See Synonyms at shorten.

Reduce means to change formsEighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1992- (10/22/92, “CLEVELAND INDUSTRIAL SQUARE, INC. Et Al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CLEVELAND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Appellant and Cross-Appellee,” accessed: 6/26/15 in hein online, fg) “Incineration" means to incinerate. Webster's New World Dictionary (1983) 306. "Incinerate" means "to

burn to ashes; to burn up." Id. "Reduction" means to reduce. Id. at 501. "Reduce" means "to

lessen," or "to change to a different form." Id

Perm do both

Offsets CPs are bad -- 1 - Steals the aff - mutes the entirety of the 1AC and makes it impossible to generate offense 2 - Education - the CP discourages forces a shallow understand by prioritizing many discussions of random programs over detailed discussions of the plan 3 - Resolutional Debate focus bad justifies Counterwarrants which artificially expands affirmative research burden making debate unfair

CP doesn’t offset enough- we still result in a net decrease- there’s no way to quantify how much individual policies affect overall levels of surveillance.

[insert offense/defense to the internal net benefit]

1ar- perm do both

Permutation do both --1 - CP spots us a reason why we should do the aff and increase surveillance programs 2 - Perms don’t have to be topical -- Affirmatives would always lose to CPs that “do the plan” and an untopical action like feeding Africa 3 - Solves the net benefit - the permutation leads to a decrease in the net curtailment of the plan

1ar- perm do the cp/textual competition good

Extend perm do the CP- the CP is plan-plus. It includes all the words in the plan text, which means it’s not textually competitive.

Textual competition is the best standard-

1. Real world- Congress wouldn’t pass 2 bills with the same words; they’d just pass one or the other.

2. Moots the 1ac- if the counterplan includes the whole aff, it’s impossible for us to get offense against it.

3. Best brightline- functional competition is totally subjective- textual competition is the only objective standard.

at: perms have to be net topical/resolutional focus

Perms don’t have to be net topical. The debate should be a question of whether the plan is good or bad, not the resolution as a whole. We just have to win that the plan text as of the 1ac are topical.

Plan focused debate is better than having each round test the whole rez-

1. Depth of education- plan focused debate still means we talk about the whole topic; we just do it on a deeper level over the course of the season.

2. Forces the aff to defend the status quo- allows for contrived DAs that the plan doesn’t cause, exploding neg DA ground so the aff can’t keep up.