Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page16/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   75

2AC Advantage Frontlines

2AC Inherency

  1. Ext our 1ac Washington Post and ACLU evidence- it is impossible for their authors to know the extent of federal government surveillance, our evidence states that most of this surveillance happens through fake companies set up by the FBI. Additionally, their evidence just states that Obama has required the FBI to disclose the location of drone operations, no where in this evidence does it state that the FBI will need warrants, which is the premise of the 1AC

  2. Their Washington Times evidence only states that the FBI promises not to conduct warrantless surveillance. However, there is still no legal guarantee that they will not. Cross-apply our 1AC inherency evidence,

2AC Inherency- ANSWERS TO: Obama Regulations

Obama’s directive on drones is too vague and does not fully regulate their use


Levin 2015- Alan, Bloomberg, “Obama Drone Policy Gives FBI Leeway on Privacy Decisions” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-17/obama-drone-policy-gives-fbi-leeway-to-decide-what-s-private

The White House’s attempt to set privacy policies for government agencies using drones doesn’t go far enough for civil-liberties advocates in the U.S.¶ President Barack Obama’s directive on how unmanned aircraft may be used to gather information on citizens is too vague and lacks protections such as getting a judge’s permission before using drones for surveillance, said Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.¶ “That’s simply not strong enough, given how invasive drones can be,” Guliani said in an interview.¶ As aviation regulators struggled to find a way to govern the flood of drones in U.S. skies, law enforcement agencies including the FBI began using the new technology before government-wide policies could be written. Obama tried to correct that on Sunday, issuing a directive that sets limits on how unmanned aircraft may be used by federal agencies to gather information on people. While the White House said government drones must be used lawfully and “consistent with the Constitution,” civil-liberties advocates are zeroing in on another phrase in the directive: Gathering information on drones may only be done for an “authorized purpose.” “The guidance is pretty vague and doesn’t act to restrict what law enforcement can use drones for.” Guliani said.

2AC Civil Liberties

1. Extend our Foster and Petro evidence- life is not worth living without basic freedoms and a guarantee of privacy. Totalitarianism robs us of our individual worth. This answers their Cummisky evidence. A consequentialist framework presumes that each life being weighed is said to have equal and unique worth, however absent the affirmative, individuals do not have unique worth since the state does not regard the life of its citizens as an end in itself, but a means to national security.




  1. Even if there are other instances of invasion of privacy we will win that drones are particularly harmful – our ACLU evidence states that routine aerial surveillance will alter the very character of American life since citizens will be perpetually watched. The routine, persistent, and inconspicuous nature of drone technology makes it different from other forms of government intrusion

3. Our evidence does state that FBI surveillance can occur without a warrant- cross apply our 1ac Washington Post and ACLU evidence, because drones can fly overhead without detection they can monitor areas of an individual’s home without explicit permission

2AC Credibility

  1. Reject their heg bad evidence- Hass only assumes the possibility of nuclear conflict. However, our Zhang and Shi evidence is in the context of conventional wars- even if a nuclear war does not occur, a shifting power balance paired with collapse of U.S. regional influence will cause conventional conflicts in the interim resulting in deaths on a large scale

  2. Their global warming evidence does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of our impact- prefer our Mazo evidence, he has a PhD in climatology and makes predictive claims about anthropogenic warming, they have to prove that he is also utilizing the same flawed warming data their evidence refers to

  3. There are no alternate causalities- our 1AC EFF evidence states that civil and privacy rights are the bedrock of every other human rights guarantee- the U.S. cannot be a model for human rights abroad if we compromise on our principles at home

  4. There is an internal link- their 1NC stokes evidence is in the context of the NSA, extend our 1AC ACLU and Rand evidence drones are especially bad for privacy rights

  5. Extend our Petro evidence- they can win every other argument on this flow and still lose the debate- all we have to do is win that the affirmative prevents the violation of civil liberties in one instance to win the debate

2AC Innovation

  1. There is an impact to food insecurity- prefer our 1AC evidence states that the prospect alone could cause conflict- as countries feel food insecure they will either stat wars to divert public attention away from food shortages or start them to gain resources

  2. Drone innovation is not inevitable- extend our 1AC evidence, the commercial drone industry is still at a beginning stage. To ensure that innovation and investment continues, key privacy concerns must be resolved first

  3. The Drone industry is not resilient- our evidence indicates that public opinion forms the basis of all legislation that curtails the use of commercial drones




2AC Solvency

  1. Piloted aerial surveillance does not pose the same risks to privacy as drone surveillance- extend our congress.gov evidence, the plan allows for the commercial and civilian uses for drones that their evidence refers to, it merely requires that a warrant be issued if the government wants to conduct specific investigations.

2. The plan is the best compromise between an outright ban of drones and unfettered drone usage. By requiring warrants, the plan shores up U.S. credibility and ensures the protection of key privacy rights while securing the beneficial aspects of drones.





Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review