offsets cp -- wave 1

notes
a 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 dont make sense, and the aff says no, its 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 limit
MacMillan Dictionary, 15 (curtail,

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/curtail
curtail 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#committee
The 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 students 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 directiveit 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-stateslike 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 limit
MacMillan Dictionary, 15 (curtail,

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/curtail
curtail 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#committee
The 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 students 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/robinsonneed-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 . Its 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 organizations
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 councils 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 thats 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 Roofs 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
youre 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 nations 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 its not just
a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. Slavery and Jim Crow discrimination cast a long shadow and
thats still part of our DNA thats passed on. Obamas election in 2008 undoubtedly marked a milestone, one I never
dreamed Id live to see. I wrote at the time that it felt like morning in America. What I didnt 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 didnt see that the spectacle of African-Americans in power would apparently lead some
whites to feel powerless, aggrieved and victimized. In the long run, Im 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 dont read the last card)
Iyer 6/19/2015 (Deepa; Charleston Shooting is domestic terrorism;

america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/charleston-shooting-is-domesticterrorism.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 youre 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 AfricanAmerican 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, antiMuslim 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 theres 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
theyve 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- antitopical perms are different because they prove we
shouldnt increase government surveillance.
Substantial requires an expansion of current curtailment
Words & Phrases 64 (40 W&P 759)

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
The words outward, open, actual, visible,

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 existing

Butler 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

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
the representational thesis is tacked on at the end, as one of the "obvious dictates of reason."24 But

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=substantial
Main Entry: substantial 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 substantiality /-"stan-chE-'a-l&-tE/ noun substantially 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 perms 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 dont 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 dont 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. Its the affs burden to affirm that the resolution is a
good idea- untopical perms do the opposite.

answers to answers
offsets edu good- surveillance specific
Surveillance policy is complicated- we need increases in some
areas, and decreases in others
Newswise, 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 isnt 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-pressoffice/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 discussions

Baker 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 -- dont 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 isnt
whether the plan is good or bad, its whether the resolution
as a whole is good or bad. Plans just act as examples of why
its good.
3. The aff has no right to select ground- they cant determine
what CPs are competitive or what Ks or DAs link.

at: cant 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
surveillance
2 - 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 isnt superior

at: forces the aff to defend the status quo

1. Obviously not- the aff has to defend the world post-plan.
2. If its true, its 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- were defending an increase in surveillanceplenty of offense and defense against that.
4. Non-unique- the CP doesnt 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 shouldnt be increased, or if you read defense and
prove theres zero risk of the net benefit, the judge votes neg on
presumption.

at: includes the aff

1 - Not true, excludes curtail -- if the plan doesnt 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 doesnt 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 surveillance
2 - 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 - Doesnt text exclusivity - things like Ban the Plan CP wouldnt
compete because the aff could put not into their perm block
- C - their interpretation encourages vague plan writing to avoid
counterplan debates
3 - CP doesnt 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
everyones 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 isnt a policy in a vacuum, its
an attempt to prove the resolution is true. The plan can be
a good idea, but that doesnt 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 doesnt justify Counterwarrants -- purpose of the CP is to say that the
plan doesnt prove the resolution true.
[AT: Hypotesting]
3 - Hypotesting isnt unique to resolution focus -- plan focused debate
demonstrates conditional advocacies

at: too many possibilities

1 - Isnt 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 attack
Inserra, 6/8/15- research associate in The Heritage Foundations 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-islamistterrorist-plot-ongoing-spike-in-terrorism-should-force-congress-to-finally-confront-theterrorist-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 Bostons 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. Im just going to, ah,
go after them, those boys in blue. Cause, ah, its 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 Rahims 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 higherrisk 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 policymakersall Americans, for that matterto 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-lawenforcement/; 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-theclock 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 doesnt solve- unknown
terrorists inflict the greatest harm
Lewis, 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. Americas failures
in the Middle East have spawned new, aggressive terrorist groups. These groups include
radicalized recruits from the Westone estimate puts the number at over 3,000who 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. Americas 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/robinsonneed-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 . Its 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 organizations
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 councils 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 thats 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 Roofs 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
youre 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 nations 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 its not just
a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. Slavery and Jim Crow discrimination cast a long shadow and
thats still part of our DNA thats passed on. Obamas election in 2008 undoubtedly marked a milestone, one I never
dreamed Id live to see. I wrote at the time that it felt like morning in America. What I didnt 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 didnt see that the spectacle of African-Americans in power would apparently lead some
whites to feel powerless, aggrieved and victimized. In the long run, Im 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-terrorthreat.html?_r=0

THIS 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 antigovernment 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 States 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 dont 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 antigovernment threat has really taken off, whereas terrorism by American Muslim is something we just
havent 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 Dont 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 Academys 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-ableto-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 solutiontracking 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- its the only
objective standard.
Curtail means to reduce
American Heritage, 15 (curtail,

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=curtail
curtail (kr-tl) tr.v. curtailed, curtailing, curtails To cut short or reduce: We curtailed our conversation
when other people entered the room. See Synonyms at shorten.

Reduce means to change forms

Eighth 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 doesnt offset enough- we still result in a net decrease- theres

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 dont 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 its not textually
competitive.
Textual competition is the best standard1. Real world- Congress wouldnt pass 2 bills with the same
words; theyd just pass one or the other.
2. Moots the 1ac- if the counterplan includes the whole aff, its
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 dont 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 rez1. 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 doesnt cause, exploding neg DA ground
so the aff cant keep up.