To start off, I'll be taking notes on every argument that is made. Good or bad, sensible or not, I'll write it down. It will be up to the jurors to pick through this information, deciding which arguments are the strongest, most factual, and most convincing.

That being said, there are some aspects of this debate that it's crucial we touch upon. First, how effective is the surveillance that those favoring the "security" side argue for? An argument must not be based on hypotheticals. They should include concrete examples of instances in which surveillance has increased security if they hope to convince the jury that security is more important. However, the privacy side must argue more than just "citizens have a right to privacy." It's widely accepted that 100% privacy isn't possible in our country. But what amount of privacy sacrificed is a reasonable amount? Where is "the line" that determines when privacy is violated?  Additionally, both sides should address the concerns of the other side. Each person has different values, and everyone is comfortable giving up different amounts of privacy. Moreover, what makes one person feel "secure" may not make another feel the same. Thus, it's difficult to craft one policy that pleases the most amount of people. How do we reconcile the opinions of so many people when finding a solution that effects all of them?

It is my thought that the debate will center more around the morals of the statement rather than the legislation. I hope that we discuss what "should" be done, as opposed to what the law may say. However, it will also be important to explore how effective the law has been in preventing privacy violations and promoting security. I'm looking forward to hearing both sides, and copying their arguments into a google doc as fast as I possibly can!