Privacy is more important than security because honestly who would want a multi-billion dollar company snooping at who they called last tuesday at 8pm. also a lot of people feel comfortable with privacy and also security can go together with privacy just not in the same way no privacy goes with security also privacy IS actually security (encryption)

My opponent explicitly admits they 'don't know how to balance' this issue, relying entirely on emotional reactions to minor threats like package thieves. But sacrificing fundamental rights out of temporary fear is a dangerous trap. Localized safety doesn't require destroying privacy in fact, undermining privacy actually destroys security. Creating surveillance backdoors or weakening encryption to monitor people makes everyone vulnerable to hackers and abuse. True safety cannot exist without privacy.

The OPPONENT explicitly concedes my core argument on corporate snooping and admits they cannot logically support their own case. Basing societal policy on an unbacked 'gut feeling' triggered by fear is a dangerous trap. Sacrificing fundamental rights every time 'things get scary' doesn't create real safety it creates permanent surveillance based on temporary panic. Because the OPPONENT has surrendered the substantive argument and offered zero evidence, the FOR case clearly stands.