Parli: This House values life over liberty.

TY, Con! 1A. Con responds, "Simply stating that one must be alive to make decisions does not immediately constitute life being the ultimate value." I have repeatedly pointed out that in order for one to have values in the first place, they need to be alive. Con did not refute this statement. I also pointed out that all values (and rights) are derived from rational, LIVING beings. Con did not refute that either. Additionally, I noted that one must be alive in order to perpetuate their values. Guess what - Con did not refute that either. In short, Con has not refuted my point that all values derive from life. You need to be alive to HAVE values, and you need to be alive to perpetuate those values. Even if you wanted to give your life to perpetuate a value through achieving a goal (i.e. my opponent's suggestion of suicide), you would still be using your life to advance that value thus establishing my claim even further. Con also writes, "She also says that she would argue that even infants have liberty... This shows that Pro agrees that even under her own definition of life, life is not present without liberty." First, just because an infant has liberty does not mean that ALL people have liberty. Some people are enslaved, for example. Nevertheless, even if people were to accept that life was not present without liberty, this in no way proves that liberty is GREATER or more valuable than life itself, hence this is a fail argument. Moving on, Con says, "Through her logic of the Paradox of Freedom [she states] freedom is something we can NEVER be free from." Well, if Con agrees to this standard then essentially she is saying that we are enslaved to our freedom. If we are enslaved to our freedom (as Sartre says) then we are not really free, thereby defeating her whole argument entirely. Moreover, this paradox only establishes that living beings are not free; it does not establish that freedom is greater than life. If anything, it would imply that freedom doesn't exist -- but life does -- thus again only establishing my point. Con continues, "liberty is necessary in order to be living." Indeed I have stated throughout this debate that liberty is NOT a condition of life itself. I have proven that one can be alive and not free, i.e. slaves. So basically, Con just contradicts herself throughout this entire debate. First she says that you can be living and not free (slaves) and then she says that you MUST have liberty if you are living. Well... which is it? These contradictions aside, my whole point about life superseding liberty stands because I've proven endlessly that liberty without life is impossible. 1B. Con says that my point about ruling out religion is lame. What's lame is attempting to expand the parameters of this debate in a desperate attempt at giving your side of a debate credibility. As I've explained, the resolution of this debate reads, "This House values life over liberty." It does NOT read, "This House values a blissful, eternal afterlife over liberty." The resolution itself very specifically refers to LIFE as in life here on earth; not the mere *possibility* of an afterlife. Con's point about religious people believing in an afterlife is completely irrelevant because this debate isn't about an afterlife. Further, Con once again self-defeats her own argument. She says that religious folk believe there is life after death, thus making "life" in the resolution relevant. Well even by those standards, all you have to do is read my other arguments about why life supersedes liberty (Point 1A) and that just negates her argument anyway. 1C. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what Con is talking about in her rebuttal here. Maybe it's the bad grammar that is making her argument incomprehensible (I'm being sincere). I said that you must be alive in order to be free, or to perpetuate your values. Con said that death is freedom; freedom from living. I agreed, though noted that in order to choose death (suicide) one must be alive in order to do so. This confirms my position that life is the ultimate value. As I said in the last round, without being alive you could not choose death. If you do not choose death, you choose life (again making life the ultimate value). This here is the foundation of my point for 1C. Moving on, Con points out that a DNR clause is an example of how one expresses their liberty even as they are dying (in saying they do not want to be resuscitated). That's nice, but unfortunately it in no way, shape or form proves that liberty is greater than life. She says it is THEIR DECISION whether they want to live or die. Um, so what? Yes, it is their decision. That still does not negate my point, nor any of my points about life being necessary or the ultimate value. Could one have made that decision if THEY WERE NOT ALIVE? Answer: nope. In fact, Con actually completely misrepresents liberty in her example. She says that one choosing a DNR proves that they value their liberty (choice) over life itself. That is a faulty way of rationalizing. Sure, one might choose death over suffering, but once again one needs to be alive in order to do so. A similar example would be a mother giving her life to save her child. She would give her life, BUT, giving her life perpetuates her value (of saving her child). So here I have once again demonstrated how one uses their life to further their values - even sacrificing their life in the process - thus making life the ultimate value and defeating Con in this debate. 2. Con continues to assert that liberty is a condition of life. It is not. We have no reason to accept that it is just because (she admits) that it describes "living" in her own subjective, philosophical opinion. 3. In short, I do not have the freedom (or liberty) to steal White House documents though I do have the freedom to try. Yes, we all have the freedom to do things but that does not mean we have the liberty to do it. I could say, "I've taken the liberty of killing your mother." Yes, I performed an action but that does not actually give me the freedom/ liberty/ right to do it. My whole point (which I clarified, and was ignored) is that I'd be willing to sacrifice certain liberties (i.e. the Social Contract -- taxes in exchange for services, for example) , but I would not be willing to sacrifice my life. People sacrifice liberties every day; they do not sacrifice their lives. If they do, they exercised that liberty ONLY on the basis and condition (!!!) that they were alive :) 4. Con writes, "The fact that 'one must MAKE THE CHOICE of suicide' supports my claim again that liberty is valued over life." This is false. Once again, one can exercise their liberty to make that choice; however, they cannot make that choice and exercise their liberty if they are not alive. In short, Con's consistent argument reads, "Therefore in this case liberty is valued over life because in taking this liberty, one no longer has a life." On the contrary, life is valued over liberty because no liberty could have been taken without life. If one chooses death, they have no liberty and no life. However, if one - say, a slave- chose life, then even if they did not have liberty, they would still have life. You are not non-living simply because you are enslaved (in a physical sense), and you are not non-living even if you are enslaved in a philosophical sense (as Sartre explains). Finally (no more characters!) Con says that she is "at a loss" in trying to figure out how I claimed that she conceded to the idea that liberty cannot exist without life. I spelled out very clearly in the last round how I came to this conclusion. Once again, she herself said - and I quote - "total liberty does not exist until we are self-aware." A logic syllogism would easily describe how in order to be self-ware you must be alive, so naturally it follows that you can only have liberty if you are alive. Thank you.