Current LD Topic: When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.

I apologize for my not submitting my previous round. I did not realize how quickly time would pass and didn't get around to it. Moving on,My opponent writes, "I did not say they didn't need each other or could survive without each other."Please see http://dictionary.reference.com...Conflict: "to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash:"If they are disagreements, contradictory, variance, in opposition or clash, they are mutually exclusive.So yes, when you wrote, "When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security" you very much indicated that they could survive without each other.Then you wrote, "Also definitions will be given in the Constructive" after stating: "I meant than if they wre(sp) in conflict, which one should be valued higher?"Again, you have repeated the same and a correction of the terminology, "conflict" to "preference" was not made. Your quote from Mandela indicates no preference for economic security or personal freedom given that if one has no economic security, one's personal freedom however vast, is incapable of making money. Your definition of personal freedom included the following: travel, justice, private property, opinion, expression, and felt (sp) conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public. (emphasis mine)You have already indicated a preference for economic stability with the bolded text. You are giving deference to all the other rights that are possessed by the "others and of the public." Some of those rights, although not explicitly stated, must include their own freedom of travel, private property, and so on. In an environment where there is no economic security, one cannot have a claim of private property and one cannot obtain methods of travel.Your definition of economic security was: "a stable source of financial income that allows for the on-going maintenance of one's standard of living currently and in the near future."If one does not have income (something that requires economic security), how can one maintain private property; how can one feed themselves such that they can have any of the other rights previously mentioned?You quote John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest oppressors of liberty in order to bolster your claim to support liberty? You write that liberty is, "the right to do whatever the person wants that does not hurt or infringe on another's rights."On February 2, 1961, Kennedy requested that Congress infringe on other people's rights using the threat of force and kidnapping to: steal money from people to pay for those that didn't work for it, steal money to give to children whose parents didn't earn it, steal money from people to give to his friends in construction, steal money from future generations so that people could retire earlier, prevent employers and employees from coming to a voluntarily acceptable wage, and steal money to give to people who had made bad investments in grain farming.http://en.wikipedia.org...I wouldn't quote a source that was such a great denier of liberty as Kennedy to claim it as your value.You write, "The people in the USA thought it was unfair because they didn't send a representative to figure out the taxes as usual so the people didn't know which taxes were raised."This is a very poorly written and inaccurate statement. First, it was the people in the colonies that thought poorly of the taxation without representation. Second, in a group of diverse human opinions, not everyone will agree upon everything, so even with "representation" there would be some that would not be represented. Thirdly, it wasn't about not knowing what taxes were raised, everyone that was effected by the taxes knew which taxes were raised, it's the reason that they were upset. You contend that personal freedom upholds liberty. I concur with that, yet again you cite a struggle by rich white oppressors who overthrew rich white oppressors in order to establish dominance over their own region, not a struggle for liberty. The founders of the USA did end up providing more liberty than ever seen before, but it was a far cry short of true liberty.Using Gaddafi's attacks on the educated as evidence of education's promotion of liberty is a non-sequitur. I will simply accept that someone that is educated may have more skills by which to detect and repel their own oppression, leading to more liberty. You state, "An educated public is an essential ingredient of a free society."This is false. The society of the aboriginal Australians were not particularly well educated, but they were quite free. This is primarily because they had few oppressors."Education is vital to achieve true liberty." This is subject to the "true Scotsman informal logical fallacy." If I mention any argument to point out that education is not necessary, as in the case of the Aborigines, you can say, but that's not TRUE liberty.http://en.wikipedia.org... You claim that "Economic Security Harms Liberty" then proceed to cite an oppressive regime's economic growth, not their economic secuirty. Not only that, you then show that the economic growth has resulted in the "[liberation of] millions of people from poverty." Poverty harms liberty. Without means to eat or own a vehicle, one cannot have the liberty of travel you mentioned.You dismiss that and more with a simple, "however [it's] still a communist country," and a some comparison with other countries in the region which do better and somehow claim that economic security harms liberty. China's economic security and growth has created more liberty for their citizens. The only reason that the other nations have happier populations within their borders is because they have MORE economic security and more liberty. Again, you are making a non-sequitur. Economic security did not cause the oppression of the Chinese, an abusive government did. Again, I apologize for not posting in the alloted time on the previous section, but I suppose my initial post was in all likelihood more verbose and an argument than it was supposed to be. I guess I'll have to make sure I learn how these debates are formatted, and most certainly I'll have to ensure that I am responding faster as the rounds come up.Thank you for the challenge.