Resolved: Stability and Security is more important than Personal Freedom.

Pro affirms that stability and security is more important than personal freedom, and it is his BoP is to prove this statement. As Con it is my job to negate (deny the truth of) Pro's statement, thus I must prove Pro's resolution false. Thus, I affirm that stability and security (SaS) is not more important than personal freedom (PF). I can negate Pro's resolution in a # of ways: Proving that SaS and PF are equally unimportant (Nihilism) Proving that PF is more important than SaS (Ethical Egoism) Proving that SaS and PF are equally important (Utilitarianism) Analysis of Pro's argument: "My first and only observation is that the pursuit for stablity and security may have imperfections, but it is not my burden to defend the system, only the intent of that system. " The word important is concerned with the consequence of actions, not the intent of actions. Thus it is your burden to defend the system, not the intent of that system. " 1st argument boiled down: P1) Stability and Security stops terrorism P2) Terrorism results in economic damage and human deaths P3) Stability and security stops economic damage and human deaths ( C1) Thus stability and security is more important than personal freedom ) While Pro makes a decent opening argument, it suffers from many problems 1) It has the unspoken assumption that human life is important and worth saving. While I agree with this assumption Pro has provided no reasons as to why human life is important. One could make the argument that every living person has died, so why is it important that people died in terrorist attacks? 2) Assuming that saving human lives is important, this argument only proves that stability and security is important, but fails to explain how it is more important than personal freedom 3) This was an example of limited surrendering of personal freedoms to maintain stability and security, it fails to describe nations and governments that value SAS over PF and enforce stability and security at the major expense of the common people's personal freedom . 2nd argument: P1) Stability and Security impacts every single member of society. P2) Only individuals benefit from their personal freedom C1) Thus people should give up some of their personal freedom to ensure stability and security Analysis: 1) Every society is composed of individuals, thus the relinquishing of personal freedoms effects all citizens, not just a single individual 2) In the case of terrorism, only a small # of people die from terrorist attacks In summary, Pro's argument suffers from assumptions, limited examples, non sequitur logic, and ultimately fails in proving that SaS is more important than PF, only proving that SaS and PF are both important Negative Case: Nihilism: Nihilism is the belief that nothing has objective meaning and there is no objective truth To quote Frederich Nietzsche, " "Every belief, every considering something-true,is necessarily false because there is simply no true world. " (Will To Power) P1) Every belief is false P2) The statement "SaS is more important than PF" is a belief C1) Thus the resolution "SaS is more important than PF" is false. Ethical Egoism Ethical egoism is the belief that things that benefit oneself is morally good. From an Evolutionary and biological standpoint the purpose of life for an individual is to survive and reproduce. Anything that benefits an individual leads to a person's survival and chances of reproduction. P1) Benefiting oneself is morally good P2) Personal freedom grants individuals the ability to benefit oneself P3) Pro is proposing to curtail PF to increase stability and security, reducing people's ability to benefit themselves C1) Thus increasing stability and security is morally wrong. Positive Case: (My job is to disprove Pro's case not prove mine) With criticizing Con's case I move to build my own case. My case: Resolved: Stability and Security are equally important to Personal Freedom. I propose that a balance between stability, security, and personal freedom must be obtained by the governments of nation states in order to ensure its citizens are safe and happy. The sum of my argument is declared in Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". At its most basic, life is the biological process that allows organisms to survive. The human experience of life, however is much more than simple survival. Humans think, experience emotions, work, play, and love. People don't live just for the sake of surviving, but for the experience of living. Stability and security allows people to survive and to avoid pain, while liberty allows for people to experience things and be happy. Not only does a balance of stability, security, and personal freedom allows for a person's life to be safe and free, but it also saves more lives than when stability and security is valued above Personal Freedom. A prime example of a nation that values SaS over PF is the People's Republic of China. In 1989, the Tiananmen Square Protests occurred, which was organized by Chinese students in order to expand personal liberties, such as democratic reforms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and decreased corruption. The Chinese Government saw these protests as a threat to stability and security in China, and they brutally massacred 241"3,000 people and injured 7,000-10,000 people, and denied all other Chinese people these personal freedoms by brutally subduing the movement. 10 years later the Chinese government persecuted the followers of Falun Gong because the CPC saw it as a threat to stability and security. It has been reported that Falun Gong members were sentenced to brutal forced re education programs, which included illegal arrests, forced labor, systematic torture, psychological and physical abuse, killings. and organ harvesting. "As of 2009 at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been tortured to death in the persecution campaign. " "Ethan Gutmann estimates 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008. " The Chinese government has also committed atrocities against the Tibetan people in the name of purging ". "the three evils of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism," All of these things are a threat to stability. Tibetans who wish for increased personal freedoms are subjected to extrajudicial arrests, abuse, torture, denial of freedom of religion forced sterilization and forced abortions. " The greatest atrocities on human life in the PRC were during Mao's rule. In order to achieve economic security and stability (not be economically dependent on the USSR) Mao launched the Great Leap Forward and it lasted from 1958-1961 which resulted in peasants being forcibly reallocated from private farms to commune farms, bypassing the Chinese personal freedom. The result of the GLF was the Great Chinese Famine, and together they caused 20-45 million deaths, and 40 million weren't born. Since the GLF failed Mao launched the Cultural Revolution in 1966 in order to maintain the status quo and stability and to secure China from capitalists and traditionalists as well as to restore Maoism. Mao accomplished this by purging those who he deemed political dissidents and inspired radical youth called Red Guards. "Millions of people were persecuted. .. (and suffered) public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced. " An estimated 30 million people died. While the PRC values SaS over PF, western democracies who hold SaS as equally important to PF have stronger economies, higher standard of living, more human rights, more happiness, and more security than nations who value SaS over PF. Sources: . https://docs.google.com...