National Security over Freedom of the Press

Forgive me of my forfeits. I have had some unforeseen preoccupations to which I had to tend for this past week or so. I look forward to getting back into this debate. In this final argument post, I will refute my opponents claims and show you why the negative stands in today's debate round through key voting issues. 1. National Security Is Extrinsic I'd like to begin by refuting the very first point of his rebuttal. He claims National Security, or Safety, is an intrinsic value. He said Safety is good, because it is good to be safe. Wrong. Safety is good, because when you're safe, you have life, liberty, happiness, etc. Safety still promotes intrinsic values, and thus, it's value is extrinsic. 2. Purpose of National Security My opponent had stated that when National Security and Freedom of the Press conflict, National Security is valued higher. But, why is National Security valued higher? By restricting Freedom of the press, we protect other people's freedom. We are still valuing freedom! We can use National Security to Freedom of the Press, but that doesn't mean we necessarily value it more. In fact, the whole purpose we use National Security as a means to restrict freedom is to protect it! We are still valuing freedom above all others! We can still value National Security, but its value exists solely because it protects life, liberty, etc. We still value freedom of National Security because National Security is simply used as a means to protect it. 3. Restriction Does Not Equate to Valuing Above My opponent had stated, "We value laws that preserve our freedom over our freedom for without the laws there would likely be no freedom." What is he actually valuing? He stated that we value laws because we need them to preserve freedom! Even if he tries to value laws above freedom, he still values freedom over the law, because the entire reason he values the law is because it protects freedom! It's entirely circular. No matter what he states, the root reason he values national security or laws over freedom is for the sake of freedom. Therefore, he truly is valuing freedom at the core. There's no escape from that. 4. The Father Example Remains Irrelevant The father does not restrict bicycle-riding freedoms because he values your "safety" over your freedom. He does so because he values your health, life, happiness, etc. that are promoted BY safety. Again, the entire reason he values your safety is because it protects your life, health, happiness, freedom, etc. It still circles back to the core reason of valuing your safety; it promotes intrinsic values. 5. Supreme Court Does Not Determine Truth Just because the supreme court interprets that National Security must be valued over Freedom, this does not dictate that it should be done. But, let's say that it does. Why does the supreme court value National Security? Because it protects intrinsic values. The same principle is applied in this instance as well! There's no escape. Furthermore, I only used the Declaration of Independence as a reference to the understanding of why governments protect the people. I know it doesn't have any legal or moral authority; it just illustrates that our founders new the reason of government's existence. In conclusion, I think it has been made clear that the value of National Security exists solely because it upholds Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Under this principle, no matter how much we value National Security (an extrinsic value), we will always value Liberty more. For this reason, I ask you to vote negative. I rest my case.