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

My opponent writes, "...this resolution is about what people should value higher not about what I in singular form prefer." Preference does not have to be individual. Please read Universally Preferable Behavior at http://www.fdrurl.com.... Then my opponent writes, "I ask my opponent to stop arguing about this Resoluion because this is the same Resolution that many people in high school are arguing in tournaments right now and is not a topic I created but a topic that has been discussed and the current LD topic." Just to be clear, this means: "stop arguing about this resolution because other people are arguing the same fallacious argument elsewhere."He asks me to "follow the format with an actual case with definitions, contents and all." I apologize, I am new to this debate thing, and I acknowledge that I have failed to follow the format. I would point out, however, that he has failed to write with correct grammar and spelling or accurate definitions, making his position difficult at best to respond to without him claiming a win by technicality or some sort of 'that's not what I mean' excuse.He uses Nelson Mandela as an example of someone who was an advocate for freedom. According to http://en.wikipedia.org... here are some of Mandela's acts that were directly contrary to advocating freedom over financial security: "free" health care for children under six and pregnant/breastfeeding women; the Reconstruction and Development Programme; increases in welfare spending; racial parity for state grants; increases in state education; expanding state reproductive health services; child support state grants; state paid for telephone lines; upgrading of state clinics; expanding the state electricity grid; state financed building of 750,000 houses; extension of state water provision; "free" state provided meals for school children; National Drug Policy for state provided medicine; The Welfare Laws Amendment Act (social security reform & funding) and; The Amendments to the Aged Persons Act (retirement home oversight). Who pays for that "free" health care, reconstruction, welfare spending, grants, public education, skill development programs, telephone lines, electricity grids, houses, water transport, meals, medicine, social security payments, oversight? Taxpayers pay for it. Taxes, by definition, aren't voluntary contributions which equals a loss of personal freedom.Mandela required COMPULSORY schooling for childreen 6-14 years of age, a complete opposite to personal freedom. Mandela created the The Labour Relations Act of 1995 which interfered with the personal freedom of the laborers and the employers. Please see http://www.acts.co.za... for the act.Mandela created the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 and the Employment Equity Act of 1998 and the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1996 which prevented the employer and employees from expressing their own personal freedom to choose what conditions they want for their own workplace. Please see: http://www.acts.co.za..., http://www.acts.co.za..., http://www.acts.co.za... for the acts and http://mises.org... for a brief explanation as to how personal freedom is supressed. I could go on and on with examples of Mandela's obvious lack of support for personal freedom. By the way, Mandela (with an E) won the Nobel not Noble peace prize.My opponent's own source betray his premise! How can one possibly vote for Pro when it is so poorly argued? My opponent says, "what you're saying about JFK is personal bias." There was no bias, it was a statement of facts. Kennedy's programs were funded by taxation and those that refused to pay those taxes were taken away with the implied or actual threat of being shot and jailed AKA kidnapped. I can see how he might believe it is personal bias because he apparently doesn't understand that taxation IS theft under threat of kidnapping when he says, "I don't see any stealing or taking away."He then cites historycentral.com for a source where Kennedy "helped lots of people [without stealing]" and after reviewing the site I found zero evidence of the sort. Every single act that I see that Kennedy accomplished listed on that site was funded through the coercive force of taxation, an institution diametrically opposed to personal freedom.Just to be absolutely clear on this point. Taxation is a violation of personal freedom. It prevents each individual from spending their money on what they want to. Taxation also funds programs which are almost always government monopolies, which denies any potential entrepreneur or non profit organizer from creating any competing industry.In his 6th point, my opponent says "I would like to say that they desired to be free instead of dominance over their region." How is "like to say" in any way a counter argument to my point? My opponent says "I don't get what my opponent has argued [at] all except that my contention doesn't make sense without any actual argument." Someone cannot argue with something that is incoherent. Here is an example of my opponent's incoherent writing from his most recent post, "He also states that I am using I am not at all." How does one argue with that? My opponent suggests that my "criticism is invalid without any source to back it up." Valid points of debate include logic and evidence. Sources have no value unless they provide logic or evidence, and they are certainly not required to make criticism valid. I provided evidence and logic, quite sufficient for accurate criticism.In summary: Economic stability as my opponent defined it, "the condition of having 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" is a prerequisite for personal freedom. A person that doesn't have a stable source of financial income or cannot maintain one's standard of living for the present or near future has limited personal freedom. Consider how curtailed your own personal freedom would be if you were uncertain about your future much less the NEAR future. Would you borrow money? Would you travel? Would you change jobs or start up a new business? Would you speak your mind to your supervisor or a wealthy relative? Obviously your decisions and personal freedom are restricted when you do not have economic stability. Conclusion: In regards to conduct, I hope you will choose 'Tie.' I was respectful as was my adversary if you don't consider his response, "I wish someone serious would take my debates" as a personal attack on my seriousness which was arguably acceptable given that I didn't follow the format. A vote for 'Pro' is certainly acceptable as is 'Tie.' In regards to spelling and grammar, it is obvious that his grammar and spelling were lacking. Any vote not given to the Con position would be a denial of evidence.In regards to which argument was more convincing, my opponent's own arguments undermined his position not to mention my own efforts which clearly show that his position fails. I would request that you vote for the 'Con' position on this point.In regards to which side used more reliable sources, my opponent's own sources undermined his position unlike mine. I used each of his own sources to refute his position as well as provided my own. If a source is counter to the position offered then it cannot be considered to be a "reliable" source because it cannot be "relied" upon to support the position. I urge you to vote 'Con' on this point. Regardless of your position prior to the debate, I humbly request that you vote 'Con' considering that I showed how economic stability is a requirement for personal freedom.Thank you again to Viper-King for the debate.