When in conflict, an individual's FoS ought to be valued above a community's moral standards.

:) Preface: Con agreed that this is debated like a Lincoln-Douglas Debate round. No outside sources are allowed, as it focuses only on ideas and philosophy and not facts. - That’s not quite accurate, Pro here is clearly misrepresenting the structure of a LD debate [1]. Plus, Pro himself has not respected this alleged rule, as he used outside sources (definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, quotes from Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke & others), & without referencing not a single one of them. Thus, his case, as it solely rests on such unreferenced sources, can be dismissed as bare assertions. Also, in Lincoln Douglas Debate, in order for the Con to win he must prove the majority of circumstances contradict the resolution, not just one as he would like to make you believe. - In any debate, LD debate or otherwise, the resolution counts as the reference for what would constitute the affirmative or the negative case in said debate. - Here, the resolution is as follows: “When in conflict, an individual's FoS ought to be valued above a community's moral standards. ”. It clearly indicates a conflict between FoS & any arbitrary communal moral standard, & in no way does it specify which moral standards are these, nor does it designate some as opposed to others. Thus, Pro’s contention that it’s my BOP to show that the majority of circumstances contradict the resolution is wholly invalid, as the latter does not mention anything about neither circumstances, nor any sort of majority of them! On the contrary, Pro has the sole BOP in this case, for he is making the claim, which he failed in carrying primarily by not supporting his case with any sources whatsoever. Counter Rebuttals: - All the above been said, I shall, nevertheless, continue to refute Pro’s rebuttals just to get rid of any doubts. Agreed. .. hence my value was Liberty, because it is a very important Human Right that FoS helps protect. - Pro concedes my 1st point (FoS is not an objective value) as being valid, for he plainly says “agreed”, thus he automatically agree on what follows from it: 1. The resolution is about FoS, not about Liberty, Pro here is using a straw-man [2]. 2. FoS helps perpetuate Liberty when it supports it, & it equally helps obstructing it when it doesn’t. That is, when FoS infringes Liberty such as in cases of harm & interference with the liberties of others. 3. Liberty isn’t an objective value either, as it is a communal moral standard itself, nor is it the most important of values for any arbitrary community! For instance, a liberty that leads to Injustice ought not to be valued over Justice. This argument has no weight. Every single value is some community's moral standard. We aren't debating which concept includes the other, we are debating which one is more important. For instance, Human Rights includes Liberty, however sometimes Liberty must be valued above the other Human Rights. - Here again Pro mischaracterises the topic of discussion, straw-man. The debate is about FoS, not about Liberty. - Pro also concedes that only sometimes should Liberty be valued above other Human Rights, & other times it may not ought to be valued. A concession that damages Pro’s case entirely, for his argument solely rests on the fact that FoS supports Liberty, thus if the latter is given precedence, then the former ought to occasionally be given precedence as well (that is, as long as FoS does not in itself hinders Liberty). 3. Agreed. .. however this does not warrant the Community's moral standards limiting it. When we allow the subjective whims of communities to restrict free speech, we actually end up with too little liberty. Once again, my value of Liberty is the standard by which we can restrict free speech. If FoS harms other people's liberty (alien and sedition acts) than we should restrict it. This is using 1 community's moral standard, not the term as a whole. - Here again Pro concedes the following: 1. My 3rd point (FoS should not be unrestricted) by plainly agreeing to it, thereby conceding his own resolution, which should warrant me an automatic win. 2. Pro says “my value of Liberty is the standard by which we can restrict free speech. ”, thus asserting that a community’s moral standard, that is Liberty in this case, can & should be valued above FoS (he previously admits that “Every single value is some community's moral standard. ”), this thereby counts not just as a concession, but also as direct support against his own resolution, which should also warrant an automatic win. So Con, completely dropped my value. .. which, in LD theory, means he agreed to it, since omission is admission. That being said, he has already agreed that Liberty is a better value than Community Moral Standards. Unfortunately it seems as if Con doesn't understand how LD debate works, and thus accepted a challenge that he is debating wrong. Because he dropped my value and presented none of his own. .I urge you to vote Pro. - Pro has not realised that without even any interference from my own, he successfully conceded & destroyed his own case as established above. Pro also has some twisted notions of what a debate is, particularly a LD debate. Conclusion: - It has been established throughout this debate that: I. Pro’s resolution has been systematically negated (in my Round 2). II. Pro’s case is wholly bare assertions (no sources whatsoever), & occasionally straw-man (mischaracterisation of the resolution & the structure of the debate). III. Pro has successfully negated his own resolution on his own (in his Round 3). => Any of these points is enough to grant me a full win, & the three points combined should guarantee me a full win in both Arguments & Sources. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...