If Texas were to threaten to secede from the Union...

Thank you for your quick response, as well, Volkov. My opponent criticizes the act of Texas giving the Union choices as opposed to none, called "my way" (the Union agreeing to Texas' or "the highway" (Texas seceding). However, he acts as if there is a third just choice that Texas denies the Union, which I will call "the Union's way." This would mean Texas staying with the Union and being forced to abide by all tyranny passed by the Union to Texas. However, for this choice to be just, Texans would have to consent to such tyranny; in this case, they don't. Texas has essentially eliminated the option that requires consent from both sides, because they no longer consent. However, Texas leaves the other two sides, one requiring only Texas' consent (Texas seceding) and the other requiring consent from both parties (Texas staying with less restriction than otherwise). Because the Texans do not consent, the Union wouldn't even deserve the third choice, and so it is rightfully abolished. My opponent calls the Union's sudden inability to impose what Texans dub tyranny upon Texans without the consent of the governed Texans deprivation of freedom. This doesn't match up with the definition in any case, as it would violate the rights of Texans to do what they want with their own property outside of the wishes of the tyrannical Union. To conclude this point, the Union still has the freedom to make any choice that either has consent from Texas or does not require consent from Texas, and those would really be the only choices the Union should be allowed to make, so there's no deprivation of deserved choices here. My opponent says, "The threat of secession does not come from the individual citizens, but from the official and elected representatives of those citizens..." However, according to the resolution's clarifications in Round 1, "this assumes that a majority of Texans support the threatening." Therefore, "the whims of individual Texans" have already been brought in, despite what my opponent claims. Basically, the voters have voted to say, "We're going to secede, Union, but we won't if you stop imposing tyranny on us." How can that violate freedom? Note that if my opponent brings up a different interpretation of what the voters are saying, then we're getting into semantics, and there's no way that that can affect the freedom involved in this event. My opponent cites "negotiations with the federal government" as a mandate for the powers of Texas. However, this would be a negotiation, in which Texans are claiming their basic freedoms where they have been lost to tyranny, and saying, "We'll still let you have some control over Texas, but if that's still not okay with you, we're out of here!" Now, Texas has control of Union policies through its power to secede. It's the check to make sure that the Union's power doesn't get out of hand and start to destroy personal freedom. My opponent assumes Texans and their land to be property of the federal government. However, people are not property, and government does not own the land of Texas. If it does, then the basic freedoms of Texans are already being violated, and secession would re-grant these basic freedoms. "The threat being justified is not any more conducive to peace and freedom than if it weren't justified. A threat is a threat is a threat - justified or not, the intent is clear, and that intent is to bind the other party in a way as to limit the choices to 'my way' or 'the highway.'" Let's go back to the YouTube example I sourced in Round 2. YouTube has the options of keeping the YouTubers or the in-video ads. The threat only takes away the option of having both the YouTubers and the ads, something that the YouTubers do not consent to in the slightest. Such an option would be unjust tyranny. The threat of secession, in this way, only deprives the Union of the option it shouldn't have in the first place: the option of tyranny. My opponent cites the supreme authority of the federal government. However, this supreme authority is what violates the basic rights of Texans, and therefore justifies succession. As my opponent seems to be operating under the premise that anything that can be done legally does not violate basic freedoms, (otherwise, he'd have to morally justify the Union's supreme authority, which I have already shown to contradict the Declaration of Independence, the American government's main source of political morality), then the mere fact that threatening secession is legal means that no basic freedoms are violated. "But, the *threat* of secession is meant to bind the federal government in such a way as to force the federal government to cede its mandated powers - its 'property'." So, Texas tells the Union that it may no longer force Texas to do what the Union wants, and can no longer use its mandates powers of tyranny to enact tyranny upon the people of Texas and their property. Remember, the Union never even deserved the one choice that it here loses. Now, my opponent claims that the act of seceding would actually give the Union more liberty than the threat itself. In that case, if the Union wants to maximize its own freedom, then all it has to do is say, "Don't threaten to secede; we feel that your decision to give us an alternative choice deprives us of our basic freedom, so we absolutely refuse to meet your demands. Take away our diplomatic option and JUST SECEDE." And the absolute, unrestrained freedom to have freedom might as well be freedom. 2. Result My opponent says that Quebec forces Canada's hand to choice either (A) or (B). However, this is only done by removing (C), keeping Quebec and having legislation over Quebec without consent from Quebec. The very idea that this choice is necessary for freedom is insane. (C) is quite simply tyranny, and Quebec has every right to maximize its own freedom by removing tyranny from its borders. It's the option that should not exist, so really, (A) and (B) are the only choices that Canada ever deserved to have, and Quebec chose not to take away from Canada any options deserved by Canada, so it really maximizes freedom. My opponent criticizes the holding of oneself hostage as a means for demands to be met. He claims that this is no different from the culinary school example. However, that's all the ammo that my opponent has: that it is an attempt to have demands met. The culinary student obviously decided that he would no longer consent to being alive while he cannot continue to be a part of the school. He therefore decided that he would either kill himself or continue to be a part of the school. He could have killed himself outright. However, he instead made a threat, giving the school an option to keep him alive. Instead of letting him die or giving him another go, however, the school had the police brought in to Taser the poor man and force him to remain alive, but still without a culinary degree, which is in fact a complete and total war against freedom. And my opponent has the nerve to call this "end[ing] peacefully." The main point is that the school had more freedom in having the choice, and there should not have been an Option C, because the man did not want to live without his culinary degree, and forcing him to do so absolutely violated his own basic freedom. In conclusion, my opponent is trying to criticize Texas for depriving the Union of its third option, the option of continuing to impose tyranny on Texans despite their own wishes. However, such a choice is anti-freedom, as Texas would no longer consent to the Union's actions, and the Union would therefore not have just powers to exercise on Texas, and the third option would thus no longer exist. I have already shown the threat to give more freedom than the act, which my opponent seems to agree to grant freedom. In conclusion, the resolution merely eliminates tyranny. Thanks for the debate, Volkov. Hopefully, I've opened your eyes to freedom.