National Security over Freedom of the Press

Many thanks for my opponent's response. "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. " You are saying that any value that promotes or protects an intrinsic value is automatically extrinsic. By your reasoning in this, liberty (which includes Freedom of the Press) would be an extrinsic value. For liberty certainly promotes happiness, which is intrinsic and therefore, by your definition, liberty is extrinsic. "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. .. We still value freedom of National Security because National Security is simply used as a means to protect it. "My opponent in this is false. Let us look at a gun, or another device that protects one's life. Now say there was a threat, like a criminal. This gun is protecting one's life from this threat. Without this gun, this threat would take one's life. We should value the things that protect lives more for without them, there would be no life in the first place. "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. "I turn you back to the gun example. Safety is more valuable for it protects it. There is nothing to value if it is lost to a threat. "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. "False. Safety protects intrinsic values. Why must protection be more important? Because, like I have stated before: There is nothing to value if it is lost to a threat. "Just because the supreme court interprets that National Security must be valued over Freedom, this does not dictate that it should be done. "What? This is exactly what the Supreme Court does. They interpret various things and situations and dictate what should be done. "Why does the supreme court value National Security? Because it protects intrinsic values. The same principle is applied in this instance as well! "We are repeating ourselves many times. My opponent says it here, it protects intrinsic values. Without such protection, or with such protection valued less, intrinsic values would be vulnerable and/or non-existent. Conclusion:I do not advocate for a total police state nor do I advocate for anarchy (Well, I don't know bout this yet). Like I said in the first round, there must be a balance between security and freedom. I treasure them both. However, like I have said in this round and always, with safety valued less, it makes freedom more vulnerable and worse. With safety valued more, it makes freedom less vulnerable and better. The resolution stands affirmed.