National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press

I must say that I am very thankful for the wonderful arguments my opponent made. Already, this debate is far superior than the former one that I had on the subject, and for that I thank my opponent. Nevertheless, there are still problems with his arguments that I believe sufficient grounds for dismissing the Con side in this debate. I'll address his argument FOR con in a moment, after I address the arguments he brought against my case. He begins by making that point that the Social Contract is just a form to justify, in essence, government tyranny. This is simply false. Although I cite Hobbes, other Social Contract theorists such as Locke and Rousseau were both concerned primarily with ensuring that a government was NOT tyrannical, especially Rousseau. This statement, then, is nothing more than pure opinion, and has no real bearing upon the debate round anyway. He then in the next paragraph says something fascinating. He says "it is not by accident that the definition of National Security involves areas such as economic security, monetary security, energy, environmental and political. " I have to ask the question, what definition of National Security is he getting this from? He was silent on the subject of my definitions, and therefore concedes to them. Under this logic he accepts my definition of National Security, which mentioned nothing but the protection of a nation's safety, and by extension, their citizens. He then brings up a Natural Disaster, and at this point his arguments against my case and his arguments for his side collide. He says that the threat to Life can be a Natural Disaster, and that this doesn't fall under my definition of National Security. This is simply not true. My definition of National Security is concerned with the safety of the nations citizens. A Natural Disaster would absolutely compromise the citizen's safety and therefore falls under the definition of National Security provided. And now we get to his argument, which he states most clearly at the end. He claims that National Security and Freedom of the Press should be valued equally. I must ask, by what standard? I absolutely without question support the idea that Freedom of the Press is important, I even say so in my case. What I do uphold though, is that when in conflict, National Security should be valued above the Freedom of the Press. My opponent gives several examples in which the Press could assist the protection of people's foundational Natural Rights. Although this is by no means the press's primary motivation, and the press only does this by a long chain of events (usually involving the Government stepping in to help, alongside NGO's) this is in some sense true. However, I could show my opponent equal examples of where only National Security can protect the citizens. The point is that we can go on endlessly listing pros and cons for each side. We both recognize that both have pros and both have cons. But, here's the problem. If my opponent wants to prove that both sides should be valued equally, he must do a survey of all of human history and show why EXACTLY 50% of the time National Security should be valued highest, and EXACTLY 50% of the time Freedom of the Press should be valued highest. And, my opponent hasn't done this in the slightest! If he does not do this, he can't prove that they should be valued equally! He can only prove that he THINKS they should be valued equally. Furthermore, I'd like to point out my definition of ought. I defined ought as morally obligated. My opponent didn't even mention this definition, therefore conceding it. However, my opponent has failed to prove why governments are morally obligated to value both sides equally, and therefore has failed the burden the topic set for him. He has failed to do this because he has failed to provide a source (such as Natural Law or the Social Contract) for this governmental obligation. Therefore, he can't state a moral obligation, because he has no valid obligator who can impose this obligation! So, even if my opponent could prove that both should be valued equally, he hasn't proven the topic false, because he hasn't proven a moral obligation. In conclusion, I stand by my statement that Freedom of the Press doesn't uphold foundational natural rights. It does hold a government accountable, which by extension could uphold Natural Rights. However, by that point it is no longer the Press upholding the rights, but the Government. So, at the end of this rebuttal, I still stand firm in my belief that National Security ought to be valued above the Freedom of the Press. I believe this because of the impossibility of the task that my opponent has set for himself in his argument, as well as failed to prove a moral obligation, which the topic demands. Also, because I believe that my opponent has failed to firmly and adequately refute my points.