Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Hello debaters and voters, In this round of debate, I will be responding to my opponent’s arguments. In my own opening arguments, I showed how valuing security over rights results in the violation of those rights, countries that uphold security above rights have always ended up abusing the rights of the citizens, and the systems of protection currently implemented have done nothing to aid in security. Response to Contention I: In his first contention, labeled “I. National Independence”, my opponent essentially states that a powerful military means having a secure nation. This seems like it would be true, but let us look at it a little closer. I am going to use the example of the Soviet Union again. After WWII, the Soviet Union was under the control of the dictator Stalin. Stalin had instituted a system a government known as communism, which involves a highly centralized government (a centralized government is one in which the government controls most if not all facets of society). In this government, the military was of the utmost importance. The Russians devoted massive human and physical resources to the military, building one of the strongest states the world has ever seen. Their armies had millions of highly trained warriors. And yet, the Soviet Union fell quickly. Why you might say? Despite having a strong military, the rights of the Russian people were being disregarded, and the government was abusing power. The History Learning Site made the following statement, which sums up life in the Soviet Union: "The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listened to what the state allowed.” (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...) As we can see, this is a blatant violation of the rights I introduced in my opening statements. Thus, though the Soviet Union had a powerful military, the controlling government, which valued security very highly, ended up trampling the rights of the people, causing its eventual downfall. Response to Contention II: In his second contention, my opponent makes a blatant assumption I feel must be addressed: “Personal freedom doesn’t win conflicts…” I would say the only thing that wins conflicts is the morale of the troops and people of states at war. I think we can all agree that personal freedom and the support of one’s rights gives much more morale than lack of individual liberty and the abuse and lack of rights. The great military commander Chiang Kai-shek stated: “War is not only a matter of equipment, artillery, group troops or air force; it is largely a matter of spirit or morale.” The Greek scholar and soldier Xenophon also stated that: “…it is not numbers or strength that bring the victory in war. No, it is when one side goes against the enemy with the gods’ gift of stronger morale that their adversaries, as a rule, cannot withstand them.” As we can see, both logic and the experiences of ancient and contemporary military commanders prove that morale is one of the most important aspects of conflict and a nations stability. Response to Contention III: My opponent’s third contention states that the government exists to protect the people. This may be true, but let us look more closely at it once more. In the late 1700s, the British Empire was the largest, most powerful empire in the world. No country could stand to its might. It was known as “the empire where the sun never set” because of the vast land it covered. One of England’s most profitable colonies was New England, in the New World. This New England provided things such as cotton, tobacco, and a large amount of timber. Thus, the government deployed many troops to protect this area. Despite this, we all know the story of the American Revolution, in which the colonials rebelled against their British oppressors, who trampled the rights of the New Englanders. Thus, just because a government protects its people does not mean that the people will be content. Response to Contention IV: In his final contention, my opponent states that even if the peoples’ rights are limited, security is worth it. The people of the world and I disagree. A Boston Globe poll shows that more than 60% of participants say that they value privacy over surveillance for security reasons. Thus, my opponent’s contention ia proven invalid. (https://www.bostonglobe.com...) In conclusion, I have shown that my opponent’s first contention is invalid, as having a powerful military does not confirm security. I did the same for his second and third claims by proving that morale is one of the most important aspects of war and by showing that just because a government protects its people does not mean that they will be content. And I disproved his final contentions with a poll that shows that people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures.