Resolved: Stability and Security is more important than Personal Freedom.

If any voters missed it, we are both dropping round 4 due to IRL things====The order is going to be the the extension of the Theory from last round, including his responses. Than I will cover new abuses presented in the last round, than I will go onto his defense, and lastly key voters.====If the negitive puts forward an advocacy, they must defend it unconditionally. The violation is, under the negitive's interpretiation of the resoultion, he only needs to extend one of his advoacies to win the round. He proves this in his last round when he drops Moral Egoism completly. While he can drop any of his advocacies at no harm to his offense or defense, I must defend the implications of the Affirmitive case through the entire round. He tries to justify the abuse in 3 different ways. First, he claims the abuse never occured. He proves himself wrong by cold dropping Moral Egoism in his second round. All of the offense I put against Moral Egoism is null and void because he doesn't extend it. This is the exact problem I bring up at the top of last round. The offense is now skwed in his favor and I wasted my time refuting his arguement. Now he may try and bring Moral Egoism back up in the last round, but recognize that he will still have commited the violation by dropping it the second round and extending straight from round 1. Second, he tries to say that life is a giant competition and life is unfair. The act of being alive isn't a competition, and while life is made up of many competitons, they all have rule sets that give fair paths to victory for all involved. Because we agree that debate is a competitive activity, no one debate should have to enter a round at a disadvantage. While it is true that some are born with advatages like Usain Bolt's natural athletic ablities, an activity is only competitive if it has a fair rule set. That is why activities like Debate have rules in the first place, to ensure fair competition. But even if life is a giant, unfair competiton, debate is not life, it is an activity desgined to promote competition and education, both of which he undermines.The third and final way he attempts to justify the abuse is by saying his only burden is prove me wrong. The problem is that his advocacy about Nihilism contridcts Moral Egoism, and when he says that governments should find a balance before going onto argue about how governments are better off prioritizing PF, he has also proven himself wrong as well. That's why I tell you that allowing him to run multiple, contridictory advocaies, he undermines himself and the integerty of debate. While it is true that he can win on defense alone, he can't win when his defense is full of contridictions.====His last round's arguement opens itself up to 2 more abuses.First, he employs a moving target. He extends the defenition of Personal Freedom to be the same as Civil Liberites. What he fails to do is show these as being the same, and instead works on the assumption that they are. You can drop this idea entirly from his side of the flow and turn it to mine, because the Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) defines Civil Liberites as The state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, I would argue that it is within the good of the community to increase SaS and reduce PF if lives are saved when we do. He disputes that more lives are saved by affirming but more on that in key voters.The second abuse is the use of a Gish Gallop. By introducing a total of 6 different examples of his advocacy, I must now use this final round to adress all of them If I fail to adress a single one, than he can claim victory. Even if he doesn't do this, voters should note the possibility that this may be the case.====In the last round, he extends two arguements. First, that they are equally important, and second that PF is more important. He tries to justify the contridiction by saying they are inclusive of each other. But recoginze that the affirmitive advocacy is based on when the two are in conflict. He adresses my examples of the PATRIOT act and fire arm examples by saying that he governments where valuing the two equally. But that isn't even remotly true. The governments in both of these scenarios undercut PF in order to increase SaS.====Now on to the key voters.First is the framing arguement and theory given in round two and extended in this round. By voting for him today, you only encourage these types of arguements in the future. Voting him down sends a clear message that debate is intended to be a competitive activity. I have talked at length about this in this very round, so it should be clear that I win the round here.Second is the state of nations. He claims that because the PRC doesn't prioritize PF, the people of the PRC are worse off. I tell you this is corralation, not causation, and he cold drops it. At this point I win that point there. But secondly, he talks about genocidal regimes. 2 problems. First, I don't have to defend the outcome of the system a government uses, but instead the intention of the system they employ. Finally, these are just extremist examples. For every Hitler, there is an Obama who wants to ban assult weapons to reduce mass shootings. My advocacy is for everyone to give up some freedoms in order to better the security of everyone in society. I don't want there to be oppresive dictatorships, but the merits of having a less free, safer society are evident enouch for me to urge an affirmation here.Third voter is that they are the same. Extend the response I already gave this round. Since he clean drops Moral Egoisim, the fourth voter is Nihilism. Recognize that my oppenets interpretation of Nihilism is contridictary. He says all beliefs are false, so the resoultion is false. But the belief that all beliefs are false is a belief, so it must be false. If that is false, than beliefs must be true, so than the belief that all beliefs are false must be true, which means it must be false. His interpretation has no real world merit because in the real world, not everything works under broad, blanket statements.The fifth and final key voter is going to be the advocacy of the affirmitive. What I tell you is that people don't have to completly give up their PFs to increase SaS, so we don't have to break down the resoultion into absolutes. I would say that, even with the PATRIOT act and assult weapon bans in my state, I am a fairly free citizen of the United States. That's important, because when you look at the Heritige Foundation evidence, the increase security in the post 9/11 world has stopped a magnitutde of terror attacks. The impact of terrorism is a loss of life and money. He tries to outweigh lives by bringing up genocide, but this fails because this is a fualt with the system, not the intent of the system. Even if I concede that these governments did this solely to increase SaS, I still don't need to defend the system that these governments employ to carry out these actions, so this arguement is null and void. For the competitive nature of debate and to limit the impact of terror, I am proud to urge a strong affirimitve ballot. ===Again we will be both forfieting round 4, so this is my last round in this debate.