When in conflict, Security should be prefered to rights

//The first thing I want to point out is that is the resolution says "when in conflict" meaning when security conflicts with rights.// I thought you meant in times of conflict. O.o Here is what I am going to argue, that security is overall bad but if we MUST prefer one or the other, security is better. So I will be using both of my arguments from the previous round so extend my security bad but please don't take off points for my opponent not refuting it (yet) because there was a misunderstanding. // The warrant my opponent gives is talking about the fact that we can value other people's rights because we all have the same basic rights. This isn't true at all. People who live in Afghanistan certainly don't have the same lifestyle as people in the United States.// It is true that the lifestyle varies from country to country but within a country it is pretty constant. The Stanford argument is also talking about rights in America. //Secondly, it is true that everyone deserves the same basic rights, but when our own security comes in conflict other people's rights, we overvalue our security and undervalue their rights. If that's the case, and we cannot give each right their due weight when weighing costs and benefits, then how are we to know if violating that right is really the right thing to do.// All you did here was provide a claim with nothing to back it up. Here I could say that we don't and it'd be your word vs mine. Regarding it being "the right thing to do", right and wrong are entirely subjective and thus you cannot make an objective claiming regarding them. For some X violation of rights is always good whilst to others it is bad. //His main argument talks about how without security, we cannot exercise our rights. This isn't true either. It's true that life is a prerequisite to exercising our rights, but absolute security isn't. We all tolerate risks everyday, like driving a car, and we can still execute our rights. If that's the case, than the argument doesn't make any sense.// Again, in conflict, if we do not have security then we will be taken over and have no rights. My opponent ignores this and thus it flows through the round. //Then he talks about how if we loose our security, than someone will take us over. This argument doesn't make any sense either because I can drive a car, which is a risk to my security, and no one will take me over. Secondly, if we do bring up national security, it isn't necessarily guaranteed that anyone will take anybody over either.// Extend my previous argument and add this, if we have security, by the very definition it is assured we wont be taken over because it is the state of being free from danger. My argument still stands here and my opponent has done minimal work to refute it. //Then he provides a second point stating that, if we take the rights of the few then we can save everyone else. But never once does he say how much security would be gained by violating people's rights. Surely it wouldn't be just, or even sensible, to enslave two or three people to add small benefits to the rest of society. Secondly, he hasn't given any sort of reason as to why we should violate rights to gain security because the only reason he gave that makes security important has already been refuted and proved to be fallacious.// Here my opponent makes a HUGE leap of faith saying that taking away people rights is enslaving them. Also, if we can have security by violating 3 people rights, we assure that they will not be taken over and thus their rights can remain in tact. You have not refuted the reason why security is important. You missed most of the argument. My opponent has not shown that objectivity is impossible in the case of rights and I will show you one more thing. Does everyone in America (theoretically) have the same rights under the constitution? _____________ Just is proper and fair is free from bias. There. Counterdefinition. So essentially what I will be arguing is that security is overall bad but if we must choose to protect security or rights in times of conflict, then security is better. I await the next round.