Parli: This House values life over liberty.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Existence (life) is the ultimate value of all living beings. To be living means to be alive, i.e. not dead [1]. To have liberty means to have freedom from various forms of control [2]. As you can see, you need to be alive in order to have liberty. You can be living but not free, though you cannot be free and not living; for there would be no 'you' to have freedom. Right here we can see that the value of life supersedes the value of liberty. One can only value liberty if they are alive to hold that value in the first place. If we are to believe that liberty is a right, then we must accept that rights derive from rational, LIVING beings. 2. Con states, "Without liberty, we are not really living." This is false as it merely represents a philosophical position of my opponent and not actually a factual statement. For example, the former slaves of the South were alive and not free; the Jews in concentration camps were alive and not free, etc. To be living merely means to be alive (not dead) and in existence -- there are no other requirements. Indeed liberty is a trait paramount to the pursuit of happiness; however, it is not a characteristic of living itself. 3. In her third point, Con says that choosing to exercise our liberties is upholding American ideals and thus supporting patriotism. I disagree. Patriotism is something you do do for your country [3] while exercising your liberty is something you do for yourself. Further, as Americans we accept that there are certain liberties we just do not have. For instance, I do not have the liberty to walk into the White House and steal important documents. However, even without these liberties I am still alive (and happy). The point here is that I'd be willing to sacrifice certain liberties but I would not be willing to sacrifice my life. 4. Finally, it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said, "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." In his existentialist view of the world, Sartre presents the paradox of freedom. Freedom is something we all have and that we can never be free from (hence the paradox). He says that we are actually condemned to be free, and he also observes that freedom comes at a price. Anguish for Sartre marks the recognition of our own freedom [4]. In other words, freedom is our only being but we are not free to cease being free; the limit of our freedom is its necessity and inevitability. So I ask - does freedom (liberty) even really exist? As a determinist, I would argue no, and as an existentialist, Sartre would point point out that we cannot choose to not make choices hence our condition is limited and not free. Still, both Sartre and myself would probably argue that life is indeed worth living and that you can be happy and alive while not have total liberty either philosophically or physically (such as the White House example). Thank you and good luck! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...