Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

Thanks to Pro for instigating. To assume proper debate structure, I will not rebut any of my opponent's contentions yet and will instead rebut everything he has said in round 2.I also assume that this is a Lincoln-Douglas Debate and would ask voters not to judge sources. I would also note that I am not required to argue against freedom of the press or downplay it's importance in any manner, only prove that Broader National Security is more important than Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the Press and the Retainment of National Security are not mutually exclusive.According to the resolution in the debate title, I will argue that National Security should be valued over Freedom of the Press.Good luck to Pro!============================================================Contention 1. Freedom of the press is irrelevant if people are not protected in utilizing itThis is my only major contention, as it successfully negates the resolution presented almost on it's own. Having a sense of national security promotes and atmosphere of safety and lack of fear of vocalizing your beliefs within the populous. In a plethora of possible threats to national security, people's lives and safety may be specifically targeted for confidently or strongly utilizing their freedom of the press.If a newspaper- or all newspapers, depending on the scale of the threat - can not be made to feel safe vocalizing their criticism and outlook through freedom of the press due to outstanding threats to the sanctity of the paper and the lives of it workers, the presence of freedom of the press is rendered irrelevant because it is unable to be safely vocalized.The press can not be "free" if there is no sense of protection granting them - the press - this right. Rights and freedom of the press are a privilege that are granted to us as people by a better sense of national security, protection, and societal normality. Without these better senses of protection, the privilege of freedom (and by extentia, freedom of the press) would be corrupted.Thus-so, without protection of freedom of the press, any force could counteract these values and instill agendas of their own that do not include sustaining the freedom of the press. Example: If the Korean People's Army (of North Korea) breached National Security, freedom of the press would not be sustained and it would be nonexistent as people could not safely use it.P1. Freedom of the press is irrelevant if you cannot successfully use it as a rightP2. Freedom of the press cannot be successfully used as a right if death is associated with vocalizing itP3. Freedom and Liberty can never be upheld if there is not security - in the case of a country, national security - to protect these values from other forces that would inevitably seek to defer themP4. Freedom of the press is cannot exist without a sense of security present to protect the right to vocalize itP5. Freedom of the press is subsistent on security and national security.Contention 2. Human life is the moral priority, and deprioritization of [national] or human security threatens human life, making prioritization of Freedom of Press immoral"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas JeffersonNational Security is Human Security and, to effect, security of life for all of it's citizens therein.Under this presumption, the preservation of human life is the most sacred aspect of being within a society.Though it may not entirely matter, how Jefferson lists "life" before "liberty" in this text. The text is presented in such a manner for reason that each of the values presented as unalienable rights (which they all are) are subistent on the one before it.The right to the pursuit of happiness cannot be assured without liberty, and liberty cannot be assured without life to utilize it with.P1. Freedom of the Press is every person's libertyP2. The right to live is every person's libertyP3. Liberty is a subsistent privilege associated with human lifeP4. If human life is put at risk, liberty in it's subsistence is rendered irrelevantP5. National Security assures human lifeP6. National security is inherently to be more valued than freedom of the press as freedom of the press assures a concept that is subsistent upon what national security secures.============================================================I will present more extensive arguments in R2, alongside rebuttals to Pro's original contentions, as stated at the beginning of my argument.Good luck refuting, Pro! :)