National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press

Well, as this is my last speech I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent sincerely for a fantastic debate. I've enjoyed it thoroughly, and hope that the feeling is mutual. With that said I'd like to address a couple things before the debate is over. First, I'd like to point out how many arguments my opponent failed to respond to in his last post. Although I understand that he didn't have time, the fact remains that many of the point I made in Round 3 remain unchallenged. Now, since I will not be able to respond, I ask the voters to consider all the arguments not refuted by Con to be won by Pro. With that said, let's move to the arguments my opponent did bring up. His first point was a technical refutation of my case. He claims (rightly) that I didn't define National Security in relation to the Freedom of the Press. I completely agree, but he appears to think this invalidates the definition itself! This is demonstrably false. At the point in my case where I defined the terms, I was not yet constructing an argument for the Pro side. I had stated that National Security was the protection of lives, but not that it was better than freedom of the press yet. My goal there was to provide definitions that both the Pro and the Con could use. If my opponent thinks that I have to define national security in relation to the freedom of the press he needs to prove that 100% true. He has failed to do this. Now he next brought up New York Times Co. v United States. Apparently, he believes that this case defines both National Security and a Free Press. However, he hasn't provided a concrete counter-definitions to my current definitions. Therefore, my definitions are the only ones presented in the round. However, I am glad my opponent brought up NY Times v US. The ruling in this made an interesting point. Although it DID rule in favor the press, it also made it clear that the freedom of the press could be abridged in scenarios like troop positions, etc. This case actually supports my side, then! His only other point as about the double standard of morality he claimed I set up. This simply isn't true. See, under my definition of National Security (which has a valid source and is the only official definition provided in the round and therefore must be accepted) the safety of the Nation's citizens is part of it. So, to answer his argument, it depends on if national security even exists for the nation giving us the information. Let me explain. We know human rights abuses are going on in North Korea. We know that the people there are not safe. If their press leaked information to us that helped us, they would not be valuing the free press over national security, because there is no national security in the country at all! Take England, though. In England there are no known human rights abuses going on by the government. So, if their press leaked information that helped us, it would be wrong for them to do so because they would be valuing Freedom of the Press over National Security. My opponent claims that the conclusion that I come to in the England example is paradoxical. I fail to see how. Being consistent isn't being paradoxical. Consistency, doesn't equal contradictory. So, in conclusion, my opponent has failed to successfully refute my arguments. His argument against my definitions fails because he is importing arbitrary requirements without proving their worth. His argument from a Double Standard of Morality assumes that that being consistent equates to being paradoxical or contradictory, which he hasn't proven. Furthermore, just including an argument about morality doesn't mean you have fulfilled the burden of the Resolution. He has still failed in his burden to prove that governments are morally obligated to value National Security and Freedom of the Press equally. Therefore, my opponent has failed to prove the resolution false, has failed to provide a counter-case to my own that withstands any sort of scrutiny, has failed to respond to the majority of arguments presented in the rounds, and hasn't proven the majority of his claims that he HAS made true. With all of that considered, I still stand Resolved, that National Security ought to be valued above the Freedom of the Press.