Parli: This House values life over liberty.

Thank you, Con, for your response. 1A ----> Con first argues against the premise that existence is the ultimate value. She says that I cannot prove this, and that individuals possess the liberty to determine what their own ultimate value is. Indeed her argument is self-defeating. In order for one to determine what their ultimate value is, they would have to be alive - thus life is the ultimate value. Life is the value from which all other values derive. Without life, values would cease to exist. Further, one cannot perpetuate their values without being alive, once again establishing my claim. 1B ----> Next, Con argues that in heaven a soul would have all types of liberty. First, I don't believe in heaven and I believe that this debate is limited to tangible things here on earth :) Second, I do not believe in souls and Con cannot prove that we have souls making this contention further irrelevant. Finally, if we're talking about heaven then we're not talking about life -- we're talking about an "afterlife." My argument was that you need to be alive in order to have liberty; any talk of souls, heaven or an afterlife is merely speculatory and thus irrelevant. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what Con was getting at here. The resolution isn't "This house values eternal life in heaven over liberty" but merely life itself. 1C ----> Con's next point is that death is freedom in the sense that is can offer freedom from totalitarian control, a life of oppression, or something else equally devastating. However, in order to be free you must exist. Again, I do not believe in existence of the self after death (nor is this debate a religious one) meaning if something is not alive, it cannot possess freedom or liberty. Additionally, Con cannot prove that everyone would rather die than suffer. A good example is the DNR (do not resuscitate) clause; some people sign it and would prefer to be euthanized than suffer physically, and some do not. Remember, Con writes that death is liberty and the ultimate end to life giving it a reason to be valued over life. This is easy to refute. First, in order for her point that death was preferable over a harsh life to be counted, one must choose suicide over their hardship. If one does not choose suicide, then we must assume that they prefer life (even in bad conditions) over death. Second, if one opted for suicide i.e. choosing death as the ultimate value, then my Point 1 argument stands: you need to be alive to carry out or perpetuate ANY of your values. Without being alive, you could not choose death (meaning life is the ultimate value). If you do not choose death, you choose life (again making life the ultimate value). Either way, my point stands. 2 and 3 ----> Con states that my 2nd and 3rd points are irrelevant because I included the words "Con says" while posting them thus making them rebuttals and not constructive arguments. Admittedly I did respond to some of Con's points; however, those arguments were indeed my constructive arguments and they just so happened to counter everything that Con said in the first round. I think avoiding my arguments and pushing them off on this completely irrelevant "error" is ridiculously lame (especially since this is a debate site - not a formal debate) and a somewhat pathetic excuse to simply avoid the contentions I provided. My constructive arguments would have been the same even without writing "Con says" so please extend those arguments as a part of Pro's rebuttal if it will make Con more comfortable. For Con's convenience, I will copy and paste them in this round so they will hopefully be addressed in the next: 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 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. ----> I very much appreciate my opponent addressing my Sartre argument despite this being a "parli" debate. I am not familiar with formal debating standards; however, I do know Sartre's philosophy (and I have since high school) -- I merely included the links as evidence for my opponent, the audience, and because sources count in DDO debates. Additionally, my argument would still be the same and completely relevant even without mentioning Sartre or his quote (which is why I think my opponent actually decided to refute this one). So back to the rebuttal... Con asserts, "One can 'choose to not make choices' physically by making an ultimate and final choice, the choice to take one's own life." Obviously this is a complete contradiction. In order to opt for suicide (an end to life to avoid choices), one must MAKE THE CHOICE of suicide thereby already negating Con's entire claim. Yet she continues, "Physically after one is dead, what is done with the body is no longer the choice of the individual who has achieved ultimate liberty by making the choice to be free from all worldly control. Thus, liberty is valued over life." I'm sure the audience is just as confused as I am wondering how one's dead body is at all relevant to liberty. Clearly once one is dead, they do not posses the liberty (or the ability to control what happens to their deceased body) and yet I fail to see the connection in any way as to how this proves that liberty should be valued over life. All she's proven is that one has the liberty to give up their life and control of their dead body, which does not negate the resolution in the slightest. Con continues, "Philosophically we cease to have liberty when our ideas can no longer pervade society." Obviously an infant's ideas cannot pervade society and yet I would argue that they still have liberty. Nevertheless, Con also says that "total liberty does not exist until we are self-aware." Right here she concedes that liberty cannot exist without life, this confirming the foundation of my entire argument. Con also writes, "Only when we are fully self-aware are we truly living, because only then do we have total liberty." Again, this is not rooted in reality but merely her own philosophical interpretation. As I have explained in my second point, to be living merely means to be alive and in existence -- there are no other requirements. Liberty is not a characteristic of living itself. Con concludes, "In this manner [becoming self aware], liberty comes in gradual steps before we are, by my philosophical definition, truly living, and thus liberty obviously supersedes life." In other words, she says that you are not really living until you are a self-aware individual, so liberty is therefore greater than life. Unfortunately, even by her own ideal she has only claimed that you have liberty before you're "living" -- not that liberty is greater than living. She cannot say that liberty supersedes life because she has already admitted that you cannot have liberty without being alive. And with that said, I'll send this debate back over to Con. Thanks, Con!