When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security

Since my opponent will be out of town this week, Round 3 will be the last round. I'll address my opponent's rebuttals, and then reassert my rebuttals. Contention 1: The quote that my opponent used was about Stalinist Russia. There are several things wrong with using Stalin as an example for this debate. First of all, how may people like Stalin have appeared throughout history? I know about only two, which means that the cases that my opponent mentions are quite rare. Second, Stalin's reign does not show a conflict of economic security and personal freedom. Because of Stalin's paranoia, the people of Russia would have been deprived of their freedom whether the USSR was a world power or not. In the vast majority of cases, economic security does significantly affect quality of life. A simple example would be a millionaire's mansion compared with a slum dog's shack. Thus my contention still stands. In response to my school analogy, my opponent claims that because some people can drop out of school and be successful, my reasoning is circular and not true in all cases. Even if this is so, my reasoning is true in the majority of cases. Thus my principle is upheld. My opponent claims that if he were in jail, his material belongings would be useless. That may be so, but you are guaranteed survival in prison, whereas if you are penniless and out of prison, there is no saying whether you would survive. Remember, I said you were in a foreign country. I did not say whether or not they had programs to help the poor survive. If I were him, I would reassess my decision. Contention 2: What I meant by this contention was that one's financial means are limited by one's economic security. Your personal freedom is limited by your financial means. My opponent has not addressed this. Notice that I don't give a situation here, because this contention is just a reason to choose economic security over personal freedom. My opponent says that this contention doesn't show conflict. I can say the same about both of his contentions. Contention 3: I have already shown that borrowing money is a conflict between personal freedom and economic security. My opponent has not refuted my reasoning. Just because you choose to borrow money doesn't mean that borrowing is not a conflict of values. From the borrowing example I concluded that personal freedom valued over economic security leads to a vicious cycle of debt and dependence on others. Pro has not refuted this conclusion. Pro's contention 1: In any sort of conflict, the only one who can do the valuing is the subject of the conflict. Therefore Pros contention 1 falls. Pro has changed his contention from 'all arguments should be debated in the perspective of a third party' to 'the subject of a conflict should not be doing the valuing'. Pro's contention 2: Economic security comes from work, but the workplace also robs you of some of your freedom. There is obviously conflict between economic security and personal freedom here, and most people choose economic security. My opponent's version does not work. You don't lose economic security if you get a job. No matter what job you get, you always get a higher paycheck than the government gives you. When you get a job, you lose some of your freedom. Pro's contention 3: Pro tries to refute my argument that economic security comes before personal freedom by citing impoverished nations as an example. The question is, is the personal freedom enjoyed by people of impoverished nations any use? There are few useful things that they are able to do, and each day hundreds of them die from disease. Pro goes on to say that personal freedom is defined by how dependent you are on others. This definition does not agree with the definition he stated in Round 1, and I've already shown that a lack of economic security necessitates dependence on others. Pro also says that not all values are inherently valuable but provides no explanation as to what inherent value is. He says that money is good only because of what it brings us. In Round 1 he states that economic security is "the condition of having a stable source of financial income that allows for access to basic infrastructure needs pertaining to health, education, dwelling, information, and social protection." Economic security is necessary for survival. By devaluing economic security, my opponent is devaluing life itself. Conclusion: Because economic security is the foundation of a good life, is the limit of personal freedom, and allows independence, I urge a CON ballot.