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

In this speech, I'll address what Con said against my Contentions, and then reassert what I said against his case. Contention 1: Con misunderstands the argument here. I'm not saying that our own personal beliefs can't be brought into the debate. Rather, I'm saying that in all examples of conflict, it is imperative that the subject of the example not be doing the valuing themselves. For example, a person cannot choose to devalue their own choice. But when we take into account an external actor (like the government), that external actor can do the valuing for us. We'll see how this applies later on. Contention 2: You can use your freedom to not get a job, but that example doesn't show any conflict with economic security. I'm not sure of the point Con was attempting to make with this response. While Con's response to the freedom restrained with a job may sound plausible, the problem this falls prey to is the contradiction of Contention 1 (that he agreed to). If an individual goes and uses their own freedom to go get a job (thereby limiting their own freedom), they are valuing personal freedom in order to restrain personal freedom, which obviously presents us with an impossible and unresolved principle. The only possible way this can make sense in the context of the resolution is if an external actor values one thing or the other. If you don't have a job, your freedom is limited by the government in the sense that you cannot go out and get a job without losing the economic security you have. The two are directly in conflict. It is not the case with using your own freedom to get a job, because 1. that doesn't work under this topic, and 2. You'd be using your own freedom to get economic security (in which case, there really is no actual conflict, which was defined as mutual exclusivity). This doesn't refute my response that primacy does not equal superiority (the earth existed before humans did, but that doesn't make the earth of superior value to human beings). Contention 3: Incorrect. Not all values are inherently valuable. Money can be a value, but money has no inherent worth–it is what is known as a pragmatic value, something that is good only because of what it brings us. In the same way, economic security is merely having a stable source of finances to have basic services. That is not by any means an inherently valuable goal. Pragmatically valuable in some cases, sure. But not inherently valuable. Con's argument that primacy equals superiority is fundamentally flawed, as it can be empirically denied. Extremely impoverished nations can have large amounts of personal freedom, but little to no economic security. Personal freedom is not defined by what you can make (that's economic security: making money), but by how dependent you are on others, and when you choose to throw away personal freedom to gain economic security, you will inevitably lose independence and become more dependent on others. That is what conflict is defined as. When you throw out economic security, however, to value personal freedom, it is much more likely that one can be self reliant as they are making choices of their own accord, which necessitates wise and responsible decisions. Response to Con Contention 1: Here's my source quote: "Although the country suffered enormous devastation and lost more than twenty million lives, it had gained considerable territory and now ranked as one of the two great world powers along with the United States. Nonetheless, life in the country continued to suffer. Industrial production was once again concentrated on heavy industry, agricultural failures produced widespread famine, political freedoms were restricted even further, and another huge wave of purges was carried out. As the Cold War got underway, an increasing proportion of the Soviet Union's resources were funneled into military projects, further exacerbating the quality of life. " [1] Examples are great, but that doesn't prove the principle I was illustrating. I agree with Con, based on statistics, that China has somewhat of a high quality of life. This was not my main argument in my previous response, although it was a secondary one. The main response to the quality of life argument was that initially brought up: quality of life = a high degree of economic security. This argument hasn't changed, and Con's argument is still circular. Even if you agree with Con's argument that economic security creates quality of life (which has already been shown to be false in some instances, true in others–leaving us with an inconsistent principle), that doesn't prove anything, other than that economic security achieves greater amounts of economic security. In response to the school analogy, the percentage of people who can do this has absolutely nothing to do with our debate. The point of that analogy was to illustrate that 1. Con's argument was circular (which he hasn't yet refuted), and 2. that Con's principle was not true in all situations. Examples illustrate the truth of principles, and if we only debate over examples instead of principles, nothing will really be resolved. Economic security simply isn't the highest value because it doesn't allow one to be self-reliant when you throw out personal freedom, and it doesn't possess any intrinsic worth. If I were in jail, my material belongings would be pretty worthless. However, if the government took away all that I owned but allowed me complete personal freedom, I could go and get another job, another house, more food, etc. Besides, we already agreed that economic security is defined as "financial stability that allows for access to basic services," and it's entirely possible to survive without having money (difficult, granted, but possible). Response to Con Contention 2: Economic security is only the financial means one has, not the ability of that person. If you want to get "luxurious" life and have lots of expensive things, economic security might be useful. But valuing a stable source of income will theoretically achieve luxury (which is simply the accumulation of wealth). I didn't miss the point of Con's argument, I simply addressed it at it's root: economic security doesn't limit someone, and even if it did, that doesn't show conflict (and thus has nothing to do with the debate). The argument Con makes is also circular. Therefore, his contention falls. Response to Con Contention 3: I don't deviate from my standard, and I didn't claim that it's based on the individual. I simply pointed out a contradiction on Con's part. My point is that, while I and Con both agree that economic security and personal freedom are important and work together often times, the question of the resolution is explicitly which is more valuable in conflict. Whether one works well with the other has nothing to do with that. If we must choose between either one or the other, personal freedom allows for independence because it requires one to make decisions that will be responsible, while on the other side of the coin, economic security essentially encourages laziness, and thus dependence. 1. Borrowing is not a conflict, and 2. It's not an external actor. When you borrow money, you choose to value access to those goods and services. Obviously you choose to borrow money. Which is why you can't exercise your own personal freedom in order to value your personal freedom (that ends up in a circle, which we want to avoid, as it proves nothing). When you value personal freedom over economic security, you can still survive, and have the ability to provide for yourself. But if you choose to have a stable income and throw away your free choice, that inherently leads to depending on whoever is giving you said stable income. Personal freedom forces you to be self-reliant. Also, economic security is a pragmatic value, personal freedom is intrinsic. Personal freedom is more valuable than economic security.