National Security over Freedom of the Press

Many thanks for my opponent's response. I will now reaffirm my case and also refute my opponents. Opponent's Case:The majority of my opponent's arguments relies on his first contention, which is being that National Security is not an intrinsic value and Freedom of the Press is. This ties in with his other contentions and is at the heart of his argument. My opponent is false in saying that National Security is not an intrinsic value. Safety (which includes National Security) is an intrinsic value. I'll expand on this: An example of an intrinsic value might be happiness, for being happy is good just because it's good to be happy, not because being happy leads to anything else [1]. This is the same for Safety, it's good to be safe just because it's good to be safe, it doesn't necessarily lead to anything else. So safety (which includes National Security) is an intrinsic value and this refutes this contention and the following two contentions of my opponent's case. My Case:"The implication behind this is that the responsibility of the government is NOT to contain national security, but to uphold life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"How does the government uphold these though? By protecting these from threats that comes from terrorists or foreign powers through national security. These values are protected safety and national security. We won't be able to live out or uphold these values if they are vulnerable and constantly at threat, which is where they'll be when we start to not value National Security."The problem behind this is that a lack of national security does not mean Life will not exist. Much Life may be lost, but that is not a guarantee."We shouldn't even take the risk. There is no guarantee you will be killed by a tornado but you still take shelter because both you and the government should rather be safe than sorry. "Freedom of the Press does not absolutely harm national security, and therefore gives no warrant for national security to be valued over freedom of the press"Not exactly accurate. Most of the time, when Freedom of the Press and National Security conflict, the government, Supreme Court and people choose what is more valuable, National Security. As said by the Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota: "No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." [Source 4 in last debate]. Basically, when they conflict, Freedom of the Press harms National Security. "Do we use laws to restrict freedom? Yes, in fact, we use it to protect freedom. Does this mean we value laws above freedom? Of course not, we value freedom above laws, though laws restrict freedom."We value the laws that preserve our freedom over our freedom for without the laws there would likely be no freedom. "Similarly, using national security to restrict freedom of the press does not mean we value (highly regard or esteem) it above freedom of the press. The impact is that we can use national security to restrict freedom of the press without valuing it above it. Therefore, the affirmative fails to prove the resolution true. Restriction does not equate to valuing above."This is false. My father restricts my freedom of riding a bicycle when I'm being unsafe because he values my safety over my freedom. Restriction does equate to valuing above. "Although the Supreme Court does not withhold what is absolutely true and what is not. Their opinion does not determine what should be valued higher in this debate round. Again, intrinsic value must always be valued above extrinsic value, because extrinsic value is derived from intrinsic value."The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. You cite The Declaration of Independence to support your case, a document which by the way has no legal bearing. But I cite decisions made by the highest court in the land whose opinions are law and you write off their opinions because they don't "withhold what is absolutely true and what is not?" The resolution stands affirmed.I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Sources:1. http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu...