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

In this argument, I'll be addressing Con's case, and then reiterating the validity of my own case. I'm assuming that since a value wasn't explicitly presented, Con is supporting economic security as their value. Response to Con's Contention 1: The entirety of Con's argument here is that because economic security is necessary, and because it comes first, it is superior. This argument, however, has no legitimate grounds. I'll address these ideas, and then refute the example of schools. 1. While it is true that everyone needs some sort of economic security, this by no means proves economic security to be superior–necessity does not equal superiority. In Soviet Russia, or other Socialist nations, people were guaranteed a certain level of economic security, having access to things like food, shelter, a form of income, and other basic infrastructural needs. However, their quality of life was very poor, their valuing of economic security over their freedom led to reliance on a corrupt and illegitimate government, and the moral value of personal freedom was implicated. Economic security led to others-dependence and a devaluing of morality. 2. Con commits the logical fallacy "post hoc, proper hoc," saying that because we have economic security before we have a high-quality life, economic security is more valuable. Con also commits circular reasoning: by valuing economic security, we have a luxurious life. What is a luxurious life? Essentially, having lots of economic security! Con proves nothing. The example of schools is also fallacious, as it not only is based on the flawed circular reasoning, but also is simply untrue. Several highly successful people have dropped out of school and yet had success. Without the freedom to pursue your life in a meaningful way in the future through an exercise of personal freedom, economic security and "luxury" ends up being meaningless. Response to Con's Contention 2: Con's second contention, unfortunately, falls prey to the same problem as the previous: circularity. Con constantly appeals to the standard of economic security to prove why economic security is good. Second, the examples of "building giant buildings" or "making multiple movies" really have nothing to do with the resolution, since they don't show personal freedom conflicting with economic security. Even if you accept that personal freedom is limited by economic security (which it isn't–nations that have been in deep poverty have been able produce intelligent people and resourceful commodities), that doesn't prove economic security is more valuable, just as a tape measure is not more important than the person that it measures. Response to Con's Contention 3: Two responses. One, Con seems to appealing to the higher standard of personal freedom, when he says, "without economic security you cannot be truly independent, and without independence you cannot be truly free. " This seems as though Con is conceding that personal freedom is the highest goal, and that economic security can help achieve that goal. If that is the case, then a vote for Pro is justified. Two, Con also seems to be agreeing with me in regards to the independence argument. While it may seem that Con is arguing for economic security here, in reality, they admit to my very point: if you want to accomplish something above your financial means (buy a $3000 TV set), and you go out and borrow money from someone else, that is valuing economic security. Even if you disagree with that, the person buying the TV would also be exercising their own personal freedom in order to get economic security–that obviously leaves us in a bind, as I identified in my Contention 1, and it's also not an example of conflict. *When in conflict,* economic security valued over personal freedom (such as the example I gave in my Contention 2) does in fact create others-dependence, and a socialistic welfare state where everyone depends on the government for sustenance. This being said, let's return to the Pro case and see why not only is it still valid, but it has gone almost completely unrefuted by Con. In my Contention 1, I pointed out how conflict examples are the only applicable ones to the resolution–all others must be disregarded because of the wording of the topic. I also showed how it's impossible to value economic security higher than personal freedom if you choose to use your own freedom to do that very thing. We must examine all examples of conflict from the perspective of an external actor (someone else doing the valuing). These issues were largely ignored by Con, who went on to use examples without conflict, and examples with the individual as their own actor. As this argument was not refuted, it should be considered conceded, and since Con has not complied with these standards, all of their arguments contradicting this standard should be thrown out. Under my Contention 2, I argued that personal freedom creates independence–a state where we are reliant upon ourselves for our well being. As a general principle, economic security creates irresponsibility when it's valued above personal freedom when the two conflict, because it allows for your fundamental ability to make decisions to be undermined in return for money. In my example of government welfare, you can either use your freedom to go get a job, or you can sacrifice your freedom and get a check. The latter option clearly provides no long-term stability, and in fact, breeds an irresponsible mindset, which is why we should reject economic security when it conflicts with personal freedom. My third (3) Contention went entirely unaddressed. Con completely ignored the fact that personal freedom has inherent moral value, that all other human rights and dignity depend on this one concept. Economic security has no intrinsic value–it never has, and it never will. Economic security is money. Personal freedom is the foundation that sets the standard and the principle for the worth of mankind. Without that freedom, man is no better than an animal, and if that's the mindset we hold to, the world would be a terrible place. In conclusion, personal freedom still clearly reigns superior to economic security when the two conflict, because it is more responsible, creates independence, and is inherently valuable, while economic security is not.