Everyone deserves the right to personal freedom

Con is now introducing a new nuanced angle of his original position. Note: His original position as stated is not 100% consistent with an argument contrary to the debate Topic. The debate topic is unqualified. Both I (Pro) and Con qualified our positions based on the debate Topic, but the Topic itself is not the nuanced Pro argument. Con's introductory argument follows: | Everybody does not deserve the right to personal freedom because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. | It can also lead to corruptive behaviour and power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially. | It may be a human right but certainly not everyone deserves it. Con did not begin with the argument he introduced in the 4th round. Con's 4th round argument: | People who deserve personal freedom should be people who have never commited a crime or act against others. Until the 4th round, Con has implied that there should be some kind of proactive denial of basic rights to prevent "harm to others". This is the first mention by Con that only people who have never committed a crime deserve personal freedom. Con keeps saying that personal freedom can be used to violate the freedom of others... That's really his fundamental argument. I think that's a given... There's nothing really profound there. If you're free to get in a car and drive, you certainly have opportunity to mow down the first pedestrian you see. Per Con's 4th round position, I think he's trying to ease-in to my position. Let me repeat my first round acceptance and framing of the arguments (which Con never challenged): | Con must provide sufficient warrant for his argument that everyone does not deserve the right to personal freedom | because of the potential for abuse or because of problem scenarios to which that freedom "may" lead. Specifically, as | Con stated, "...because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. It can also lead to [corrupt behavior] and | power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially." Note: Con did not argue (as I have) that | certain personal freedoms may be taken away after committing a crime (for instance)... Rather, he states that certain | people (we know not who) should never be allowed to experience personal freedoms because of what they "may" do with | it. Con has yet to provide sufficient warrant for his argument. On the other hand, I argue in favor of personal freedom for all--according to the well-established concept of Natural Law/Natural Rights. Natural Law and Natural Rights are deduced from the essential nature of human beings. The fundamental basis of Natural Law is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, individuals have both a "natural" right and a "natural" duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason. Individuals must be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Therefore, liberty should be extended to all, liberally. Without the actualization and protection of these freedoms, human beings are prevented or restricted from performing their "natural" duty to preserve their own lives. Note: The idea here is not that governments should grant these rights. Rather, that humans, by nature, ALREADY have these rights by virtue of being human. Infringement of individual rights is therefore an unnatural act. But again, Murderers, rapists and the like (people who severely violate the natural rights of another) forfeit their own rights by virtue of their unnatural acts. The purpose of government is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable Natural Rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the law. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the law and the people. These principles were uniquely adopted and codified in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights).