Resolved: Stability and Security is more important than Personal Freedom.

The order will be:Responses to Con's observations --> His responses to my case --> His caseHis second observation is that he has three paths to victory, and that he only needs to extend one to win today's round. This is insanely abusive, as it creates a massive offense skew in his favor. The violation is that he only needs to win one of his contradictory advocacies to win the round. He can kick out of any of these three advocies if he begins to lose on them, and as a result I will never be able to generate a coherent plan of offense and defense. Two justifications as to why this is a problem. First, debate is an academic activity. Regardless of wins and loses, at the end of the day everyone involved in this debate and everyone who is reading and will read this debate should learn something new. The Con's framework doesn't account for the academic value of debate. Second, Debate is a competitive activity. Barring cases where nobody votes or everyone votes for a tie, either me or UT will be leaving this debate as a winner or loser. An activity can only be competitive with a fair rule set, and under my opponent's interpretation the rule set is not fair. Therefore this can not be a competitive activity and can not be a debate. To pre-empt the response to this, while life may not be fair, this isn't life, this is debate, and debate is a competitive activity like football or baseball. While there might be real life barriers to entry, like a lack of natural athletic ability, the rules of track and field don't inherently favor people like Usain Bolt.But if you are still unconvinced, recognize his own overview prevents him from putting forth any new arguments in the round, so through out the rest of this round he is bound to defensive arguments.His overview on my case is flawed. There are literally millions of ways governments and individuals could pursue SaS over PF, and as a result there is no way I can possibly defend them all. For every government that bans handguns, there is a government that commits ethnic cleansing. For every mother who enforces a curfew, there is one that locks her child in the basement.His overview against my first contention is flawed because he agrees that lives are important. But even if you are unconvinced, lives are the most important thing because you can't have any personal freedoms without being alive. His responses against my first contention are that I don't show why Personal Freedom is less important. As this debate goes on I hope to do this, but I don't have to. I can still win this round if I prove that A) Stability and Security are better than personal freedom, and B) That there is a tradeoff between the two. I accesses A when I prove B. I prove B when I show that the PATRIOT Act and increased security measures undermine personal freedom, therefore I access A. What that means is that I still gain the impact of lives and money lost to terrorism. Because a Corpse has no personal freedoms, winning on lives wins me the round.His responses to my second contention is that society is comprised of inviduals, therefore sacrifices to individual freedoms impact everyone and not just an individual. But the point I make here is that while everyone is equally impacted by increased SaS, only I am impacted by my personal freedoms. I benefit the most people when I accept this fact and am willing give up some of my personal freedom.Onto his case:Overview on his case: If I win the framing response, I win the round because all of his advocies are contradictory. He argues 1) Neither are important because Nihilism argues that all belief is false, 2)Increasing Stability and Security are morally wrong, 3) SaS and PF are equally important, and 4) PF is more important. His first two and last two advocacies contradict their other, and his first advocy contradicts them all because if every belief is false and there is no truth in the world, than all of his other arguments are false because they are someone's or based on someone's belief in something.His argument about Nilhism is a giant paradox. Explanation: The belief "All belief are false", and Nihilism as a whole, is a belief. Therefore, it must be false. However we only assume the statement to be false if the statement is true. That means either A) The statement is both True and False, or B) The statement is neither. This is why Nilhism simply doesn't work when arguing about absolutes.On his second point. First, if we assume morality to exist, than it is morally wrong to let people die by sacrificing SaS for PF. I prove the lives lost on my first contention. But Secondly, morality isn't tangible. The moral standards of a community and individual are fickle, and at times contradictory. As a result, morality isn't a tangible system for us to weigh anything. Instead prefer more real ways to analyse impacts.His third contention is that they are equally important. The Pro case disproves this. The examples of things like the PATRIOT Act show tradeoffs between the two, and by sacrificing PF in these examples, the Pro case shows that more people are saved than without this tradeoff. His Fourth argument is the bulk of his case. Most of this argument is a history lesson and thus is indisputable, so instead I will argue about the merits of this argument and it's application to the affirmative and negative case.First of all, his only example here is the PRC. He has to show that this example is representative of the trend to gain offense. Secondly, the purges and persecution are flaws of the system, not the intent. Already discussed this when refuting his overview. Onto the impact. First, He doesn't give a causality warrant, so at best these examples are correlation. Second, China is only a larger economy when you use GDP. If you use Purchasing Power Parity, PPP, China has a larger economy. Statistic Times reports that in 2014, China overtook the United States as the largest economy by the PPP measurement. Third, HDI and Happiness are impacted by factors such as the heavy pollution and traffic in China. It is commonly known that the air quality in China sucks, and as a result people die earlier and are more unhappy. Voting Pro or Con does nothing to impact this, so at the end of the day neither side gets solvency. Finally, he claims that nations who hold both as equals are better off. But the problem here is that few nations hold both equally. Look at the US. Things like the PATRIOT Act and mass government surveillance have shown that the USFG doesn't hold SaS and PF equally. Look at nations like the UK and Australia. These nations restricted personal freedom by enacting things like a firearm ban. There intention was to limit the guns in circulation to make everyone safer, or in other words to make everyone more secure. These are both clear examples of "Western Democracies" who don't value the two equally because they are making concessions in one aspect to improve the other.At this point, it is clear the only false beliefs in this debate are my opponent's. Thus I negate.====I thank UT and all the readers for a wonderful debate thus far. I hope it continues to be great.