National Security over Freedom of the Press

I'm very pleased to have a willing victim. ;) With the pleasantries out of the way, let's get to it. "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " (1) These words of Benjamin Franklin idealize precisely what the negative case shall entail. While national security is certainly a responsibility of government to keep, it should never be valued above any personal freedom, including freedom of the press. Definitions: Before we get onto the meat of the round, I would like to clarify exactly what is meant by the definitions above. National Security and Valued are fine as they are, but Freedom of the Press needs clarification. Since nearly everyone has the ability to publish stories and articles (not simply newspapers), Freedom of the Press is far more extensive than commonly thought. As the negative, I believe it is vital to note that Freedom of the Press extends past newspapers and industries to civilians, as anyone is capable of publishing articles and stories. With those clarifications out of the way, I will now present the main philosophy of the negative case. While keeping society safe is a high priority, they can never be valued above any personal freedoms, including freedom of the press. Therefore, my value is Freedom of the Press, the value I believed that must be held highest in this debate round. The reason that is show will be presented in three main points, or contentions. Contention 1: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value Intrinsic values are categorized as a non-derivative value of a certain, generally moral kind. This means they are valuable not because of any results they bring, but they are valuable because they are, well, valuable. They cannot be derived. Liberty (including freedom of the press) is an intrinsic value. (2) Extrinsic values are categorized as derived values of a certain kind. They are valuable because they are derived from an intrinsic value. National security is an extrinsic value. The reason why national security is valuable is because it is derived from another value, which in the opinion of the affirmative is life. So, what does this have to do with the presented resolution? This will be further illuminated in my second contention. Contention 2: Intrinsic Value Must Be Valued above Extrinsic Value As we have already established, that which is intrinsically good is non-derivatively good. It is good for its own sake. That which is extrinsically good is good because it is a derivative from something intrinsically good. Therefore, intrinsic value must have a priority over extrinsic value, the latter is derivative from or reflective of the former and is to be explained in terms of the former. Philosophers have understood this for centuries. With this clarified, let's move onto my final contention. Contention 3: Therefore, Freedom of the Press Must Be Valued Over National Security This is the conclusion of the first two premises. Since intrinsic value must be naturally valued above extrinsic value, and since freedom of the press is an intrinsic value while national security is an extrinsic value, freedom of the press must be naturally valued above national security. With the negative case explained, I will now move on to refute the affirmative's points. I will do so by grouping the relative arguments chronologically, then addressing them through refutation contentions. Chronology of arguments: -National Security is highest priority. -Without National Security, harm will fall on the citizens. -Reason for valuing: It's hard to be free when you're dead (I completely agree. ). -There must be a balance, but we must restrict freedom through national security. -Supreme court statement Refutation Contention 1: National Security Is NOT the Highest Priority The Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " (3) 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. This leads back to the intrinsic vs. extrinsic value argument. Life is an intrinsic value; national security is extrinsic. The responsibility of government is not to uphold national security, but to uphold the three mentioned values above. This leads into my second refutation contention. Refutation Contention 2: Life Does Not Equal National Security My opponent seems to mistake life with national security, as he said, "It's hard to be free when your dead. " 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. What he is actually valuing is life over liberty, which is a much better argument, but not the one the resolution implies. Thus, he has not proven the affirmative case true. He did provide some examples upon a violation of national security through an extensive freedom of the press, but I can refute this in my next point. Refutation Contention 3: Examples and Results Do Not Prove While it is unfortunate that freedom of the press has caused a loss of national security in specific examples, this does not prove that it must be valued lower. Results do not prove what should be valued above another, because results vary from situation to situation. 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. Refutation Contention 4: Restriction Does Not Equate to Valuing Above Ask yourselves this, do you value freedom or laws more? I am certain most of you would proclaim freedom. 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. 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. Refutation Contention 5: Supreme Court Is Not Absolute Truth 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. Under this natural law of philosophy, while national security is important, freedom of the press must always be valued above it. He who does deserves neither. Thank you, and it is for all these reasons I encourage you all to vote negative. I stand ready for my opponent's next response. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikiquote.org... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. . http://www.archives.gov...