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

I have to go to bed early to wake up early so this will be quickly made, thus it won't be very developed ==== Response to Pro's arguments. ==== Pro states: "If the negitive puts forward an advocacy, they must defend it unconditionally." No I don't. This is the first time that pro has stated this. Pro goes onto state that I have violated something, but I have violated nothing because no rules were ever put into place. Pro claims that me dropping my moral egoism argument is abusive on the grounds that his argument against it is "null and void." This claim is false because Pro's Round 2 case was so effective I had to rebuild my case, and the moral egoism case was decimated especially, which was 1/3 of my offensive argument. I still maintain, however, that the objective of Con is to negate Pro's case, and since no rules were put into place I am in the right to use whatever arguments are at my disposal to negate Pro's resolution. 2)Life is a constant competition against death. In order to stay alive, one must fight against hunger, thirst, nature, other people, etc. Even those who aren't struggling to survive, there is still competition at home, at school, at work and outside of all three of these things. Debate is a part of life, and I don't undermine competition and education, I foster it by making Pro more competitive in his debate and to counter this I become more competitive. I also foster education by posting the causes and execution of genocides, things that must be avoided. 3) It is my only BoP as Con to prove Pro wrong, and this is not abuse for two reasons, the rules were never established and it is traditionally Con's job to negate Pro's resolution. I have also established my cases as separate, thus they should be treated as such. ==== Equating PF with CL is founded on the basis that I originally defined PF as the rights listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and then I said that CL are the rights listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, thus making them the same and me not employing a moving target. Civil liberties: "The state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community" Civil liberties/PF were established in order to protect the community from totalitarian governments who place national SaS above its citizens and violate people's "right to life, liberty, and security of person." I didn't use a Gish Gallop, Pro asked for me to expand on examples of genocides to prove a trend that totalitarian governments who value national SaS over all else commit numerous atrocities, so I did this by listing six out of many examples (I did not list any genocides in Africa, the Americas, or the Middle East.) ==== In Pro's 2nd to last counter, he states that my stating of the PATRIOT Act and Fire arms is a conflict between PF/CL is false when it is in fact true, because Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and security of person." This is a conflict between the liberty and security of person, which are both included in PF/CL. ==== The Key Voters Response: 1) Pro is emphasizing the theory of proper conduct in a debate that has no rules which distracts from the discussion of the impacts of affirming or negating the Resolution, which is what the debate is supposed to be about. By voting Con you will send a clear message that the purpose of debate is to find a platform to discuss ideas, and as an extent to reject ideas that are a net harm to humanity and to promote ideas that are a net benefit to humanity. 2) For the PRC it is clear that they valued national SaS over PF/CL (which ensures individual security) Pro states: "First, I don't have to defend the outcome of the system a government uses, but instead the intention of the system they employ." Pro"s statement is false because it contradicts the resolution: SaS is more important than PF. Importance: "the quality or state of being important : consequence" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Importance deals with consequence, and consequence deals with outcome, not intent. Since Pro has failed to defend the outcome of national SaS, he has failed to uphold the resolution, thus making me win. "Finally, these are just extremist examples." These few extremist examples are relevant because they are responsible for the worst genocides in human history, resulting in the killings of 168-225 million people, violating their personal freedoms/civil liberties with the objective of maintaining and expanding national stability and security at all costs. This is why I advocate so strongly for Personal Freedom/Civil Liberties, to protect people from government atrocities. On moderates, they are not choosing between SaS and PF/CL since PF/CL guarantees individual security. Rather, this is a conflict within PF/CL, the individual's right to security vs. the individual's right to liberty. 3) Same/extend 4) I have revised my Nihilism case, instead of stating "Nothing can be true" I stated that "Nothing that is not a fact can be true" Since importance is an opinion, and opinions are not facts, opinions are not true. Thus this resolution is not true. Because of this, I have negated the resolution by denying the truth of it. Note: This is a separate argument from my main argument. 5) The advocacy for the affirmative is harmful because Pro has only used two examples on how increased SaS is beneficial, reduction of terrorist attacks and firearm bans (the former is the only one backed up by sources) and spent the majority of the debate with debate theory and how I violated things when rules weren't established. Pro also downplays genocide despite it causing more deaths and economic harm than terrorism. Pro is a fairly free citizen of the United States because it has a strong sense of upholding PF/CL, these not are only guaranteed in the US Constitution but these rights are actively upheld by the government, unlike the government of the PRC that upholds national SaS above of all else. Once again, Pro states that it is not his job to defend the faults/results of the system when the word importance is concerned with the consequence of actions, not the intent. While the pursuit of national SaS above all else was a noble intent it lead to heinous, inexcusable results that should never be repeated. 6) I thus urge voters to vote Con. PF/CL guarantees "The right of life, liberty, and security of person" in Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Since security and stability is a part of PF/CL there is no need to hold stability and security as more important over all the rights listed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The purpose of these rights is to protect the people from totalitarian/authoritarian governments who value the maintaining and expanding national security above all, including the lives of their own people. These totalitarian government"s policies resulted in the death of 168-225 million people. The resolution that Stability and Security is more important than PF indirectly legitimizes these genocides because this is the justification genocidal governments gave when they caused the killing of millions of people. On the contrary, voting against the resolution would negate the justification for genocides and promote personal freedom/civil liberties as listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If I violated the competitive nature of the debate by making myself free to negate the resolution in order to denounce an idea that promotes mass genocide violated the competitive nature of the debate in order to denounce an idea that justifies genocide when the idea is in its extreme form and promote an idea that prevents genocide and promotes the advancement of human rights then so be it, it was worth it. For the freedom of debate and to limit the justification of genocide and promote universal human rights I urge the vote of the negative case Thanks Eon, we'll both FF R4.