Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Contention I: "And yet, the Soviet Union fell quickly. Why you might say? Despite having a strong military, the rights of the Russian people were being disregarded, and the government was abusing power." "...the controlling government, which valued security very highly, ended up trampling the rights of the people, causing its eventual downfall." This essentially sums up my opponent's entire rebuttal. However, it is simply false. The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the "abuse of human rights". It mostly had to do with economy. In fact, it should be noted that the Soviet Union INCREASED personal freedoms of its people, an event soon followed by the disintegration of the nation. http://www.coldwar.org... Quite a weak argument here considering that my opponent fails to actually explain the supposed connection between human rights abuse and the fall of the Soviet Union. As seen above, I have actually provided a source that explains the fall of the USSR, an event that had nothing to do with the abuse of human rights. Contention II: " I think we can all agree that personal freedom and the support of one"s rights gives much more morale than lack of individual liberty and the abuse and lack of rights." This is highly debatable. In WW2, the Soviet soldiers were not only facing "lack of individual liberty" and "abuse/lack of rights", but also massive casualties on the front. Despite this, morale remained high enough for a grueling 4 years of brutal warfare in order to win. "The great military commander Chiang Kai-shek stated..." The commander my opponent called "great" and quoted was a military leader during the Chinese Civil War and it should be noted that this "great military commander" lost the Chinese Civil War and was exiled to Taiwan along with his forces. http://www.history.com... "As we can see, both logic and the experiences of ancient and contemporary military commanders prove that morale is one of the most important aspects of conflict and a nations stability." My opponent's logic here is that freedom=morale=victory in conflict. By such logic, there is no way a dictatorial nation could win in a conflict against a more free nation because of lack of morale. This is simply false, as we can see many, very powerful, dictatorial nations in history that were very successful (at least initially) in conflict. Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in WW2, for example. Yes, both eventually fell, but their defeat had nothing to do with a "lack of morale" because of a "lack of rights". In fact, it is known that despite a "lack of rights", both the Japanese and Germans fought to the last, relying on civilian assistance in guerrilla tactics to defeat the enemy even in the face of defeat. Contention III: "Despite this, we all know the story of the American Revolution, in which the colonials rebelled against their British oppressors, who trampled the rights of the New Englanders. Thus, just because a government protects its people does not mean that the people will be content." I sort of understand my opponent's point, but as soon as the British were defeated, what did the Americans do? Create a new government to protect the new nation. The purpose of a government is to protect its people, so shouldn't that be its focus? Contention IV: "The people of the world and I disagree" My opponent's source only had Americans as respondents, so saying "the people of the world" is quite misleading here. "A Boston Globe poll shows that more than 60% of participants say that they value privacy over surveillance for security reasons." 60% is a bit over half, that's not really heavily outweighing those who say they value surveillance for security more. Also, what people THINK is irrelevant. I demonstrated previously that surveillance cameras in public areas can have quite a large impact on the crime rate. How could one possibly say it's "not worth it"? "In conclusion, I have shown that my opponent"s first contention is invalid, as having a powerful military does not confirm security." I meant security in a military sense. Security in an economic sense (what the USSR lacked) had little to do with military or personal rights. "I did the same for his second and third claims by proving that morale is one of the most important aspects of war and by showing that just because a government protects its people does not mean that they will be content." My opponent merely provided two quotes from two "military personnel" as proof of his claim. The first was written by a military "loser", and the second was written by an ancient Greek soldier. I find such "proof" quite unsatisfactory. While I agree that morale is important, it doesn't necessarily correlate with "personal freedoms", as I have shown with examples of Japan and Germany in WW2. "And I disproved his final contentions with a poll that shows that people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures." I once again emphasize that my opponent's source only had Americans as respondents, and that the difference was only 11%. By this, it is unwise to say that "...people most definitely prefer the freedom of rights to extreme security measures".