Education should be given more priority than security in the society

I'll do my best to keep my argument concise and to the point. Also, thank you Pro for introducing this topic; I sincerely hope we can have a beneficial conversation on the matter at hand. ===Definitions===Society can be roughly defined as an aggregate of individuals who live together in a more or less defined community. I'd also like to put some emphasis on the fact that societies as we're discussing here are geographically oriented. Royal societies and the like need not be discussed as I don't feel they retain any relevance to the resolution, save for semantic similarity. Education may be defined as the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. Security refers to the state of being free from danger or external threats. ===The resolution and its meaning===Before we begin, I think it necessary to extrapolate a bit on the precise meaning of the resolution. The way I take it (and Pro feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that this debate will cover education and security respectively to decide which (when valued over the other) would produce a more well-ordered and prosperous society. This means the resolution has a profoundly utilitarian presumption implicit in it. We're not here to debate which is more moral or which would benefit certain actors better than others. The scope of the resolution is purely to look at the aggregate. ===Con Case===My argument will be simple hopefully. First, it should be noted that when deciding how best to order given values, what we're really saying is which should be preferred in time of conflict between them. There would be no reason to debate whether security or education should be valued over the other if we could have both of them simultaneously. But given that we live in a world of scarcity (more generally defined- not simply relating to material goods), we're invariably left with a conflict in values. We can't have each and every one of our values acted on at all times. So, I'd just like to point out that when my argument favors security over education it is by no means intended to say that education has no value or that it is better to be secure than educated in all instances. Rather, it simply means that in times of conflict between the two, it would be more beneficial for society, on balance, to assign security a higher value. Now on to my argument. What is the purpose of security? Well, from the definition, we can conclude that the normative purpose at least is to protect one's self from threats. Applied more specifically security is a means to keep a society well-run, organized, and free from foreign or domestic aggressors. It then runs logically that without security (or more relevantly a secure society), society would have no means of existing at all. Sure there are contingent examples of times and places where societies have existed without too big of threats existing from the outside, but we can't take these isolated examples as a consistent model of society when debating abstractly. Societies exist, more or less, with threats and problems acting on them from the outside. So, it follows, that without some secure foundation or protection, society itself would cease to exist. But the resolution precludes society existing. If society doesn't exist (even abstractly) then there is nothing to debate. So the resolution implicitly favors security as a highest order over second order values like education. Education is a good of course, but without a society for it to act in, the good serves no purpose. Pro would be contradicting himself if he were to argue that we should favor education over security in the event that an existential threat to society finds itself obtaining. We implicitly want what is best for society (explicitly in the case of this debate). And even an existent though poorly educated society is better than no society at all.