Resolved: Stability and Security is more important than Personal Freedom.
Debate Rounds (4)
I like to thank my oppenent and friend UT, as he was known to me when we first met, for this debate. I don't expect there to be anything wrong so I won't bother to lay out rules.
I affirm that the Stablity and Security are more important than Presonal Freedom.
My first and only observation is that the pursuit for stablity and security may have imperfections, but it is not my burden to defend the system, only the intent of that system.
The first contention on the Pro side is that security and stablity stop terrorism First, security. The Heritige Foundation finds that since 9/11, 6 factors have contributed to decreased terrorism. (Quote is in Bold)
As a result of increased security, 39 terrorist attacks have been foiled since 9/11. Foiling terrorist attacks is important for 2 reasons. First, Terror attacks have extensive economic impacts. As CNN reports, the economic impact of 9/11 was at least 123 billion dollars. The second reason why stopping terrorisim is important is saving lives. The November 2015 Paris attacks killed 137 people. The Orlando Massacre killed 50 people. The Ankara Bombings killed 102 people. 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people. Ultimatly, in a more secure, stable world, these lives could have been saved.
The Pro's second contention is Many Hands. Stablity and Security impacts every single memeber of society. While everyone has personal freedom, only you benifit from your personal freedom. If you sacrifice some of your personal freedom to contribute to increasing security and stablity for society as a whole, you benifit everyone while only creating marginal harms for yourself. It is as the old saying goes, "many hands make light work." If everyone contributes to stablity and security, than everyone benifits more than if they are harmed.
For these reasons, I can see no other vote but one for the pro.
Pro affirms that stability and security is more important than personal freedom, and it is his BoP is to prove this statement.
As Con it is my job to negate (deny the truth of) Pro's statement, thus I must prove Pro's resolution false. Thus, I affirm that stability and security (SaS) is not more important than personal freedom (PF).
I can negate Pro's resolution in a # of ways:
Proving that SaS and PF are equally unimportant (Nihilism)
Proving that PF is more important than SaS (Ethical Egoism)
Proving that SaS and PF are equally important (Utilitarianism)
Analysis of Pro's argument:
"My first and only observation is that the pursuit for stablity and security may have imperfections, but it is not my burden to defend the system, only the intent of that system."
The word important is concerned with the consequence of actions, not the intent of actions. Thus it is your burden to defend the system, not the intent of that system."
1st argument boiled down:
P1) Stability and Security stops terrorism
P2) Terrorism results in economic damage and human deaths
P3) Stability and security stops economic damage and human deaths
( C1) Thus stability and security is more important than personal freedom )
While Pro makes a decent opening argument, it suffers from many problems
1) It has the unspoken assumption that human life is important and worth saving. While I agree with this assumption Pro has provided no reasons as to why human life is important. One could make the argument that every living person has died, so why is it important that people died in terrorist attacks?
2) Assuming that saving human lives is important, this argument only proves that stability and security is important, but fails to explain how it is more important than personal freedom
3) This was an example of limited surrendering of personal freedoms to maintain stability and security, it fails to describe nations and governments that value SAS over PF and enforce stability and security at the major expense of the common people's personal freedom .
P1) Stability and Security impacts every single member of society.
P2) Only individuals benefit from their personal freedom
C1) Thus people should give up some of their personal freedom to ensure stability and security
1) Every society is composed of individuals, thus the relinquishing of personal freedoms effects all citizens, not just a single individual
2) In the case of terrorism, only a small # of people die from terrorist attacks
In summary, Pro's argument suffers from assumptions, limited examples, non sequitur logic, and ultimately fails in proving that SaS is more important than PF, only proving that SaS and PF are both important
Nihilism is the belief that nothing has objective meaning and there is no objective truth
To quote Frederich Nietzsche, " "Every belief, every considering something-true,is necessarily false because there is simply no true world." (Will To Power)
P1) Every belief is false
P2) The statement "SaS is more important than PF" is a belief
C1) Thus the resolution "SaS is more important than PF" is false.
Ethical egoism is the belief that things that benefit oneself is morally good. From an Evolutionary and biological standpoint the purpose of life for an individual is to survive and reproduce. Anything that benefits an individual leads to a person's survival and chances of reproduction.
P1) Benefiting oneself is morally good
P2) Personal freedom grants individuals the ability to benefit oneself
P3) Pro is proposing to curtail PF to increase stability and security, reducing people's ability to benefit themselves
C1) Thus increasing stability and security is morally wrong.
Positive Case: (My job is to disprove Pro's case not prove mine)
With criticizing Con's case I move to build my own case.
My case: Resolved: Stability and Security are equally important to Personal Freedom.
I propose that a balance between stability, security, and personal freedom must be obtained by the governments of nation states in order to ensure its citizens are safe and happy. The sum of my argument is declared in Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".
At its most basic, life is the biological process that allows organisms to survive. The human experience of life, however is much more than simple survival. Humans think, experience emotions, work, play, and love. People don't live just for the sake of surviving, but for the experience of living. Stability and security allows people to survive and to avoid pain, while liberty allows for people to experience things and be happy. Not only does a balance of stability, security, and personal freedom allows for a person's life to be safe and free, but it also saves more lives than when stability and security is valued above Personal Freedom.
A prime example of a nation that values SaS over PF is the People's Republic of China. In 1989, the Tiananmen Square Protests occurred, which was organized by Chinese students in order to expand personal liberties, such as democratic reforms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and decreased corruption. The Chinese Government saw these protests as a threat to stability and security in China, and they brutally massacred 241"3,000 people and injured 7,000-10,000 people, and denied all other Chinese people these personal freedoms by brutally subduing the movement.
10 years later the Chinese government persecuted the followers of Falun Gong because the CPC saw it as a threat to stability and security. It has been reported that Falun Gong members were sentenced to brutal forced re education programs, which included illegal arrests, forced labor, systematic torture, psychological and physical abuse, killings. and organ harvesting. "As of 2009 at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been tortured to death in the persecution campaign." "Ethan Gutmann estimates 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008."
The Chinese government has also committed atrocities against the Tibetan people in the name of purging "."the three evils of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism," All of these things are a threat to stability. Tibetans who wish for increased personal freedoms are subjected to extrajudicial arrests, abuse, torture, denial of freedom of religion forced sterilization and forced abortions."
The greatest atrocities on human life in the PRC were during Mao's rule. In order to achieve economic security and stability (not be economically dependent on the USSR) Mao launched the Great Leap Forward and it lasted from 1958-1961 which resulted in peasants being forcibly reallocated from private farms to commune farms, bypassing the Chinese personal freedom. The result of the GLF was the Great Chinese Famine, and together they caused 20-45 million deaths, and 40 million weren't born.
Since the GLF failed Mao launched the Cultural Revolution in 1966 in order to maintain the status quo and stability and to secure China from capitalists and traditionalists as well as to restore Maoism. Mao accomplished this by purging those who he deemed political dissidents and inspired radical youth called Red Guards. "Millions of people were persecuted... (and suffered) public humiliation, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sustained harassment, and seizure of property. A large segment of the population was forcibly displaced." An estimated 30 million people died.
While the PRC values SaS over PF, western democracies who hold SaS as equally important to PF have stronger economies, higher standard of living, more human rights, more happiness, and more security than nations who value SaS over PF.
The order will be:
Responses to Con's observations --> His responses to my case --> His case
His 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.
Pro has accused me of abusive victory conditions which is false because it fails to meet the criteria for being abusive. It's not characterized by wrong or improper use of action because no rules were set. Since no rules were set, I declared my own victory condition. Pro also states that unfairness negates competition. This is false because life is a giant competition and it is very unfair, and living is an unfair competitive activity, thus this debate can be an unfair competitive debate. This is an academic debate, as we have both posted policies governments have put into place. The basis that my victory condition is unfair is also false. Pro says he won't be able to make good offenses or defenses in his opening yet he is able to defend his case while also effectively refuting my case, forcing me to go mostly on the defensive and making me lose ground on the offensive.
The purpose of con is to negate Pro's resolution, not to prove con's case as true. (This is why I used 4 separate and contradictory arguments to attack the resolution.) Negation has 2 definitions: : to deny the existence or truth of, to cause to be ineffective or invalid. I used the Nihilism argument to deny the truth that SaS > PF. What is true is "the body of real things, events, and facts" (Merriam Webster) The importance of things is a subjective opinion that varies between people. Since importance is an intangible subjective opinion, it is not a fact, and what is not a fact is not true. Since Pro's resolution is not a statement of fact it is untrue. Thus I have negated Pro's resolution in the first way.
The second way to negate a resolution is to cause the resolution to be ineffective and invalid.
Personal Freedom is another word for Civil Liberties.
Civil liberties are all the rights listed in the United Nations declaration of Human Rights include include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life, thee right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity.
Stability: The state of being stable
Security: The state of being protected or safe from harm
Civil liberties/PF as declared by the UN guarantee stability and security for people, thus SaS is part of PF ,and PF expands on the rights for humans, ensuring more security and freedom for people.
Pro claims that the USA valued SaS over PF by implementing the PATRIOT Act and that the UK valued SaS over PF by banning handguns. This claim is false though, because this was a conflict of PF/CL. The USA and the UK valued people's right to security/safety over their right to privacy (USA) and right to own firearms (UK). Thus these governments hold SaS and PF as equal, or if not, have a desire to balance them.
The main reason for PF/CL is to protect the people from governments who value the stability and security of the nation as a whole over the lives and rights of their people, governments like the PRC who will brutally suppress any opposition to the regime or the political status quo, maintaining it at all costs.
Pro stated "Lives are the most important thing because you can't have any personal freedoms without being alive."
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, which is why I urge voters to vote Con. Oppressive authoritarian regimes who value national SaS over PF to the extreme are responsible for the deaths of millions and for the oppression of millions more. According to the Heritage Foundation, Mao's failed policies resulted in the death of 65 million Chinese people. These deaths are permanent and have caused massive damage to the PRC.
Pro criticized my citing of the PRC's atrocities as a singular example, so I shall cite atrocities of other governments that brutally suppressed opposition in order to preserve national stability and security.
The Origins of Genocide:
Genocide usually originates from a totalitarian nation state that has little regard for individual human life and human rights. Totalitarian nations emphasize the security of stability of the nation and the people as a collective above all else and exterminate anyone who is viewed as a threat to the state's stability and security, violating individuals PF /CL . Examples include the PRC, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Imperial Japan.
During Stalin's rule of the USSR from 1922-1953 it's estimated that his policies resulted in the death of 20-50 million people. Like Mao, Stalin's policies targeted political dissidents, those who Stalin viewed as a threat to the national stability and security of the Soviet Union. A specific example is the Holdomor
"The result of Stalin"s policies was the Great Famine (Holodomor) of 1932"33"a man-made demographic catastrophe unprecedented in peacetime. Of the estimated six to eight million people who died in the Soviet Union, about four to five million were Ukrainians. The famine was a direct assault on the Ukrainian peasantry, which had stubbornly continued to resist collectivization; indirectly, it was an attack on the Ukrainian village, which traditionally had been a key element of Ukrainian national culture."
This is proof that Stalin killed millions to ensure and maintain national SaS for the Soviet Union as a whole. Stalin also committed various other atrocities to political dissidents, including forceful relocation, sending them to forced labor camps called gulags, and killing them during the Great Purge.
Hitler perpetrated the Holocaust, the ethnic cleansing of Jews and other :undesirables" in Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied lands. This lead to the killing of 12 million people. According to the USHMM the cause of the Holocaust was Hitler's belief that human history was a racial struggle and that the Jews threatened Aryan/German dominance and would eventually enslave the German people, threatening the stability and security of Nazi Germany.
Pol Pot, Dictator of the Khmer Rogue ordered caused the Genocide of 1-3 million Cambodians who opposed Pot's attempt of making Cambodia an agrarian state
Three totalitarian regimes, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan signed a pact that formed the Axis powers. In 1937 Imperial Japan declared war on China in order to secure Chinese resources and farmland to benefit the Japanese people and to make Japan into a great power. Obtaining great power status and food would increase Japan's national security. During the Second Sino-Japanese War Japan committed the Nanjing Massacre where Japanese soldiers raped and killed 300,000 Chinese civilians mercilessly. In September 1939 Hitler invaded Poland in order to unite all Germans and to obtain farmland for Germans and Germany, which would increase Germany's national security. These invasions started World War II and were motivated by increasing the national security of the Axis powers. World War II lasted from 1939-1945 and caused the death of 70-85 million people.
Totalitarian nations that place national stability and security over all else at the expense of Personal Freedom/Civil liberties are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. The policies of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito/Tojo, and Pol Pot resulted in the deaths of 168-225 million people.
By proving that nations giving extreme importance to Stability and Security to the detriment of PF/CL I have negated the resolution in the second way, by making it invalid. I negated the resolution in 2 ways, thus I win the debate.
Thanks Edge! We'll have to both FF Round 4 though :c Sorry m8
If any voters missed it, we are both dropping round 4 due to IRL things
The order is going to be the the extension of the Theory from last round, including his responses. Than I will cover new abuses presented in the last round, than I will go onto his defense, and lastly key voters.
If the negitive puts forward an advocacy, they must defend it unconditionally. The violation is, under the negitive's interpretiation of the resoultion, he only needs to extend one of his advoacies to win the round. He proves this in his last round when he drops Moral Egoism completly. While he can drop any of his advocacies at no harm to his offense or defense, I must defend the implications of the Affirmitive case through the entire round.
He tries to justify the abuse in 3 different ways. First, he claims the abuse never occured. He proves himself wrong by cold dropping Moral Egoism in his second round. All of the offense I put against Moral Egoism is null and void because he doesn't extend it. This is the exact problem I bring up at the top of last round. The offense is now skwed in his favor and I wasted my time refuting his arguement. Now he may try and bring Moral Egoism back up in the last round, but recognize that he will still have commited the violation by dropping it the second round and extending straight from round 1.
Second, he tries to say that life is a giant competition and life is unfair. The act of being alive isn't a competition, and while life is made up of many competitons, they all have rule sets that give fair paths to victory for all involved. Because we agree that debate is a competitive activity, no one debate should have to enter a round at a disadvantage. While it is true that some are born with advatages like Usain Bolt's natural athletic ablities, an activity is only competitive if it has a fair rule set. That is why activities like Debate have rules in the first place, to ensure fair competition. But even if life is a giant, unfair competiton, debate is not life, it is an activity desgined to promote competition and education, both of which he undermines.
The third and final way he attempts to justify the abuse is by saying his only burden is prove me wrong. The problem is that his advocacy about Nihilism contridcts Moral Egoism, and when he says that governments should find a balance before going onto argue about how governments are better off prioritizing PF, he has also proven himself wrong as well. That's why I tell you that allowing him to run multiple, contridictory advocaies, he undermines himself and the integerty of debate. While it is true that he can win on defense alone, he can't win when his defense is full of contridictions.
His last round's arguement opens itself up to 2 more abuses.
First, he employs a moving target. He extends the defenition of Personal Freedom to be the same as Civil Liberites. What he fails to do is show these as being the same, and instead works on the assumption that they are. You can drop this idea entirly from his side of the flow and turn it to mine, because the Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) defines Civil Liberites as
I would argue that it is within the good of the community to increase SaS and reduce PF if lives are saved when we do. He disputes that more lives are saved by affirming but more on that in key voters.
The second abuse is the use of a Gish Gallop. By introducing a total of 6 different examples of his advocacy, I must now use this final round to adress all of them If I fail to adress a single one, than he can claim victory. Even if he doesn't do this, voters should note the possibility that this may be the case.
In the last round, he extends two arguements. First, that they are equally important, and second that PF is more important. He tries to justify the contridiction by saying they are inclusive of each other. But recoginze that the affirmitive advocacy is based on when the two are in conflict. He adresses my examples of the PATRIOT act and fire arm examples by saying that he governments where valuing the two equally. But that isn't even remotly true. The governments in both of these scenarios undercut PF in order to increase SaS.
Now on to the key voters.
First is the framing arguement and theory given in round two and extended in this round. By voting for him today, you only encourage these types of arguements in the future. Voting him down sends a clear message that debate is intended to be a competitive activity. I have talked at length about this in this very round, so it should be clear that I win the round here.
Second is the state of nations. He claims that because the PRC doesn't prioritize PF, the people of the PRC are worse off. I tell you this is corralation, not causation, and he cold drops it. At this point I win that point there. But secondly, he talks about genocidal regimes. 2 problems. First, I don't have to defend the outcome of the system a government uses, but instead the intention of the system they employ. Finally, these are just extremist examples. For every Hitler, there is an Obama who wants to ban assult weapons to reduce mass shootings. My advocacy is for everyone to give up some freedoms in order to better the security of everyone in society. I don't want there to be oppresive dictatorships, but the merits of having a less free, safer society are evident enouch for me to urge an affirmation here.
Third voter is that they are the same. Extend the response I already gave this round.
Since he clean drops Moral Egoisim, the fourth voter is Nihilism. Recognize that my oppenets interpretation of Nihilism is contridictary. He says all beliefs are false, so the resoultion is false. But the belief that all beliefs are false is a belief, so it must be false. If that is false, than beliefs must be true, so than the belief that all beliefs are false must be true, which means it must be false. His interpretation has no real world merit because in the real world, not everything works under broad, blanket statements.
The fifth and final key voter is going to be the advocacy of the affirmitive. What I tell you is that people don't have to completly give up their PFs to increase SaS, so we don't have to break down the resoultion into absolutes. I would say that, even with the PATRIOT act and assult weapon bans in my state, I am a fairly free citizen of the United States. That's important, because when you look at the Heritige Foundation evidence, the increase security in the post 9/11 world has stopped a magnitutde of terror attacks. The impact of terrorism is a loss of life and money. He tries to outweigh lives by bringing up genocide, but this fails because this is a fualt with the system, not the intent of the system. Even if I concede that these governments did this solely to increase SaS, I still don't need to defend the system that these governments employ to carry out these actions, so this arguement is null and void.
For the competitive nature of debate and to limit the impact of terror, I am proud to urge a strong affirimitve ballot.
Again we will be both forfieting round 4, so this is my last round in this debate.
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.
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.
mmurph123 forfeited this round.
That1User forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.