What is your definition of right and wrong?

In the context of this case, the right thing is what upholds freedoms and the
wrong this is what infringes on them. Freedoms are of the utmost
importance in today’s debate round, because the AFF infringes on them,
and the NEG upholds them, so the AFF is inherently wrong in today’s
debate.
If morality is relative, how can we guarantee its a view that we value?
As I stated in my framework, I uphold morality in this instance as what
upholds freedoms the best, which actually is universalizable, unlike the
AFF, because every single individual determines the extension and the
limitation of their own freedoms, so if we uphold freedoms, we don’t have to
worry about the consequences, as upholding freedoms is an inherently
right thing, that leads to inherently right this.
Can't actions one group considers immoral be moral to another?
Possibly but not in this instance, because the way I uphold morality is
universalizable.
How do we choose which right to maintain if they clash?
So it’s a given fact that we cannot use all of our freedoms, because some
of them will inevitably infringe on another’s. So therefore, if we just use
freedoms that don’t infringe on another’s freedoms, as outlined in my
framework, there won’t be a rights clash, as will inevitably happen in the
AFF.
Don't we sacrifice some rights in order for our society to operate?
We don’t have to sacrifice the right to uphold our freedoms.
If two rights clash, and upholding one harms the other, how do we choose?
We can never carry out a freedom, that infringes on another’s, because
only the individual can be the extension and limitation of their freedoms;
Aren't secret service protections publicly known about? And if so, how is
this an issue of privacy?
You can interpret privacy in multiple forms, but in this case the
interpretation of privacy is that while something may be known, openly
publicizing it leads to increased scrutiny, so therefore you are violating
privacy. In other words, if you see something that is irrelevant to everyone,
then don’t make everyone aware of it in a negative way.
Are family members kept private given that politicians are public figures, so
this isn't a question of privacy?

Aren't scandals an indication of how candidate operate personally?

Maybe, but that doesn’t affect the
If a candidate has a medical issue which precludes their ability to make
decisions consistently, isn't that an issue of public concern