The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

America is no longer what may be termed "the land of freedom"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 35121
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)




Side information for this debate:
-the long response time is due to my vacations, during which I will be travelling, hindering my responsiveness.
-I am not a citizen of the USA, nor a resident in the USA.

My position is that of saying "no, America is no longer the land of freedom"

One of America's nicknames is "the land of freedom", possibly derived by letters written by president Jefferson to a friend in the 1st decade of the 19th century, in which he states his desire to build an "empire of liberty". It is also linked to the huge flocks of immigrants who managed to build lives of prosperity in America, the political exiles who fled oppressive regimes, and the free land provided far into the 19th century to immigrants.

I base this position on the various measures that the government and agencies in the USA have taken, which demonstrate a desire to place security, security of American citizens from terrorist attacks, security of the USA's economic assets, above freedom, the traditional American "main principle", the guideline, the focus, of American policies during the cold war. I also base it on the lack of intervention to defend freedom on various occasions where I believe America should have been "principle-bound" to defend freedom, and failed to do so.

I place the loss of freedom as a guiding principle, something that America wanted to establish throughout the world, in the 1990's, and its transition to security to be situated from 2001 to 2003.

freedom as the guiding principle of American politics

by this, I mean that the stated objective and focus of Americans was to "free the world", in the way they saw would achieve this. I would be willing to discuss the validity of the way they saw freedom and how they searched to achieve it, but it is nonetheless what Americans saw as freedom that they were trying to spread throughout the cold war.

I would like my opponent to confirm, or -by all means, if you disagree-apply corrections to this definition, which we may continue refining during further rounds -if we disagree- and to present why he believes America to still be what may be nicknamed "the land of freedom". My point is not that America has become a land which values security only, and I do not wish my opponent to contradict me on this. He may if he wishes to, but in a separate section (to which I will try to reply) which will not be part of the debate.

If you have a problem with the set-up of this debate, please feel free to tell me, and we can recreate this debate on grounds we agree on.


Hi. I'm Justin. I'm a citizen of the U.S.A. I will be the representing the Con side of this argument (America is still the land of freedom). As a policy debater, it is my tendency to refer to my opponents in the third person, as if I'm addressing a judge. If this bothers you, I will do my best to try and stop in future rounds.

I will be arguing from three lines of reasoning.

First, that America is still the leading beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world, and therefore no other country better deserves the title of the "land of freedom".

Second, that America's Constitution, what outlines and confines the U.S. government, is based off the objective of freedom for all, and therefore freedom is still the heart of America.

Lastly, I will be arguing that the freedom of America isn't from the government, but from the people. So long as the people desire freedom, America will be the home of the free.

I accept your terms, and look forward to a very exciting and hopefully thought-provoking debate round. Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you JustinAMoffat for accepting my challenge.
Sorry for the late answer, for the reasons I gave previously.
I have no qualms about referring to each other in the third person.

I would also like to correct myself by including into my arguments that I am not, when referring to "America" or "Americans" referring to the citizens of the USA as a whole. When I say, at one point, that a certain amount of Americans do not feel the urge to learn about other countries, I mean a majority of those Americans who remain in the USA. There are surely hundreds of thousands of exceptions, from intellectuals, to merely curious people, along with those who love travelling. However, since America has adopted universal suffrage, we may consider that what the government does is representative of, unfortunately, a majority of Americans.

I would firstly like to address the lines of reasoning my opponent has brought into the debate:

I must object to the first point, or rather concede it, because I agree that America"s constitution, as the founding document of the first modern, large scale, democratic republic, is indeed a document favoring freedom and the expansion of Jefferson"s "empire of liberty", and has indeed served for a long time as the basis of a state which has time and time again charged into battle with the express purpose of fighting to make men free. The Second World War is only one of a long list of examples.

However, I consider that America has turned away from this ideal of freedom, and no longer considers it to be the most important feature to develop in the world of today. We can see this, for example, when the ethnic minorities in Iraq rose against Saddam Hussein"s government, in 1991, and the UN coalition did"nothing. The rebels were mercilessly slaughtered. Another example is Liberia, to which the USA is historically tied, yet when a bloody military coup took power, and a party-less election tainted by fraud brought the leader of the junta to power, America did little more than condemn the elections before resuming investments, giving the government several millions to upgrade it"s army. Likewise, the USA did little to stop the swathe of civil war which has plunged 85% of the population below the poverty level.
This was the country that took a constitution based on the united states", and named its capital after one of it"s presidents.


As to the first line of reasoning, I am very interested as to what examples my opponent may provide to support that America is still a beacon of hope and freedom, examples I hope I have never heard of, as I am not a primal anti-Americanist, and I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.

As to the third line of reasoning, I am just as interested in what the development of this argument will offer, since I am slightly puzzled as to how this proves me wrong. (Said with no intention to be ironic, I am genuinely interested)


Personal argumentation;

The people of America do not wish to learn of what is beyond their own country. I will not start on the argument that only 10% of Americans have passports, because that clich" is no longer true since it was issued in the 1990"s"

However, I will say this: Americans, due to the fact that they live in a country where almost every climate and landscape type is available, and where you can drive a distance equal to that from France to Iraq without crossing any border, unfortunately do not feel a pressing need to inform themselves about what is happening everywhere in the world-that is to say, less so than other countries" people do, which is already ridiculously small; almost no one, for example, can state the name of the African country in which war finished in march this year. And that is everywhere ont the globe (except in the concerned region).

This means that a lot of Americans don"t know what is happening elsewhere. And again, since America is a democracy, this means politicians don"t know what is going on in other places of the world. One of the most gobsmacking examples of this is when president Barack Obama sent a letter to Mr. Chirac in 2009, stating that he hoped that both of them, as the respective leaders of France and the USA, would be able to work together.

The president of France was president Sarkozy since 2007.

This is not to say that Barack Obama is a bad president (Very far from it), but shows that unfortunately, knowledge about the international scene is not a quality sought after in American presidents probably because of the above reasons.

The problem is that Americans only know of the countries they are attacking, which are being attacked because, in the absence of a national value of freedom, the only national value the state defends is that of safety or "and this is going to start a hate storm in the comment section, but I must say it, and this point is open for debate for my opponent- economic interests.


Thank you for your response. I have no complaints about waiting, especially since you gave a fair disclaimer. Don't worry.

C1: Ameirca is still the most deserving of the title "land of freedom"
My argument is this, freedom must have a home. America didn't original claim this title because it was perfect in its pursuit of freedom. Rather, America is just the leading country when it comes to pursuing worl-wide freedom. I am as unsatisfied with America's lack of willingness to intervene for freedom as you are. However, can the Pro name a country that is doing better at promoting freedom than the United States? The U.S.A is still a government that other devoloping nations can look to and aspire to. As my opponent stated, Liberia, while it's quite sad what they're going through, is a prime example for a country that has strived to be like the United States. That is why America is most deserving of the title, and therefore still is, the "land of the free".

C2: The American Constitution is the example for free governments.
This point was conceded by Pro. However, he stated, that America has turned away from its role in world affairs as the "land of the free". I understand he feels this way. This is the resolution of the debate, and this issue specifically will be addressed. However, there is no denying that the American Constitiution is still the document for freedom in the world to this date.

C3: America's freedom is from its people.
Americans are free. People from across the globe can attest to the fact that Americans have the most rights of any citizens of any government. America is the "land of the free, and the home of the brave" because of its inhabitants. The people, believing their freedom is from God (as in the Constitution), live some of the most unrestricted lives in the world. When we say "land of the free" in this debate, we must ask... free what? Land of the free... what? Free citizens. So long as the people of America are free, America will be the "land of the free". If the people of America are the most free people in the world, then how could this land not be described as "the land of freedom"?

In addition to responding to my inital points, my opponent brought up a few of his own.

P1: America's knowledge of the international scene is lacking.
Sadly, I will concede this point. Americans are very often found wanting when it comes to international knowledge. Rather than attack this point itself, I will merely ask... what is the impact? How does this prove that America is not the land of freedom? It proves that America is not the land of internation awareness, but that's about it.

P2: America's wars now are all about security.
This point, unlike the last, I disagree with almost entirely. I only partially agree with my opponent because America's security is in freedom. Free countries tend to be allies and supporters of the U.S.A. And any common view shared with another country provides legitimacy on the world stage. Yes, these allies may even boost the economy of the U.S.A. However, ever since the War on Terror, the only U.S. troop involvements have been in countries also involved in the War on Terror. (E.G. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and so forth) The only exceptions hae been in 2003 during the Second Liberian Civil War (U.S. involvement was stopped by the UN I believe), and in 2011 during the Lybian Civil War.

In both civil wars, the U.S. fought to promote the cause of freedom. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, he may.

In the War on Terror, the U.S. and many other nations across the globe are fighting valiantly for freedom from fear. Terrorism, while threatening to each of these countries involved individually, is also a mindset of control. It seeks to prevent action and resistance through the spreading of terror. This is as valid a cause for war as any, would my opponent not agree?

I look forward to my opponent's responses, and thank him for the start of what looks to be one of the most fun debate rounds I've taken place in. I also hope he's having fun on his vacations.
Debate Round No. 2


pc131313 forfeited this round.


I talked to PC in the comments, and I am giving him the choice between forfeiting this debate and starting over in a new one, OR continuing in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


I) Counter-counter Argumentation

My opponent states that America is the land of the free because American citizens are freer than other people.

In this case, we must debate, how are Americans freer than others? To answer this, one must ask, what is exactly freedom?

From a "dictionary" perspective, freedom is the ability to do what one wants, by buying what one wants, going where one wants, and saying what one wants.

From this point of view, Americans are indeed very free; the "every-man for himself" policy, an encouragement to the creation of the "self-made man", so central to the American dream, is very benefiting to commercial enterprise, and a spirit of innovation, which always astounds any foreigner when visiting the united states: the fact that society is constantly propelling itself forwards, with a constant wish and capacity to innovate. Americans can also own a wide range of guns, and have a much larger area in which they may travel without border control, due to the size of their country. One of the major points young Americans are less free upon, however, is drink, which, hilariously when compared to guns license or driving license age, is much later, at twenty, than many countries, where it is at 16 or 18. Furthermore, and this is what makes America more free than lawless African countries, Americans live in a democracy which does not imprison them for whatever they say, and represents what they think

However, freedom is not just about doing what you want. Part of freedom is knowing that you can walk out into the street and be safe, because there are police officers who keep cool and can help you, that the weird guy on the other side of the street cannot easily buy or steal an automatic rifle, that good ambulances will come and save you and treat you and that the state will take care of you regardless of your fortune if something happens, and that anyone who discriminates you on basis of your appearance, sex or origin will be prosecuted.

Most importantly, freedom is being informed. Having reliable, unbiased knowledge. We'll see my arguments about this last part later.

As for the rest, it is very often not the case in America, often because such laws are seen as an infringement on the rights of Americans. But is it?

Are Americans free when their government listens in on their conversations, like Mr. Snowden has revealed? Are Americans free when any guy walking down the street could have a gun in his pocket and could shoot them without remorse?

Are they freer than people in the Netherlands, where drug addicts are identified by the state because the state distributes legal, safe drugs and alcohol? Are they freer than people in Belgium, where an ultra effective police force considers a man running on the loose with a small pistol the maximum possible crisis? Are they freer than the Germans, who thoroughly teach students about sex education, evolution, and then theology, and whose teenagers have a dramatically lower pregnancy rate than the United States, yet are still religious enough to have one of the last Christian parties of Europe at the head of their country?

I cannot name a country that deserves this title. I do not believe that any country is allowing its citizens to live in complete freedom. But I do not believe that Americans are free from fear, crime, illness, poverty or an over-religious & controlling state.

I would also like my opponent to show proof as to why countries in the world still admire America. I find this hard to believe, given that a large part of the population in developing countries has been alienated by America"s world-wide drone assassination campaign, and the new unilateralist & militaristic approach developed since President George W. Bush"s mandate.
Furthermore, the sentence in the last lines of my opponent"s first argument confuses me;

" [Liberia] is a prime example for a country that has strived to be like the United States. That is why America is most deserving of the title, and therefore still is, the "land of the free"."

I"m afraid I must ask for clarification on how the fact that Liberia attempted to resemble the United States makes the United States the land of the free, and underline the conflict between the date of that event, and the time period we are discussing.

Counter Argumentation:


The fact that America is not the land of international awareness is grave for freedom. It means that Americans do not have a second perspective, one that is other than an American point of view. Do the Americans read British, Russian, Australian, Brazilian, European press? I doubt it, because as you conceded, America, supposed to be the world superpower, lacks international awareness. This means that the government can do pretty much as it pleases when it comes to foreign affairs. Why?

1)International awareness & universal suffrage. The other party is elected by Americans who don"t really care if they can't name all 191 other UN member states, and give the difference between that list and the Olympic committees'. Therefore, the other party doesn't always care to oppose the present government on the matter of foreign affairs.

2)International awareness & cultural openness. Not reading foreign newspapers means that, since no great political body is opposing the government on foreign affairs, you almost never get informed on the opposite point of view. I hardly think that a great majority of Americans go to see what the BBC or the ABC have to say about them, let alone a translated version of European or Asian medias. Therefore, I have difficulty believing that Americans are free from the opinion their government will invariably, as all governments do, enforce upon them; who is the number one enemy, who fosters terrorism, why people are doing this war, etc.


1) On the second point, I am afraid that the rejection contains a sentence I've heard a lot on internet forums; "America's security is in freedom".

I believe that what this sentence expresses is "America's security depends on freedom being everywhere, in all countries". This, in itself, is a logical and perfectly acceptable statement, which unfortunately seems to me to be agreeing with what I said; America is fighting for freedom, with the aim of providing security to its citizens. Not with the aim of establishing freedom throughout the world because freedom is something Americans believe in.

This seems to concede my point that American wars are about security, using freedom as a sort of excuse.

If America did fight for freedom just for freedom, why have the Iranians and Koreans not been freed? Why is Tibet still a Chinese colony? Why have there not been interventions all over Africa and in Russia? I think that what America fights for is Freedom where it can keep a country stable, and oppression where freedom cannot achieve that. Example? Egypt's former elected tyrant, supported by the US.

Does America only attack countries showing a direct threat to them? Those who terrorize their [often government-informed] citizens?

2) "Free countries tend to be allies and supporters of the U.S.A."

2-a - I"m afraid that if we were to say that a country is freer than another because of the number of free countries that are its allies, Switzerland wins hands down. But that's not what my opponent meant.

2-b - I refuse to see this as a valid point, since alliance systems today are much more complicated than that sentence seems to imply, and countries tend to be allied with the USA because the USA is the world power. Not because it's free, but because the US has more aircraft carriers and dollars to spend on international aid than any other country. Countries are concerned by their security. They will ally with countries strong enough to provide this security.

And there are also non-free, or at the very least, ambiguously "free" countries, which are "allied" with America too; Israel, and (I may be mistaken with this one) Russia, for example.


Thank you to my opponent for replying and deciding to continue the current argument. I hope he's enjoying his vacation.

Now, for the debate:

First off, I'd like to remind the Pro of something. The resolution states "America may no longer be called "the Land of Freedom". This is what we are debating. We are not debating if its security is of greater importance than freedom. If this is the case, but I can still show that it is the land of freedom, then the resolution has still been negated. I would encourage my opponent to show how security and freedom are mutually exclusive, because it appears (as I'll get to) that he agrees with me that world-wide freedom supplies the USA with security.

Next, my opponent brought up an argument which I will address later as P3.
Lastly, before I refute, I will provide a much needed definition of freedom. It is rather long.

a: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

For the sake of providing equal footing in the round, and using a relevant definition, I suggest we use 1-a. If my opponent thinks another definition would be more beneficial, he may bring it up and provide reasons why.

However, I must stress this point. I am not debating whether America is completely free. No. Rather, I am debating whether it may be referred to as "the Land of Freedom".

P1: Americans being uninformed of international events means the death of freedom
I apologize to my opponent, but I am not seeing the link here. Maybe it is counterproductive to the spread of freedom world-wide, but it doesn't change America's freedom. American's aren't fed information by the government. Rather, the United States provides the constitutional liberty for freedom of press. This means that any news agency can report whatever they wish, and the people may choose whether or not they wish to watch or believe them. This is greatly beneficial to the hunt for truth in many matters. Why? Because those that report falsely will eventually lose all credibility.

My opponent then stated his opinion on how he "hardly thinks Americans go to see what BBC or ABC have to say about them". Maybe so. But they certainly have the freedom to do so. American government can't keep the people blind to international affairs, so long as the American people have freedom of press (not to mention the internet!). So, in the end, we are left with a statement based off fact (Most Americans are uninformed about international events), but jumps to an illogical claim (it is the death of freedom).

P2: America values security over freedom
My opponent tried to show here how America now values security over freedom. However, he even admitted to the fact that, for America, Freedom and Security go hand-in-hand. When world-wide freedom is bolstered, so is America's security. Security and freedom, as I stated earlier, are not mutually exclusive! No matter what the aim is, if the result is the same either way, America isn't sacrificing freedom.

Also, I'd like to point out, again, that America's freedom doesn't derive from the world's. Its security might. But its freedom is its own. America could still be named "the Land of Freedom", even if the rest of the world was under complete totalitarian rule. (This also links into both my first argument about America being the "most qualified" and my argument about America's freedom coming from its people.)

America does not have to fight for freedom alone. In fact, it would be foolish to fight for freedom and endanger America itself. My opponent tried to find fault in America's wars by asking why N. Korea and Iran haven't been freed. Or why there aren't interventions in Africa and Russia. My answer is two-fold.

1. If America is destroyed or partially destroyed, the world will lose its champion for freedom. (The "Land of the Free", if you will.)

This argument is self-explanatory, I believe. The U.S.A doesn't have the military power to free the whole world at once, and attempting to do so would just ruin America as it is, and leave those countries still standing. This would be counter-productive to freedom.

2. America has preferred to allow the people of certain countries make the first move.

America has a history of supporting rebellions in countries, not starting them. If America was to force every country to be free, they wouldn't be spreading freedom at all. No. My opponent, while his dreams for world-wide freedom are admirable, and shared by many (including myself), errs in his reasoning when he proposes that America start revolutions and civil wars across the globe. Americans consider citizens of the UK to be "less free" than them. However, the citizens of the UK would be greatly displeased if American soldiers overthrew their government in favor of one more like the U.S. Likewise, America tends to latch onto existing movements and support them, rather than be a big "nanny state" enforcing their views on every country.

Lastly, my opponent tried to attack my point about America being supported by free allies. It's true, some countries remain in the U.S.' good graces for reasons aside from freedom. However, the point was already conceded that world-wide freedom boosts U.S. security. This point is irrelevant.

P3: Americans aren't the most deserving of "the Land of Freedom" title, due to stringent laws.
Laws are necessary in any society. To imply that Americans are less free, due to the fact that they have more or less laws than some nations, is illogical.

We defined freedom earlier this round, and I will refer to it now.

Freedom- "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

Whileon the surface, this appears to support my opponent's point. It actually refutes it. Let's think for a moment. America's laws are written, voted on, and passed by who?

The representatives.

Who chooses the representatives?

The people.

These laws just ensure safety. Drinking below a certain age was agreed on by the representatives as detrimental to the safety of U.S. citzens. They passed a law, placing a ban on acoholic beverage consumption until a certain age. If the people felt so strongly about changing it, they would elect a representative who would work to repeal the law. In this fashion, America is the most free country in the world, and well desserving of the title "the Land of Freedom".

The Constitution provides that no law shall be passed to prohibit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a law is found to be violating one of those standards, it is debated over, argued, tried, and can be repealed.

At the end of Round 4, my points still stand. I will reiterate them one more time.

1. America is most deserving of the title "the Land of Freedom".
2. America's security and world-wide freedom are promoted by each other.
3. America's freedom itself is independent of world-wide freedom.
4. America's freedom of press stands, no matter how uninformed U.S. citizens choose to be.
5. America's laws are from the people.
6. America's people are free, therefore making it "the Land of Freedom".

Thank you to my opponent, I look forward to seeing what he states in his final arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


Point 1

Unfortunately, any news agency does not give the information they wish to provide. They report what people are interested in. Which means that, if people are not interested in foreign events, the media will not talk about it. It's up to the government to reform the education system to generate an interest in all things foreign, and to encourage to seek out another point of view. This because it liberates you from the constraint of someone imposing their point of view on you by talking about it to you, because you are informed on this point by several medias from other countries, which have a different way of thinking & mentality from the ones in your country.

Point 2

"America could still be named "the Land of Freedom", even if the rest of the world was under complete totalitarian rule."

In this case, yes, But as there are many other countries, uk included, that are democracies, America cannot be the most deserving country of the title, for the reasons of security, mental freedom, freedom from fear, which is a constraint since it forces you to act in dangerous ways to protect yourself, which I notice my opponent has not adressed, instead simply countering only my point on laws relating to alcohol, an heritage of the prohibition.

"America has a history of supporting rebellions in countries, not starting them."

The example of America supporting Egypt's dicator and selling weapons even to dictatorships negates this argument.

"his reasoning when he proposes that America start revolutions and civil wars across the globe. "

I certainly used the wrong terms. I know this is completely impossible. However, I am opposed to a country trading in any way with a dictatorship.

"Lastly, my opponent tried to attack my point about America being supported by free allies. It's true, some countries remain in the U.S.' good graces for reasons aside from freedom. However, the point was already conceded that world-wide freedom boosts U.S. security. This point is irrelevant."

That is not all I said. I also asked how this made america freer, or linked into the debate.

Point 3

"Laws are necessary in any society. To imply that Americans are less free, due to the fact that they have more or less laws than some nations, is illogical."

In Egypt, they no longer have the right to gather in groups of more than 2, move around at night, wear casual clothes, or talk badly of the government. In light of this, I refute your statement that laws do not make us more or less free.

"These laws just ensure safety. Drinking below a certain age was agreed on by the representatives as detrimental to the safety of U.S. citzens. They passed a law, placing a ban on acoholic beverage consumption until a certain age. If the people felt so strongly about changing it, they would elect a representative who would work to repeal the law. In this fashion, America is the most free country in the world, and well desserving of the title "the Land of Freedom"."

They ensure some safety, but not enough. Gun laws would ensure more safety, etc, etc. These are points that my opponent has not even mentioned in his reply.
Furthermore, the "knowledge makes free" point that I made has not been mentioned once, yet again.

If the American educational system promoted thinking by informing oneself of another's point of view (and believing it), then would the representatives Americans elect not be different?

The representatives represent the people, agreed.

That might just be the problem; Representatives elected by people who don't care about the outside world don't care about the outside world. How can they promote safety and freedom in places they scarcely understand? The best example of this is how America deals with islam, clearly demonstrating Americans have understood absolutely nothing on how islam works.


My position is the following at the end of this debate

1) America is not the most free country in the world anymore because
a- Americans are not free from mental coertion
b- Americans are not free from fear
c- Americans are lost in a world they are supposed to dominate (as a superpower) yet which they do not want to understand. This is, again, hindering freedom, because it blocks international understanding, aka informing oneself, and so on and so forth.

2) My opponent is probably one of the best debaters I have seen so far on this website. (thats not up for debate)


Thank you to my opponent for his reply. He has certainly impressed me with his ability to provide intelligent and thoughtful refutations, all whilst on vacation.

Now, the end of this insightful debate round.

Refutation of Point 1:

My opponent has revealed a very great need for knowledge of foreign affairs. I agree wholeheartedly that Americans should learn about the world around them, so as to operate more efficiently on an international scale. However, my opponent doesn't show a strong link between knowledge of global affairs and freedom. He claims that it prevents others from imposing their ideas onto you, but I don't see how a lack of knowledge in one area coerces someone to accept whatever is told them. If I don't know anything about God, and someone tells me everything they believe about God, it doesn't force me to believe what they say. Also, the lack of perspective on American's parts is certainly not beneficial, but not freedom-impairing in the slightest.

Refutation of Point 2:


My opponent conceded this point... mostly. However, I don't see my opponent's point that he's trying to make. Yes, there are other democracies. However, I've shown that America's (specicific) Constitution puts it at the head of the charge for freedom. This was conceded by Pro. I need say nothing else.

As far as the "constraints" my opponent mentioned... I don't understand. I think he means to imply gun laws... If I'm incorrect, I do apologize.

It is a proven statistic that gun proliferation is beneficial to security.

Chicago, the U.S.' most adamant supporter of gun control, has the highest violent crime rate in all of the country.

Meanwhile, Plano, a city in Texas that is a popular supporter of gun rights, has the lowest violent crime rate in the U.S.

There are many more statistics to offer in support of my position. However, seeing as Pro hasn't offered evidence whatsoever, I believe this will suffice.


My opponent offers one example, that is not sourced, of the American government supporting a dictatorship. Then he proceeds to state how this disproves America's long history of supporting freedom-fighters, and even similar acts today. I don't believe that the U.S.' (admittedly poorly handled) attempt to support Egypt is proof that America is not "the Land of Freedom".


Again, a reference to point B by my opponent. This point was thrown together quite quickly and awkwardly. Again, I've explained how the U.S. had good intentions, and handled the situation poorly. Also, one example doesn't disprove everything a country stands for. This point is irrelevant, and the fact the U.S. can support global freedom, while still nto declaring war on every dictatorship, is conceded.


I already explained that world-wide freedom boosts America's security. I have also proven how the U.S. does not need to declare war on every "less free" state in order to promote freedom. Therefore, the fact that the U.S. associates with some countries who are less free is irrelevant. The U.S. still benefits from countries being free, and gains allies through common ground. If certain countries also wish to become allies, the U.S. gains more security, which keeps it at the forefront of promoting freedom (in time, possibly even to these "less free" countries it is associated with).

Point 3:


I concede this. I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the restrictions of certain laws, rather than the number of laws themselves, are what affect freedom more. The U.S. has a lot of laws, but the laws allow for much more freedom (due to the Constitution) than other countries' laws allow for.


Ah, here we go with gun laws (more specifically this time). I've already refuted this.
The knowledge makes free point never existed until this round, to my knowledge (bahaha). However, I believe I've succesfully countered it.


Yes. Elections would be different if the people were informed, I acknowledge this. If all the citizens of the United States were aware of current events, I would hope that certain leaders in the United States' government would lose their positions of power. However, this fact does not back the resolution. Just because the outcome would be different, doesn't mean freedom is promoted.

I'm a bit confused about my opponent's reference to how the United States deals with Islam. If he is implying we should "coexist", then I would inform him that Islam, or at least those who practice it fully, are not open to the reasoning he suggests. If he is implying we should eradicate it completely, then I believe the United States can't do this. The United States Constitution allows for freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So long as a Muslim is okay with not infringing on other U.S. citizens' rights, I have no quarrel with him living in the United States.

But even if there was a more accurate way to approach Islam, the U.S. doesn't lose the title of "the Land of Freedom" for mere inefficiency. This point is refuted and irrelevant.


My opponent's final stance was as follows:

America is not free anymore- due to American's being mentally coerced, fearful, and lost in a world that they are supposed to dominate, due to lack of information.

My response is simple.

Americans, due to their influence over every aspect of their country, are far from mentally coerced. There was no argument that solidly supported this stance. This point is refuted.

Americans, rather than being fearful, are fighting fear itself. As the leading drive int he war on terror, the United States is the prominent warrior in the fight against fear. Also, with the right to bear arms being protected by the Constitution, Americans are free to protect themselves from anyone who would coerce, intimidate, threaten, or attempt to take their life. This point is refuted.

Americans' lack of international knowledge does not bear a significant impact on their freedom. This link was never shown, and merely speculated about. Also, as proven before, and dropped by Pro, American influence on other countries' freedom, or lack thereof, does not take away from the fact that America, itself, is free. This point is refuted.

So there you have it. America, for the reasons of:

-Its Constitution
-No other country being more deserving of the title
-Its security in global freedom
-Its promotion of global freedom
-Its democratic elections
-Its citizen-driven government
-Its being home to a free people

May still be referred to, accurately, as "the Land of Freedom".

This resolution has been negated.

"O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
-The Star-Spangled Banner

To my opponent:
It was an honor to debate you, my friend. I was impressed, and certainly felt challenged, as well as thrilled, to debate someone of your caliber. I thank you for your kind words, and they will not be disputed (if only for the reason that you asked they not be). If you are ever down for another debate, please consider me as a possible opponent. I would be greatly pleased if we do ever debate again. It was fun.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
Well, as of right now, I've got a (while rather small) perfect record. I'd prefer to continue on this one, or at least get the FF on this one if you'd like to start over completely. If I lose/tie, I would like it to be a legitimate one. You know? Regardless, I will hand the floor back to you, and you can choose whether to reply to my earlier argument, or forfeit this debate and restart.
Posted by pc131313 3 years ago
It's as you wish. We could ignore this round, or restart the debate and copy and paste the same arguments. What would you prefer?
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
Would you like to just ignore that round and proceed as normal? Or are you going to have to forfeit? I'd much rather debate. But I understand if that's not possible. Perhaps another time.
Posted by pc131313 3 years ago
And this is why you shouldn't debate whilst you are touring universities and getting ready to travel...

I fail. Big time. Sry man.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I found that the Pro gave up his arguments too early, while the pro provided a solid stance.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say, I think the main problem for Pro was the resolution. If he would have worded it "America is not as free as it used to be", it would have been much easier to defend. In any case, Pro FF, Conceded many critical points, while Con provided a solid contention.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct due to FF arguments to con. Pro conceeds very early in the debate to several critical details compelling for cons case, and furthermore, I found pros arguments to be cryptic at times, along with the issue of defining "land of the free". As con pointed out, the US is the most deserving, and US foreign policy as hegemonic was not shown to be a compelling case "although it could have been" due to cons counters (most of the wars were for freedom) with that, arguments to con
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00