The Instigator
1814Username
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

America is not free.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 58480
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

1814Username

Pro

America has less than 5% of the world's population but over 25% of the world's prisoners. When you add in detainees, that balloons to a third of the world's prisoners and when you look at those on parole and probation it balloons to over half of all the world's prisoners. Out of all the places in the world, the state of Georgia has the worst incarceration rate. In Georgia, 1 out of every 13 people are in prison, on parole, or on probation. Out of the entire world, the American south profits the most off of incarceration. With the advent of drones, things will be getting much worse. I submit to you that America is not free and for those of you that have ever read the book 1984 -- our country has the greatest chance of being like the country in the book.
Mike_10-4

Con

Since Pro made reference to the “state of Georgia” implies Pro is talking about the US and not the entire continent of America.

Con thanks Pro for bringing an important topic to the debating floor. Con is still glad we have the freedom to debate our freedom in America.

The US Constitutional configuration of government, is based on a Law in Nature known as life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Amendments 5 and 9). The US government objective is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less. This small limited government has power over the states, to execute this objective. The state governments are responsible for the rest, competing with each other for the best and brightest to move and enrich their state.
http://www.bookdaily.com...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu...

This form of governance sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to operate within the awesome machinery of nature.

Having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights, the US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently Conservative. Slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, as a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights and the design of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch to make law correcting such cultural ills.

Life's Unalienable Rights are the evolution engine of life (Takac). These Rights are also the engine for social evolution, if, and only if, the configuration of governance supports such natural engine at the social level. The US Founding Fathers developed a configuration of government supporting evolution before Darwin came on the stage.

Eighty some years later, Darwin's work eventually came to light, where scholars in political science throughout the world at the turn of the last century, adopted a perverted view of evolution known as Social Darwinism. Our founding Fathers viewed the foundation of the rule of law to be stable (Conservative) within a Newtonian context making the structure of our Constitution difficult to change via the Amendment process. During the dynasty of the former President Woodrow Wilson (a leading father of modern progressivism, creator of the IRS, the formation of the League of Nations--aka UN, the Federal Reserve, a desire for “fundamental change,” etc.) was a promoter of the Social Darwinism ideology, advocating little resistance to constitutional structural change, stating the following from his book:

http://books.google.com....

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.

Wilson, in his book, also took issue with the individual's Unalienable Rights, where he went on to say:

No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.”

Clearly, Wilson rejected the foundation of the US Constitution and started a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and this cancer, over the last hundred years, is starting to metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist more than the people, while the President has a “pen and a phone” to make law, and also, the administration branch (a fourth branch not part of the US Constitution's three branches) is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, Education, NSA, Energy, EPA, etc.). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of government employees, who are not elected, writing regulations having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have.

It should be no surprise why the US government controlled educational system promote “living constitutional” concepts, to benefit the freedom and growth of government, while reducing the freedom of the people.

The indoctrination of progressivism, through our government schools, is a spark of genius from generations of powerbrokers to embrace the progressive ideology, while demeaning Conservatism--the natural desire for the preservation of our Constitutional structure and individual freedom relative to our Unalienable Rights.

Unbeknownst to Pro, innocent and unaware of the subtle power of progressive indoctrination illustrated by the title of his debate. A title where Pro has given up on freedom, a freedom he still has.

The genius of our Founding Fathers knew the greed of human nature within the ruling-class, may one day create the illusion of a progressive centralized big government promise of utopia. Their wisdom prompt them to include, in the US Constitution, giving the people freedom to gain control over DC without DC's intervention.

Close to the eve of celebrating our independence on July 4th, Pro should talk to his Friends and Family about the freedom we have in America (USA). Tell them to pass the word about the following two books that will help deprogram progressive indoctrination from our government schools, awakening to the fact that we have the freedom to make DC dance to our music.
http://www.amazon.com...

http://www.amazon.com...

And in closing, the people today have the freedom of “hope and change” in America, to bring back the US Constitution.
Debate Round No. 1
1814Username

Pro

Nothing my opponent wrote has any basis in facts. It is merely philosophical in nature. The numbers speak for themselves. All the philosophy in the world does not trump what is actually occurring in America. The following are just a few statistics I can list. I have literally over 20 more, but do not want to overwhelm the reader:

With only 5% of the world"s population, the U.S. has 25% of the world"s prison population "" that makes the United States the world"s largest jailer. https://www.aclu.org...

Since 1970, our prison population has risen"700%. https://www.aclu.org...

One in 99"adults are living behind bars in the U.S. This marks the highest rate of imprisonment in American history and surpasses Stalin under the Gulag system. https://www.aclu.org...

One in 31"adults are under some form of correctional control: prison, jail, parole, or probation. https://www.aclu.org...

As of August 2013, approximately 2.7 million children under the age of 18 have a parent in prison or jail. According to sociologists Bruce Western and Becky Petit, this means that one in 28 kids in the United States has a mother or father, or both, in lockup - a dramatic change from the one in 125 rate a quarter of a century ago. http://www.jimmylarche.com...

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and within the United States, the top 7 states with the highest incarceration rates are all Southern bible belt states (Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina). https://www.schr.org...

Federal, state, and local expenditures on corrections exceed $82 billion dollars annually and $250 billion dollars within the entirety of the justice system. (MIT research project -- please go to MIT website to view)

Bottom line is that America is a police state and it is going to get much worse.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you for your feedback.

I must remind Pro that my facts are not based on some “philosophical in nature,” but documented in the US Constitutional agreement between the people and government about the enforcement of the individual's Unalienable Rights. Please read the US Constitution!

I understand, with Pro's statistics, one could make a misinformed conclusion about freedom in America.

It would seem Pro's argument is on the prison population. Pro must realize, one who becomes incarcerated within any social system, implies an immoral event that went against the laws of that system.

My recommendation for Pro is to read the following scholar about the Rule of Law: http://ebookbrowsee.net...
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
You think this country is not free because of our prison population? Do you not consider other factors like the free market or the first 10 amendments?? Just prison population? This is ridiculous. The US crime rates will always affect that statistic. Yet, nobody condones the NSA spying or facial recognition cameras but if you want to avoid being sent to prison. Don't commit a crime. Nobody being held in a prison today is in there because of oppressive thoughts on our government or they bought something they shouldn't have. People are in there because of stupid things they did that they knew was against the law. Laws that date back to Americas conception. To say a country is not free because of the prison population is complete hogwash
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
When a country with less than 5% of the world's people has over 25% of the world's prisoners, that is not free. Sorry it just isn't. Then add in misdemeanors, detainees, parole, and probation. Who are we kidding? I also do not understand how I had 8 points and now I am down to 5. It is no big deal though.

I am not disagreeing with anyone's personal thoughts. This debate really was designed to make people think. Winning or losing does not matter to me. The statistics more than back up all that I say. Then when you look at the world strategically, our nation is putting in the infrastructure to clamp down totally on its citizens. NSA spying, drones, facial recognition software running on every camera, cameras on every street corner, police at every travel choke point, increase in police forces around the nation, and the militarization of the police are easily seen.

I love my country and what it once was, but I am fully aware of what it is today. I have grave concerns for us all.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
No, I don't want you to ignore reality. You're still missing the point completely. As stated, you needed to elucidate the meaning of the resolution, which would have required some philosophical statements, to go along with the facts. Your statistics are fine, but not on their own given the resolution you were supposed to argue for.

I never said whether America is free or not--missing the point again. You've never explained what it means for a nation to be free. I only have an idea of what it's supposed to mean, and since you spent no time explaining it, or providing an interpretation of it, how could you win the debate? Your case only had one premise plus a conclusion: America has an excessive prison population (generalized), therefore, America is not free. More is required to link that premise to the conclusion, especially since Americans are free in other regards.

You basically want the judges to take it prima facie that the prison population means America is not free. That's not how debates work. You need to provide the facts, then make an argument that connects them to the resolution. This resolution was especially open to interpretation, and there are so many facts about America that might affect our level of freedom that you should have expounded on what this debate was about.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
@1814Username

My Friend Pro, on this day (the Fourth of July) as I celebrate our freedom, and independence from the tyranny of Royalty, it is not difficult for me to understand why, many like you, feel this way about the US, as we progressively lose our freedom.

In the year 1984, not the book, but my business took me on a journey to the former USSR, spending a little time on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Yes the Iron Curtain was real, not to keep us freedom loving folks out, but to imprison an entire nation. Today the wall is down, not all is perfect, but the direction of freedom seems to go against the book 1984"s mantra of a nightmarish vision of global totalitarianism, etc.

As I mentioned in the last few paragraphs of my argument in Round 1, we still have the freedom to make DC dance to our music. Please read those two short books I referred to, and you too will realize that America is still free, and we could reverse this progressivism of tyranny, on this day we celebrate our freedom.
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
So you think a nation that arrests as much as we do is actually free? With an incarceration system as massive as ours? Then a surveillance system as massive as ours? What you want me to do is have some philosophical argument about freedom and ignore reality.

The question is not what freedom "is". That can mean anything to anyone. The point is really is that we are not free and the numbers show that we aren't. Heck, if you start adding up all the totals: those in prison, those in juvenile prisons, those in jails, those on parole, those probation, those with misdemeanors, those detained .... it is apparent that we are not free and we are nothing more than a police state. Just wait until the drones start flying. Good luck with that America.

By the way, out of all the nations in the world that could be suppressed. It will be ours. We are putting in the technology to do so.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Way to miss the point. I'm entirely with you on the fact that our prison population is absurd.

What you failed to do (even in your last comment) is explain what it means for a nation to be free or not. That's what the entire debate is about; you've only argued prison population, not what freedom is, and how to determine if a nation has it, or how our prison population means we don't have it. Next time choose your resolution better, or try harder to link your arguments to the resolution.
Posted by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
"I submit to you that America is not free and for those of you that have ever read the book 1984 -- our country has the greatest chance of being like the country in the book." thats a bunch of crap. Let us remind that the US is still operating under a democracy. Our economy is still a free market. We have the freedom to free speech and the right to bear arms. A free country doesn't allow the right to bear arms. Prison population has not correlation with what a free country is or is not.
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
@Phantom --- there is no philosophical argument for the millions of men and women spending time in our nation's prisons. Philosophize all you like, but the reality is that we have over a quarter of the ENTIRE WORLD's prisoners. Then when you add all the people on parole and probation -- it is basically HALF.

If you want me to be philosophical, most crimes are between two people and in most cases, both parties are at fault in some way. Very rarely does a person just randomly murder someone for some reason. In drug offenses, you have a person who chose to manufacturer a drug and who chose to buy a drug. People should a have the right to do with their own body as they please. I can give examples all day of how both parties are at fault in some way, shape or form.

So, don't give me the philosophical approach. The numbers speak for themselves. We are not free and incarceration in America is a huge business. If it wasn't, there would not be prisons listed on the New York Stock Exchange
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Ironically, what Pro's case was missing, was a philosophical argument on freedom. The nature of freedom is a philosophical concept, and to argue how a whole nation can be considered free or not would have had to have philosophical support to go along with the facts.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
@Endark, your personal belief that the debate was a tie does not give you the right to nullify other people's votes.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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: Prison =/= unfree.
Vote Placed by RedMoonlight 2 years ago
RedMoonlight
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither pro nor con made a strong case with regard to the original question. While pro is correct that overcrowded prisons are often suggestive of an oppressive government, it is merely an indication and not even close to enough to fulfill his burden of proof. Con on the other hand, gave a more comprehensive argument, but failed to directly address our current freedoms or lack thereof. He instead posted what appears to be a chronicle/commentary of US history, and an effort to portray progressivism as a conspiratorial plot to remove our freedoms, again, with little reference to the freedoms we either do or don't have today. I gave sources to pro because, despite his poor argument, the claims he did make we're very well-cited.
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Why Con's case being philosophical--which it was not entirely--mattered, was not stated. Pro just reiterated the excessive U.S. prison population and let the debate hinge on which case outweighed the other. Con did a better job responding to Pro. Also, the resolution was never explained. What does it mean for a nation to be free or not free? America has allot of people in prison, but why does this mean we can call America a nation that is not free? And why do the freedoms we do have not count for this nation being free? Pro's failure to elucidate the resolution makes it impossible for me to judge his case right or wrong, so arguments go to Con.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side deserves to win this debate, so I'm voting to even the score. PRO argued about incarceration statistics, and CON flew off in another direction entirely and argued that people should be governed by a static, unchanging document, entirely ignoring PRO's case. PRO, on the other hand, had the BoP, and by limiting his argument to Georgia, didn't really uphold it to all of America as implied by the resolution. However, his 25% figure lets him skate by on this one. CON's only rebuttal to PRO's case comes at the end where PRO cannot respond to it (bad form) and says people who are incarcerated must have violated the system. This is irrelevant to freedom and its justifications. Next time, both of you, debate the topic at hand, and don't spend your entire case on a tangent.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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: Con's last post really nailed it for me. He said "Pro must realize, one who becomes incarcerated within any social system, implies an immoral event that went against the laws of that system." I thought that was an excellent point and that was the tipping point for me.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
1814UsernameMike_10-4Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: There was a fundamental misunderstanding of the resolution by pro. Mike pointed out, in a terribly ineffective way (Took a whole argument to make one point), that freedom isn't something governments can give. Freedom is the ability to act on will. And will is only contained by liberty. Which is what Con brought up, Unfortunately, pro was well aware of this, and on;y argued based on prison populations. So I had to score this based on the WIT rule. The prison population is a minority, so doesn't constitute unfree. The majority are free, therefore, america is free Think of it this way. If I am 70% good, and 30% bad, then I'm considered good. If a nation has 80% healthy citizens, and 20% unhealthy citizens, that nation is considered healthy. In this case, it's 95% free to 5% unfree, which makes America technically free by Con's reasoning.