The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Csareo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

American Culture has deluded what freedom is

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,774 times Debate No: 55267
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (76)
Votes (5)

 

Mikal

Con

Basic resolutionResolution - American culture has diluted what freedom is

This is a shared BOP

Structure

Rounds

Pro

(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/Rebuttals
(4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.

Con

(1) Acceptance
(2)Contentions
(3)Contentions/Rebuttals
(4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification.

Rules

(1) 10k character limits.
(2) No trolling/ this will result in a ff
Csareo

Pro

I accept. Freedom has many interpretations, therefore, I will put up a couple definitions, since my opponent seems to have forgotten.

Dictionary.com
free·dom [free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial. [1]

Merriam Webster

a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action [2]

Oxford College Dictionary

The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint [3]

Free Dictionary

1. The condition of being free of restraints. [4]

Csareo's Definition

1. The empowerment to act on will, without fear or constraint. [5]

Dictionary.com

free will

noun

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. [6]

Merriam Webster

Liberty

: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely [7]

Sources
---------


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[5] http://forums.philosophyforums.com...

[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...


[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Disclaimer: I want to make something very clear. I do not hate America. I love this country, as my homeland, as a place of principle, and I will never renounce my country. It is because I care about it, that I chose to debate this topic. I only seek to prove that America, both left and right, has fallen off the path that the founding fathers originally set us on.

It is very important that the audience realizes this. I hope this debate can add new enlightenment on the topic of will, liberty, and foremost, freedom. By shedding further understanding on the subject, we can move on to greater things. Thank you readers for giving this debate your time. I would also like to extend my thanks to Mikal, for finnally allowing me to debate him.

I wish us both luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Note this is a shared BOP and Pro has the shared burden to show that American Culture has diluted what freedom is. I have the shared Burden to show it has not.

I am going to set up a syllogism as I move down my contentions that will be refined and stated in the conclusion.


C1) The process of diluting something

Dilute - to lessen the strength of (something) [1]
Dilute - to diminish the strength, flavor, or brilliance of by admixture [1]

When you choose to dilute something, you are making an attempt at lessening the strength of it or breaking it down in a sense. There is also something to note within this process. To dilute (x) you would have to add (y) to it, and (y) would have to be responsible for making the effect or strength diminish.

The equation for dilution is generally this

C1 X V1 = C2 X V2

C1 = Initial concentration or molarity
V1 = Initial Volume
C2 = Final concentration or molarity
V2 = Final volume
[2][3][4]



Take into consideration these examples













Now let's move to the next set of examples







To put this is simplistic terms, to dilute (x), (x) would need an objective base quantity. (X) would have to have a base value or amount. Then when you add (y), (y) would also have to have an objective quantity assigned to it and be able to be measured.

(x) could equal 10 grams or 11 grams
(y) could equal 1 gram or 2 grams

The main point of this is basically stating that there has to be a value assigned to both (x) and (y) that is an objective measurement in order to dilute it.

So for freedom do be diluted, there would have to be a way to measure it with a given unit of measurement.

For something to be measured it must be tangible and be able to be measured with a unit of measurement- [5]



So we can call this [P1]

[P1] Something has to be tangible for it to be diluted.




C2) Freedom is subjective

While my adversary notes that freedom has a good many definitions and this adds to my point, there is something we have to accept and that is freedom is entirely subjective.

What freedom is to one person, may not be freedom to another. What one person perceives as freedom, would not equate to another persons definition. So to simply say (x) is the definition of freedom is theoretically impossible. Freedom is an abstract thought/idea that varies between cultures and nations.

So for jifpop to hold up his end of the BOP he must show that American Culture has diluted freedom within every mind of every person in the world. Since freedom is not tangible and is a concept, if freedom is not diluted in 1 specific persons mind, then his burden is not fulfilled.



C3) Freedom is intangible.

This plays into my C1 argument. For something to be diluted it first must be tangible. Freedom is an abstract thought/concept that varies among cultures [C2]. There is no objective way to get a quantitative value or measurement on what freedom is because it is not tangible, therefore it can not be diluted.

Note the process of dilution from [C1]

For freedom to be diluted there would have to be a way to assign a measurement to it, and then there would have to be something added to it (y). Both must be able to be measured, and both must have an objective quantitative value. There is no way to quantify a given amount of freedom [C2] because freedom is relative depending on culture and location and varies from person to person therefore it can not be diluted.

Since we have established that freedom is an abstract idea that varies from person to person let's look at examples about why it is not measurable.

Example A :

10 grams is objectively 10 grams. No matter who is holding the amount of grams, it is 10 grams regardless. When we are using 10 grams of (x) and adding (y) to it. These specific amounts are objectively measured. So if we are using 10 grams of oil or water, there is a specific way that it can be objectively measured


Example B :

Person A defines freedom by (x) amount
Person B defines freedom by (y) amount

The issue this brings up is there is not an objective value that freedom can be assigned. This brings up to major issues with trying to dilute freedom.

(a) There is no way to measure it with any given unit of measurement
(b) Even if there was a given unit to measure it with, it would vary from person to person so it would not be an objective amount.


A) For something be tangible it must be composed of atoms

Tangible - real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary [6]

This is essentially stating that to measure something it has to be real, you can not measure a concept.

Everything that can be measured is composed of atoms and matter. Freedom is not composed of atoms due to it being an abstract thought/concept. Therefore since freedom is an abstract thought or concept, and is not tangible (composed of atoms), it can not be diluted because it can not be measured with a given unit of measurement.

So we can call this [P2]

[P2] Freedom is an intangible concept



C4) America Fosters the Idea/Concept for Freedom


For a country to actually be free, they must actually be willing to accept the freedom.


Take into consideration this article written by Lawrence E Harrisonis, about the prerequisites of freedom. He makes a point that freedom cannot be true or effective without the proper culture foundation. He then goes to state that America is ideally one of the best places if not the best place that has the best culture foundation as to where freedom can truly be present.


He states this.

" Virtually all the most successful countries in the world today, including those in Western Europe, North America, and East Asia, and Australia and New Zealand, practice democratic capitalism. All these countries have benefited from religions or ethical codes that nurture democratic politics or economic development, or both: Christianity, particularly the Protestant sects; Judaism; and Confucianism. The three share, among other values, the belief that people can influence their destinies and a related emphasis on the future; a high priority for education; the belief that work is good; and celebration of achievement and merit." [7]


He then goes on to make this point

" Some cultures are prone to democratic politics, while others resist it. In his classic Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville made an observation in the 1830s that is relevant today: "Mexico, as happily situated [geographically] as the Anglo-American Union, adopted these same laws but cannot get used to democratic government. So there must be some other reason, apart from geography and laws, which makes it possible for democracy to rule the United States." For Tocqueville, that reason is culture: "…the habits of the heart… the different notions possessed by men, the various opinions current among them and the sum of ideas that shape mental habits." [7]

What this is essentially claiming is that the US has the best cultural foundation to support freedom. The US in a giant melting pot of different cultures and ideas. In addition to this our culture teaches us the values of freedom from the moment we are born. It emphasizes and promotes different cultures and ideas blending together as one. We encourage women's rights, gay rights, social equality and are even putting in laws that require the government and corporations to treat everyone equally. We have freedom of religion, speech, and even the freedom to marry who we want. If you compare this to other countries where they are not so lucky and do not have the ability to chose what God to worship, or what wife they can marry, where gays are killed, and you could killed for being a Christian. We are really lucky.

We have not diluted freedom, but are taught about the concept of freedom and how lucky we are from the day we are born.

While someone can argue that no one "can truly be free", if freedom does exist the US exhibits the best possibility of the best possible freedom.


We can lay this out in a syllogism as well

[P1] For the best possible freedom to exist, there must be a good culture foundation
[P2] The US possesses one of the best if not best, culture foundations in the world
[C] Therefore the US has the best chance of having the best possible freedom

Meaning that the US would not dilute freedom, but in fact be the manifestation of what freedom really is.





Conclusion

First Major Syllogism

[P1] Something has to be tangible to dilute it
[P2] Freedom is an intangible concept
[C] Freedom can not be diluted.

Second Major Syllogism

[P1] For the best possible freedom to exist, there must be a good culture foundation
[P2] The US possesses one of the best if not best, culture foundations in the world
[C] Therefore the US has the best chance of having the best possible freedom


There are a few things Jifpop must do to win this debate

(a) He must show that freedom can be diluted, meaning he must show that it is tangible and be measured with a specific unit of measurement. He must show that there is a possible way to assign a given value to abstract thought or idea that can be quantified and measured with any given unit of measurement.

(b) He must show that freedom is diluted by American Culture in the minds of every single individual that exists. If there exists a freedom that has not been diluted by American Culture if the minds of (x) Individual, he has not upheld his BOP.

(c) He must show that America has a bad culture foundation


Soucres

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(equation)
[3] http://www.tocris.com...
[4] http://www.quansysbio.com...
[5] http://www.unc.edu...
[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[7] http://spectator.org...
Csareo

Pro

I would really love to clarify, what seems to be a misunderstanding on behalf of my opponent. In the comments, my opponent has told me that my use of the word deluded does not apply to this scenario, and since I don't consider my self having an advanced understanding of the English language, I believed him.

The resolution of the debate says deluded, not diluted

While I believed him, even though this was an obvious lie to me, I did not clarify so in the acceptance round, as I went back and checked the terminology (Note, this was after I accepted). If Mikal wishes to take this semantical position on the diluting of water, then that is up to him. I hope the audience will vote on the actual resolution, that American culture has deluded freedom

Now my opponent may simply try to call this out as a grammatical structure error, claiming that he was reasonable to assume that the resolution was "dilluted". Lets be clear on one thing.....

I had clarified several times that this was a philosophical debate

Mikal, while I respect his aptitude for attempting to resolution snipe, did two things that made this cheap tactic fail..... [1]

P1: A verb/adjective can come before a noun (In gramattical sense, it will be defined as OP contecual) [2]

P2: Deluded is a participle adjective [3]

P3: A participle adjective can apply before noun [4]

C1: Therefore, the structure of my resolution is gramatically correct

Now that I have cleared up the fact that the resolution abides 100% by grammatical standards, and yes, I had done lots of research, I can begin the crux of my arguments....

Grammar Sources

[1] 30-ish post enlightenment session with Wrichcriw

[2]
http://www.englishclub.com...

[3] http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com...

[4] http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu...

Definition Clarifications

Due to the confusion that my opponent has either entailed or intended on grammar structure, I will post some abiding definitons here. I will post merriam, and cite oxford to make sure were absolutely clear on the institution of the "word play" in this debate.

de·ludeverb\di-G2;lüd, dē-\
: to cause (someone) to believe something that is not true [1] [2]

Disclaimer: Mikal, do not touch that button in the debate editor, ok?

We are debating that American culture has dilluded what freedom is

1di·luteverb\dī-G2;lüt, də-\:

to make (a liquid) thinner or less strong by adding water or another liquid
[3] [4]


^ The above definition, has been striked out, to show that it has no signifigance in this debate. Further arguing that this definition is relevant to this philisophical debate, will almost always be semantical

In the case that my opponent really wants to get semantical, which seems exremely unfair given the context of the debate, I will attempt to show that dillution has a different meaning in the financial sector. This is to show, that my opponent didn't even use the word dilluted in the right context.

Definition of 'Dilution'
A reduction in the ownership percentage of a share of stock caused by the issuance of new stock. Dilution can also occur when holders of stock options (such as company employees) or holders of other optionable securities exercise their options. When the number of shares outstanding increases, each existing stockholder will own a smaller, or diluted, percentage of the company, making each share less valuable. Dilution also reduces the value of existing shares by reducing the stock's earnings per share.[5]
^ The above was also crossed out, to once again show that we are not debating dilliution in any form. Note, this was not a rebuttal, but a clarification

Definition Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[5] http://www.investopedia.com...

I.Freedom is a Mindset

Now, to prove my case, I have to first prove that American culture has mislead the people into what freedom is. Lets rexamine what freedom in the most simplified form of all those definitions.......

The ability to act on unconstrained will

Lets quickly examine the sentence structure really quick in a short complitation. Due to the nature of my arguments, this is best examined backwards, from will down......

Examination 1/Unconstrained Will: What is unconstrained will? Can we assume unconstrained will, in actuallity, is no different than free will? In my opinion, it most certainly is. I need to get more in depth for the purpose of this debate. Lets look at the first word, constrained....

con·strained[kuhn-streynd]Show IPAadjective1.forced,compelled,orobliged:aconstrainedconfession. [1]

Okay, so by the definition of constrained, we can assume that unconstrained will is the absense of being obliged, forced, or compelled. Does my opponent concede that free will is a trait? I think so. As the definition essentially equates to free will.

If he thinks otherwise, it will be his duty for the BOP, to prove that a human being cannot mentally resist force, compelled, or obliged to do something. For him to disprove this contention that free will is a trait, he needs to.....

- Prove that will itself is not a trait

- Prove that a man can not be mentally free

- Prove that a man can not mentallyresist force, persuasion, or obligation.

Failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the above premises, are negated, will allow the contention, that free will is a mind set, go unchecked. Which will be crucial in proving my case.

Examination 2/Abillity to Act: What is abillity? Now, the argument I'm pretty much certain Mikal will make, is that abillity is....

Possession of the means or skill to do something: [2]

^ The above Oxford definition, indeed works in Mikals favor, correct? In a sense it does, but lets look at what comes immediately after the word. Looking directly after the word, we see "to act".

So, if someone, is, per say, unable to climb a mountain without falling, does he still have the abillity to act on the will to try? Or to clarify further, does the man, lack the "abillity", to try to "act", on that unconstrained "will""? He most certainly does not. This is also crucial to my argument. To disprove this contention, Mikal must prove the following.....

- That a man lacks the abillity to act on his will

- That enviormental circumstances restrict the abillity to act on will

Failing to prove the above premises, will result in him failing to negate this part of the BOP.

Examination 3/Freedom is the abillity to act on unconstrained will:

I have now proven, that free will is a mind set, and that a person can have the ability to act on the impossible. If all this is true, then it is impossble to deny that freedom is a mindset, correct? Lets think about it through this example................
------------------------
Jackie Monroe (Male), is an advocate for freedom. He firmly believes that freedom is a value. Jackie Monroe, has always suffered from a rare heart condition, which makes it near impossible for him to partake in physical activity. One day, Robinson was walking across the beach. Suddenly, he heard cries, like they came from a small kid.

Jackie, looking out in the distance, and was panicked to see a small kid drowning. He shouted for someone to rescue the young child. No one came. He knew he had to save the child, but he had a problem. Jackies heart condition prevented him from swimming to the child. He would surely die.

But jackie was willful. He knew in his heart, that he had both the will and the ability to try to save this child, even though it was impossible. Jackie swam, with all his might. He felt his heart beat slowing. He continued to swim, as he had unconstrained will to keep trying. Jackie, got the kid to shore, although his heart burst the moment he hit the beach. The child was saved.
-------------------------

What do we notice about Jackie in this short story? Jackie utilized freedom as a value, a tenet, and foremost, a thing of personal honor. I have just shown, that freedom is actually a state of mind. To be at liberty is to be unconstrained. To be free, is to have both will, and to disregard the constraints that tell us we can not do what we think we can do.

Therefore, freedom and liberty, while synonymous, are not the same thing. My opponent must attack this point hard, to prove my next contention.

Examination Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Final Notes

I have exhausted the character limit for this round, entirely debating every defintion. This is entirely crucial to my case, and while it seems quite odd that I would spend a whole round arguing what freedom is, and is not, but given the context of the debate, it is essential I partake in doing so.

As for the next round, I plan on further clarifying any questions my opponent might have, and establishing American Culture. I have some intresting arguments to make, such as quoting great pieces of literatur like Cicero, Aurrellius, and the founder of freedom/liberty terminology, John Locke. Its been fun participating in this debate, and I wish my opponent the best of luck.

Overall Debate Criteria

(1) I am quite worried that my opponent will continue on a path of arguing dillution and not delution. He should, and will be required to, argue the resolution he wrote, and did not fix until after the fact.

(2) Arguing definitions should be discouraged. Semantics are the disdain of civil debate.

(3) This is not about who made a better case. Negation of one's case should be considered.

With that said, I ask the audience to give fair and due consideration to this debate, and vote for the man who put forth the best arguments. Thank you for your time readers!

Note: To specify immediately, I have 6 characters left. I encourage my opponent to track his.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

So this debate is over from this point, although I will still take the time to address my adversaries points. My adversary states that the resolution is deluded but this is clearly false and a ploy to avoid my arguments in the previous round.

The resolution clearly states

Resolution - American Culture has diluted what freedom is [1] (per round 1)

Note : My adversary accepted the debate and the rules therein listed in the first round. The title of the debate is not a resolution. The resolution is clearly listed in the Rules and guidelines in the first round which my adversary agreed to upon acceptance of the debate.

After reading the rules and regulations in R1 he even chooses to define freedom in a manner of his choosing in which he states

"I accept"

As his first words. This is proof that he read the rules and agreed to the resolution that is stated in R1 which is

Resolution - American Culture has diluted what freedom is [1]

Also I will direct you to the comments of this debate

Myself - btw you worded the resolution wrong and i did not catch it lol. Its suppose to be diluted not deluded.

Jif - Sorry for the S&G error. Just point that out.

By acknowledging that there was an error in the title of the debate and that this should be diluted and not deluded, he is accepting that he is fully aware of this. He then in turns accepts the debate with the resolution and critera listed in R1

Again note the resolution in R1

He also attempts to say that he is not fluent with English but this is prima facie wrong, per his ability and capability of comprehension that is observable.

So there are a few courses of actions in which the judges can take from this point

(a) Award myself conduct automatically for my adversary attempting to shift not just the BOP but the resolution of the debate *that he agreed upon in R1*, or factor this in to their decision in voting.

(b) Disqualify him entirely and consider this an act of trolling, which would award me the debate. Agreeing to the resolution and acknowledging it, then attempting to change the resolution could be considered trolling and I leave that up to the judges. Due to the rules listed in R1 , my adversary choosing to troll this debate awards me the win automatically. In addition to this he lied about his ability to comprehend basic English which is another act of trolling.

(c) The judges must dismiss every argument my adversary makes about *deluded* , because it is entirely irrelevant to this debate.


Now on to responding to his arguments

R1) Everything about delusion or being deluded

This entire first part of his argument is entirely irrelevant to the debate and will not and can not be considered. This is not the resolution of the debate, so we can dismiss this entire part of his argument.

R2 ) Defining Freedom

The first thing i want to note is that even if he were to (which he was not able to ) establish that freedom is an objective term and is not subjective, this would only refute 1 out of 3 of my main contentions and is still entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the debate due to the resolution which is

America Culture has diluted freedom[1]


So now on to the refutation.

Which there is really nothing to refute. My adversary attempts to define freedom in a way that establishes it as to act without constraint. The issue with this is that freedom is still entirely subjective

Even if we acknowledge that freedom is the ability to act without constraint we then must ask a majority of other questions that cannot be determined objectively

The ability to act without constraint is still entirely subjective in the mind of the person that is acting. Constraint to one person may not be constraint to another, and the ability to act without constraint would have to be addressed with the question is someone actually constrained.

If someone is not constrained in a literal or metaphysical sense, then the definition my adversary presents is irrelevant. The only thing this point shows it that freedom is still entirely subjective and differs from cultures and people.


As I stated this is on him to show that American Culture has diluted freedom in every possible mind in order to uphold his BOP.


We can even lay this out as another syllogism

[P1] Freedom is an abstract thought/concept that differs from perspective and culture
[P2] To show that American Culture has diluted freedom you must dilute that freedom in the mind of every possible person
[C] Freedom can not be diluted because it is impossible to show that American culture has diluted freedom in the mind of every possible person.



Restating contentions


C1) The process of diluting something

dropped

C2) Freedom is subjective

This is addressed in R2 above and would be mute to type out again

C3) Freedom is intangible

Dropped

C4) America fosters the Idea/concept for freedom

Dropped


Conclusion

My adversary has attempted to change the resolution entirely. As I stated by agreeing to the debate and the resolution listed in R1 he is agreeing to that specific resolution

He is not allowed to change the resolution because he openly agreed to it when he accepted the debate.

Therefore all of my contentions hold and he has not upheld his BOP. In addition he has dropped every single one of my arguments, and tried to define freedom and still has not managed to do so.

Let's review the resolution once more and the syllogisms that meet my burden.


New Syllogism for subjective freedom

[P1] Freedom is an abstract thought/concept that differs from person to culture
[P2] To show that American Culture has diluted freedom you must dilute that freedom in the mind of every possible person
[C] Freedom can not be diluted because it is impossible to show that American culture has diluted freedom in the mind of every possible person.

First major syllogism

[P1] Something has to be tangible to dilute it
[P2] Freedom is an intangible concept
[C] Freedom can not be diluted.


Second Major Syllogism

[P1] For the best possible freedom to exist, there must be a good cultural foundation
[P2] The US possesses one of the best if not best, cultural foundations in the world
[C] Therefore the US has the best chance of having the best possible freedom

Vote Con


[1] Round 1 rules and structure
Csareo

Pro

Unfortunately, a bug on this site is preventing me from submitting the debate. I refuse to type it a third time, so here it is in document form. I'll be closing my account for two reasons....

(1) There has been a tragedy in my family lately. It has affected me hard, and I've been grieving for the past week.

(2) Airmax said he will ban me, which makes this even more said


https://docs.google.com...

Good luck DDO, but there are more important things in my life now, and I need to attend to them. If you want to talk to me about it, send me a PM on edeb8, although I can't confirm I'll read it.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikal

Con

I accept the concession but would like to point out one thing yet again. Jif continues to claim that I tried to snipe the resolution and changed it

View this down below to show that once again he is lying. In the comments he states, in a conversation with thette

Posted by thett3 1 day ago
thett3 What kind of resolution is this

Posted by Csareo 1 day ago
Csareo That American culture has diluted what freedom is

Posted by profile card thett3 1 day ago
This debate is going to come down to semantics. What is "freedom"? What is "American culture"? How does a culture, a non actor, dilute anything?

I mean if you're into that I guess that's cool, but it's not a debate I would want to have...

As the judges can see, he blatantly lied about himself wanting the resolution to be deluded. I would also like to note by his own definoitn that would change nothing

For someone to be deluded that would have to be a person.

So the resoultion would have to be

"American culture has deluded what freedom is to (x possible mind)"

The same premise still stands, you cannot delude a concept/thought

I would continue debating due to his conduct, but it seems as if he is going to be banned anyway. I accept the concession and wish my adversary the best with his family troubles.
Csareo

Pro

I'll let my arguments speak for themselves. Here is what I think the audience needs to consider, or I found criteria in voting....


(1) Did Mikal make clear that the topic (Title), or resolution in DDO's case, was clear, non misleading, and anti semantic ?

(2) Did Mikal use proper grammar,spelling, and sentence structure?

(3) Did Mikal source his contentions, prove that they are true, or make it clear that it was flat logic?

(4) Did Mikal fill his half of the BOP, that American culture did not delude freedom?

I want to keep this debate civil, so that's all I'll say. I don't think these closing rounds offer any insight, besides rhetorical bashing on your opponents arguments.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 4
76 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
This debate was something that Jifpop deserved to win. Mikal was "resolution sniping", but he ignored the fact that the title of the debate says "deluded", not "diluted". Mikal largely ignored the debate at hand to go on about "dilution", which according to the title was not what the debate was about.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1-5/9:

It's late, and I'm very tired. And I apparently, somehow, made a LARGE mathematical error. I think I divided by 1,000 instead of by 2,000, because it's late, I'm tired, and I'm apparently dumb. Sorry about that. And of course there's no way to fix it, so this will count for 1-5 of the 9 I claimed. Again, sorry.

This is a W/L debate, so I don't have to justify several categories. I will,
however, be noting both some S&G issues, and some rather large conduct problems.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 6/9:

So to get started:

R1 had Con's outline of rules and structure, and the specific resolution: "Basic resolutionResolution - American culture has diluted what freedom is". It was intended to be an acceptance round for Pro, who chose to add definitions and make a disclaimer. While it's not exactly the least common thing in the world, and isn't really particularly bad conduct (Con didn't even note it), it didn't get Pro off to a good start.

R2 is where it gets more interesting.

Con repeated that there was to be a shared BoP. I will note that I find that ridiculous. I know Pro requested it, but it"s absurd to me for there to be a "shared" BoP on a positive claim.

Con argued in R2 that something has to be tangible for it to be diluted. I found this to be a too-literal interpretation of the word "diluted". Con goes on to argue that, since freedom is an abstract quantity, it cannot be measured in such a way as to to justify it being called "diluted". I found this entire line of argumentation weak-ish, so I was interested in Pro"s rebuttal. But Con wasn"t done yet. He argued that America fosters the idea/concept of freedom. Con argues that "if freedom does exist the US exhibits the best possibility of the best possible freedom". The syllogism he presents here I find to be much more palatable. He then finishes his round by arguing what Con needs to do so win this debate.

Then it"s Pro"s turn. He opens with a complaint about the structure--a gambit that was not in his best interests.

I try to hesitate to say anyone is lying on the here, particularly when it's arguable whether they are merely mistaken.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 7/9:

However, Pro's claims here are so bad, and so clearly contradictory, that "lie" is the only answer I find plausible.

Per Pro, prior to even posting his first round I believe (but after accepting),
after being asked what kind of resolution is this by thett3:

"That American culture has diluted what freedom is"

And prior to that, this exchange occurred (as comments go from newest to oldest,
this order has been reversed for the quoting):

Mikal:

"btw you worded the resolution long and i did not catch it lol...its suppose to be
diluted not deluded."

Csareo:

"Sorry for the S&G error. Just point that out."

Pro then complained in the comments, claiming that he didn't "know" why diluted was
being used in a debate which had the title as "deluded". Later on, Pro complained
that "Technically, the debate..org rules state the topic is the resolution.
Obviously I did not agree if I argued it in my round, did I? You blatantly lied to
me on the terminology. Can you try to win fairly for once, with no tricks?"

This is a flat lie from Pro.

He also claims:

"The title, by Juggle rules, is the resolution. I wanted to debate deluded. BTW, go
to the forums"

First: Pro's lie is once again obvious; to say that he "wanted to debate deluded"
is a clear lie. Second: I'm not aware of anywhere that it says that the title, by
Juggle rules, is the resolution. It's mentioned a few places that it's the
resolution, but not in any way that would be binding or that would preclude the
clarification in R1, which Con did, when he said in R1 (prior to Pro's acceptance):

"Basic resolutionResolution [sic]- American culture has diluted what freedom is"

Pro's arguments about using "Deluded" are absurd. The fact that he manages to misspell his supposed preferred resolution interpretation as "dilluded" is just more icing on that particular cake.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 8/9:

His financial sector argument fails for not addressing the issue, too--the number of shares is a measurable quantity.

He then goes on to argue that freedom is a mindset. A compelling argument, but it doesn"t address the resolution at all--he hadn"t drawn that connection yet.

Thus, as of the end of R2, Con has supported his arguments for the resolution, and Pro has argued agains the wording of the resolution, presented his preferred interpretation, and has not supported it whatsoever. In a shared BoP debate like this, this is a bad thing for Pro.

In R3 Con argues that the debate is "over from this point", which is a bit unfair given that per the structure, Pro could still bring in contentions to draw his argument together. While arguably unfair, since Con can"t rebut them per the structure, the structure allows Pro to do this. Nonetheless, Pro moves on to argue he should get conduct (while I agree, this is a straight W/L debate). He argues he could be awarded a FF for his opponent"s trolling--something I"m on the edge of agreeing with. And he argues that the entire line of "deluded" should be dropped. Since Pro hasn"t even addressed that resolution properly, I"m hesitant to do so until Pro at least gives his case.

Pro gets his final round of contentions and rebuttals. I do not like the idea of having to go to a google doc to view the arguments. I should not have to. Neither should Pro have to "type it a third time" when he should be able to Copy and Paste it. At least he doesn"t go over the character limit.

Pro objects again to the resolution. That he claims it is a "philosophical" debate is irrelevant--the diluted argument could be trivially seen as such as well. That he claims there was any trollishness considering this was C/Pd by Con is not a reasonable claim. Nor do his continued arguments against the resolution as clarified hold.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 9/9:

Pro"s basic contention, in the end, seems to be this quote: "Free men decide. Un-free men comply. With each passing week, Americans decide less and comply more."

I"ll note he could have used "diluted" in support of this. And, indeed, "deluded" seems to make little to no sense--he"s arguing that people have less freedom because they give it up thanks to culture, not that people are wrong about what freedom *is*. His steadfast refusal to take the debate on its own terms hurts him. He"s wasted so much time complaining about what he feels was a rewording, that he fails to make an actual argument in support of this outside of assertion. Pro moves on to try to rebut Con"s assertions regarding what he must prove. While I think he largely succeeds, this is wasted time for Pro, who has still failed to make a complete argument in support of his motion.

And with that he runs out of space.

So now we reach the final round, in which only closing statements are allowed, with no new rebuttals or contentions. Pro has, at this point, lost the debate. He has not created an actual affirmative case that has any substance, he wasted most of his characters arguing about what word to use instead of trying to work with them, and he rebutted a good deal of Con"s case--but not the whole thing. At this juncture, Con clearly has the victory here.

The final round has Con continuing to point out Pro"s contradictions regarding the resolution. Pro uses his space to make a few final jabs at Con.

Since Pro has failed to support either his own preferred version of the resolution, or the one that was in the R1 terms. Con, meanwhile, has made some arguments that I find pretty weak, but has actually constructed a case. With shared BoP, the victory here is clear, and goes to Con.

I wish jifpop/Csareo luck in the future.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
I just noticed this was not a concession, that Google docs link was broken for me when I posted my last round so i thought he conceded in frustration.

Just loaded so I was wrong

apologizes for thinking he conceded, the way it was worded seemed as if he did.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
@Jif, did you see my pic? Can I remove it now?
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
That was an exceptionally low-quality RFD compared to his other ones...
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
He may have meant Mikal met his but you didn't meet yours?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MikalCsareo
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I'll keep this brief. Despite the lack of definitions in R1, the resolution was restated, with the word "diluted" instead of "deluded." If Pro wanted to express concerns about the shift in terms from the resolution, he should have done so in R1. Much as it made this debate more about semantics than about the topic at hand, the resolution as it stands was the one posted in R1 and clarified further in R2. As I look through the comments, the clarification was also made there and accepted by Pro. Ergo, I go with the word diluted, and as Pro proceeded with the deluded definition, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
MikalCsareo
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
MikalCsareo
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I feel somewhat bad doing this, as Mikal won the debate completely by semantics. Jifpop really should have included some kind of clarification of the idiom being used in the resolution, but alas, he did not, and so Mikal's argument does, indeed, negate the resolution; one can neither dilute nor delude intangible, impersonal concepts such as Freedom. Another win for Mikal. Hurrah.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
MikalCsareo
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: It's pretty clear based on the prior conversations that the resolution was supposed to be "diluted." jif tries to profit from his own spelling mistake by changing his strategy. However, this completely fails as his own definition of deluded says that only a *person* can be deluded, not an abstract concept like freedom. I think mikal's analysis on the *original* topic ("diluted") was sound -- that something must be tangible to be diluted. Jifpop's case was extremely weak -- at best.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
MikalCsareo
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had the burden to prove that American culture (whatever that is) is causally linked to deluding (whatever that means) freedom (however that's measured). It didn't happen. CON wins.