Current LD Topic: When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.
We will debate Lincoln-Douglas style and this will be our format.
Round #1. Acceptance
AC: Round #2
NC/NR1: Round 2
Cross-Ex Questions: Round 3
AR1: Round 4
NR2: Round 4
AR2/Affirmative Closing Statements: Round 5
Negative Closing Statements.
Forfeits = Automatic Loss.
For this to be proved true or false, we must accept the basic premises of the terms. I have taken the instigator at face value, and will use basic definition of the terms that were used.
These are the primary points of the statement as given:
1.We are only discussing conflicts, not preference where both can be partially achieved;
2.Personal freedom, to me is defined as not restraining or dictating the choices and actions of the individual; and
3.Economic security, to me is defined as the ability of a society to trade, produce, and provide for the consumption of the members of that society at the most basic level.
The fact remains that he chose the terms and I must use them in evaluation of the merit of the positions.
When one starts from the assumption that there is a conflict, or incompatible options, then the argument can be stated with a precise evaluation of the outcomes:
1.The society has no economic stability, but personal freedom is unabridged; or
2.Personal freedom is abridged, and the economy is stable.
Were the instigator to have stated economic vitality, economic growth, economic status quo, or some other term I doubt we would have disagreement. He has not. A society that has no economic security cannot provide food, safety, or in essence, life for its members. The sacrifice of an individual's freedom to prevent the wholesale death of the society is logically required, for that individual would also be dead and prevent him from exercising his freedom as well. So we are comparing a total loss to a partial loss and the obviousness of the correct decision need not be further discussed.
Here is an example of the debate in action:
A man owns a plant that can be made into a cure to prevent the entire society from turning into quadriplegics, himself included, but he doesn't want the plant harmed. Should we take the plant from the man and make the cure? The answer is obvious; yes we deny his personal freedom of property to save the economic security of the society.
If the author of this challenge wishes to rephrase the debate or alter his terms, then I may have no disagreement.
Many of you may claim that I am being a "semantics Nazi," abusing language to create a straw man. The truth is that he has placed this argument up for debate, and it was he that chose to do so and what language to use.
In order to address the concerns of "straw man" semantics trickery, I ask the instigator to provide one example where economic security cannot be achieved without a corresponding denial of personal freedom and where such denial would not be preferable.
I thank my opponent for his valuable information. However, I did not say they didn't need each other or could survive without each other. I meant than if they wre in conflict, which one should be valued higher? Also definitions will be given in the Constructive. Thank you. "When in conflict" is what I will be talking about today.
Nelson Mandela once said “Money won’t create success, the freedom to make it will.” It
John F. Kennedy once said “Liberty
An educated public is an essential ingredient of a free society.
Contention One: Personal Freedom
Take a look at the example of the USA
The laws became very unpopular because
The people sacrificed their lives to
Contention 2: Education
Talk about personal freedom
Contention 3: Economic
I will give you the example of China
However, China is still a Communist country, and is still
Therefore my three points are personal freedom upholds liberty;
LokiLoks forfeited this round.
Unfortunately, I feared this. I extend all arguments. I wish someone serious would take my debates...
I apologize for my not submitting my previous round. I did not realize how quickly time would pass and didn't get around to it. Moving on,
My opponent writes, "I did not say they didn't need each other or could survive without each other."
Please see http://dictionary.reference.com...
Conflict: "to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash:"
If they are disagreements, contradictory, variance, in opposition or clash, they are mutually exclusive.
So yes, when you wrote, "When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security" you very much indicated that they could survive without each other.
Then you wrote, "Also definitions will be given in the Constructive" after stating:
"I meant than if they wre(sp) in conflict, which one should be valued higher?"
Again, you have repeated the same and a correction of the terminology, "conflict" to "preference" was not made.
Your quote from Mandela indicates no preference for economic security or personal freedom given that if one has no economic security, one's personal freedom however vast, is incapable of making money.
Your definition of personal freedom included the following: travel, justice, private property, opinion, expression, and felt (sp) conscience subject to the rights of others and of the public. (emphasis mine)
You have already indicated a preference for economic stability with the bolded text. You are giving deference to all the other rights that are possessed by the "others and of the public." Some of those rights, although not explicitly stated, must include their own freedom of travel, private property, and so on. In an environment where there is no economic security, one cannot have a claim of private property and one cannot obtain methods of travel.
Your definition of economic security was: "a stable source of financial income that allows for the on-going maintenance of one's standard of living currently and in the near future."
If one does not have income (something that requires economic security), how can one maintain private property; how can one feed themselves such that they can have any of the other rights previously mentioned?
You quote John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest oppressors of liberty in order to bolster your claim to support liberty? You write that liberty is, "the right to do whatever the person wants that does not hurt or infringe on another's rights."
On February 2, 1961, Kennedy requested that Congress infringe on other people's rights using the threat of force and kidnapping to: steal money from people to pay for those that didn't work for it, steal money to give to children whose parents didn't earn it, steal money from people to give to his friends in construction, steal money from future generations so that people could retire earlier, prevent employers and employees from coming to a voluntarily acceptable wage, and steal money to give to people who had made bad investments in grain farming.
I wouldn't quote a source that was such a great denier of liberty as Kennedy to claim it as your value.
You write, "The people in the USA thought it was unfair because they didn't send a representative to figure out the taxes as usual so the people didn't know which taxes were raised."
This is a very poorly written and inaccurate statement. First, it was the people in the colonies that thought poorly of the taxation without representation. Second, in a group of diverse human opinions, not everyone will agree upon everything, so even with "representation" there would be some that would not be represented. Thirdly, it wasn't about not knowing what taxes were raised, everyone that was effected by the taxes knew which taxes were raised, it's the reason that they were upset.
You contend that personal freedom upholds liberty. I concur with that, yet again you cite a struggle by rich white oppressors who overthrew rich white oppressors in order to establish dominance over their own region, not a struggle for liberty. The founders of the USA did end up providing more liberty than ever seen before, but it was a far cry short of true liberty.
Using Gaddafi's attacks on the educated as evidence of education's promotion of liberty is a non-sequitur. I will simply accept that someone that is educated may have more skills by which to detect and repel their own oppression, leading to more liberty.
You state, "An educated public is an essential ingredient of a free society."
This is false. The society of the aboriginal Australians were not particularly well educated, but they were quite free. This is primarily because they had few oppressors.
"Education is vital to achieve true liberty."
This is subject to the "true Scotsman informal logical fallacy." If I mention any argument to point out that education is not necessary, as in the case of the Aborigines, you can say, but that's not TRUE liberty.
You claim that "Economic Security Harms Liberty" then proceed to cite an oppressive regime's economic growth, not their economic secuirty. Not only that, you then show that the economic growth has resulted in the "[liberation of] millions of people from poverty." Poverty harms liberty. Without means to eat or own a vehicle, one cannot have the liberty of travel you mentioned.
You dismiss that and more with a simple, "however [it's] still a communist country," and a some comparison with other countries in the region which do better and somehow claim that economic security harms liberty. China's economic security and growth has created more liberty for their citizens. The only reason that the other nations have happier populations within their borders is because they have MORE economic security and more liberty. Again, you are making a non-sequitur. Economic security did not cause the oppression of the Chinese, an abusive government did.
Again, I apologize for not posting in the alloted time on the previous section, but I suppose my initial post was in all likelihood more verbose and an argument than it was supposed to be. I guess I'll have to make sure I learn how these debates are formatted, and most certainly I'll have to ensure that I am responding faster as the rounds come up.
Thank you for the challenge.
2nd of all, I ask my opponent to stop arguing about this Resoluion because this is the same Resolution that many people in high school are arguing in tournaments right now and is not a topic I created but a topic that has been discussed and the current LD topic. Also please follow the format with an actual case with definitions, contentions, and all. This is a LD debate so please follow the format!!!! Also the first quote just means that Nelson Mandela believes that money doesn't create success, instead freedom does. Also Mandela has been working his entire life for civil rights, won the Noble Peace Prize for fighting for freedom, and was locked in prison for over 25 years to do what is right. http://archives.obs-us.com... ; http://www.stoaca.org...
3rd of all, definitions are what the Affirmative provides. I don't need to say specifically what rights they are unless there is cross-examination which you also did not follow. I already said that in a excellent society, both personal freedom and economic security are needed.
4th of all, what you're saying about John F. Kennedy is personal bias. John F. Kennedy was a huge fighter for liberty and civil rights. He valued bothe personal freedom and economic security but personal freedom just a bit higher. Also your source doesn't state what you state at all but instead states about the "term New Frontier" and talks about what he did. I don't see any stealing or taking away but I do agree that he helped lots of people but not through stealing at all. http://www.historycentral.com...
5th of all, please follow the format. You suddenly jump to something in Contention #1. Please note this is a Lincoln-Douglas Debate. When you say it's accurate you give 3 points. The first point is that it was the people in the USA not in the colonies. The colonies was what I meant. The USA. My grammar problem. Thanks for correcting it. 2nd point was ven with representation not everyone would be represented. Representation is notably called politics in the Wikipedia article about this. 3rdly you say it wasn't about that they didn't know which taxes were raised, it was the taxes that were the problem. Again, this is partially true, the taxes were part of the problem but they didn't know the exact amount because there were no politics. My source is the Wikipedia Article: English Revolution Movement (Not The Actual War Article But The Other One.
6th of all, you say that rich white oppressors overthrew rich oppressors. I would like to say that they desired to be free instead of dominance over their region. They were not fighting for land but instead they wanted to be another country because they were too confined by the British government. My 5th point source.
7th of all, my opponent goes to my 2nd contention. I don't get what my opponent has argued all except that my contention doesn't make sense without any actual argument.
8th of all, my opponent goes back all the way to my criterion. My opponent's criticism is invalid without any source to back it up. He also states that I am using I am not at all. If you have an example with sources then I can perfectly state where there is liberty and economic security.
Last of all, look at my definition of economic security. The country being economically secure has hurt their liberty. They have had gained personal freedom instead of liberty. I would say amounts of liberty but not actually liberty.
Vote For Pro.
S & G: Tie.
Arguments: My Opponent did not follow the given out format and did not make a case which is needed in LD debate while I have successfully followed the given format and refuted all his points. Vote Pro.
Conduct: Not Following Format, Forfeit. Vote Pro.
Sources:I had more sources. Vote Pro.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
My opponent writes, "...this resolution is about what people should value higher not about what I in singular form prefer." Preference does not have to be individual. Please read Universally Preferable Behavior at http://www.fdrurl.com....
Then my opponent writes, "I ask my opponent to stop arguing about this Resoluion because this is the same Resolution that many people in high school are arguing in tournaments right now and is not a topic I created but a topic that has been discussed and the current LD topic." Just to be clear, this means: "stop arguing about this resolution because other people are arguing the same fallacious argument elsewhere."
He asks me to "follow the format with an actual case with definitions, contents and all." I apologize, I am new to this debate thing, and I acknowledge that I have failed to follow the format. I would point out, however, that he has failed to write with correct grammar and spelling or accurate definitions, making his position difficult at best to respond to without him claiming a win by technicality or some sort of 'that's not what I mean' excuse.
He uses Nelson Mandela as an example of someone who was an advocate for freedom. According to http://en.wikipedia.org... here are some of Mandela's acts that were directly contrary to advocating freedom over financial security:
Who pays for that "free" health care, reconstruction, welfare spending, grants, public education, skill development programs, telephone lines, electricity grids, houses, water transport, meals, medicine, social security payments, oversight? Taxpayers pay for it. Taxes, by definition, aren't voluntary contributions which equals a loss of personal freedom.
Mandela required COMPULSORY schooling for childreen 6-14 years of age, a complete opposite to personal freedom.
Mandela created the The Labour Relations Act of 1995 which interfered with the personal freedom of the laborers and the employers. Please see http://www.acts.co.za... for the act.
Mandela created the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 and the Employment Equity Act of 1998 and the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1996 which prevented the employer and employees from expressing their own personal freedom to choose what conditions they want for their own workplace. Please see:
I could go on and on with examples of Mandela's obvious lack of support for personal freedom. By the way, Mandela (with an E) won the Nobel not Noble peace prize.
My opponent's own source betray his premise! How can one possibly vote for Pro when it is so poorly argued?
My opponent says, "what you're saying about JFK is personal bias." There was no bias, it was a statement of facts. Kennedy's programs were funded by taxation and those that refused to pay those taxes were taken away with the implied or actual threat of being shot and jailed AKA kidnapped. I can see how he might believe it is personal bias because he apparently doesn't understand that taxation IS theft under threat of kidnapping when he says, "I don't see any stealing or taking away."
He then cites historycentral.com for a source where Kennedy "helped lots of people [without stealing]" and after reviewing the site I found zero evidence of the sort. Every single act that I see that Kennedy accomplished listed on that site was funded through the coercive force of taxation, an institution diametrically opposed to personal freedom.
Just to be absolutely clear on this point. Taxation is a violation of personal freedom. It prevents each individual from spending their money on what they want to. Taxation also funds programs which are almost always government monopolies, which denies any potential entrepreneur or non profit organizer from creating any competing industry.
In his 6th point, my opponent says "I would like to say that they desired to be free instead of dominance over their region." How is "like to say" in any way a counter argument to my point?
My opponent says "I don't get what my opponent has argued [at] all except that my contention doesn't make sense without any actual argument." Someone cannot argue with something that is incoherent. Here is an example of my opponent's incoherent writing from his most recent post, "He also states that I am using I am not at all." How does one argue with that?
My opponent suggests that my "criticism is invalid without any source to back it up." Valid points of debate include logic and evidence. Sources have no value unless they provide logic or evidence, and they are certainly not required to make criticism valid. I provided evidence and logic, quite sufficient for accurate criticism.
Economic stability as my opponent defined it, "the condition of having a stable source of financial income that allows for the on-going maintenance of one's standard of living currently and in the near future" is a prerequisite for personal freedom. A person that doesn't have a stable source of financial income or cannot maintain one's standard of living for the present or near future has limited personal freedom. Consider how curtailed your own personal freedom would be if you were uncertain about your future much less the NEAR future. Would you borrow money? Would you travel? Would you change jobs or start up a new business? Would you speak your mind to your supervisor or a wealthy relative? Obviously your decisions and personal freedom are restricted when you do not have economic stability.
In regards to conduct, I hope you will choose 'Tie.' I was respectful as was my adversary if you don't consider his response, "I wish someone serious would take my debates" as a personal attack on my seriousness which was arguably acceptable given that I didn't follow the format. A vote for 'Pro' is certainly acceptable as is 'Tie.'
In regards to spelling and grammar, it is obvious that his grammar and spelling were lacking. Any vote not given to the Con position would be a denial of evidence.
In regards to which argument was more convincing, my opponent's own arguments undermined his position not to mention my own efforts which clearly show that his position fails. I would request that you vote for the 'Con' position on this point.
In regards to which side used more reliable sources, my opponent's own sources undermined his position unlike mine. I used each of his own sources to refute his position as well as provided my own. If a source is counter to the position offered then it cannot be considered to be a "reliable" source because it cannot be "relied" upon to support the position. I urge you to vote 'Con' on this point.
Regardless of your position prior to the debate, I humbly request that you vote 'Con' considering that I showed how economic stability is a requirement for personal freedom.
Thank you again to Viper-King for the debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|