The Instigator
SmileyRainbow1999
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
leonardlewis4
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Everyone deserves the right to personal 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,597 times Debate No: 36062
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SmileyRainbow1999

Con

Everybody does not deserve the right to personal freedom because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. It can also lead to corruptive behaviour and power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially. It may be a human right but certainly not everyone deserves it.
leonardlewis4

Pro

BOP is shared...

Con must provide sufficient warrant for his argument that everyone does not deserve the right to personal freedom because of the potential for abuse or because of problem scenarios to which that freedom "may" lead. Specifically, as Con stated, "...because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. It can also lead to [corrupt behavior] and power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially." Note: Con did not argue (as I have) that certain personal freedoms may be taken away after committing a crime (for instance)... Rather, he states that certain people (we know not who) should never be allowed to experience personal freedoms because of what they "may" do with it.

I (Pro) must provide sufficient warrant for my position that everyone deserves the right to personal freedom unless and until they demonstrate that they are no longer worthy of that right by violating established law such that the rights of others are violated in such an egregious manner as to warrant denial of personal freedom according to the law.
Debate Round No. 1
SmileyRainbow1999

Con

People can use personal freedom to pursue what they like- which may be harmful. Many people also use personal freedom as a way to hurt others which can be seen in events in the past history. Overall, not EVERYBODY should have personal freedom, only the people that deserve it should have it.
leonardlewis4

Pro

I appeal to Natural Law [1], Natural Rights [2], and two resulting contemporary declarations:

The Declaration of Independence [3]: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable [4]: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

Granted, there have been many attempts throughout history to articulate and enumerate natural rights, but almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities.

Con states that, "People can use personal freedom to pursue what they like--which may be harmful." The implication being, that people should therefore be denied personal freedom for their own good. However, this would be self-defeating... Denial of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is intrinsically harmful!

If people are denied the freedom to "pursue what they like", who (or what) does Con assume will provide or seek their happiness? If a person is denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are suffering harm at the hands of an oppressor (or oppressive law).

Con also states that "Many people also use personal freedom as a way to hurt others which can be seen in events in ... history." The implication being, that people should therefore be denied personal freedom for the good of others (whether or not the denial is otherwise warranted).

Con also has a concept of people who "deserve" personal freedoms and people who "do not deserve" personal freedoms. One can only assume that the point of withholding rights from the "undeserving" would be to secure rights for the "deserving" (in Con's mind)... However, Con has provided no sufficient warrant for declaring a person to be either "deserving" or "undeserving". It appears by his positions that one must earn their personal freedoms (by some merit-based system) in order to be declared "deserving". In other words, no one is born (or can be assumed to be) deserving of personal freedoms--because of what "may" happen as a result.

Hopefully, Con will further explain his statement, "Overall, not EVERYBODY should have personal freedom, only the people that deserve it should have it."

I (Pro) say that people can forfeit certain rights by violating law. Essentially, that everyone is deserving of personal freedoms until they demonstrate otherwise. However, this is not the same as Con's position.

Con says, essentially, that we should make no assumption that people are deserving of personal freedoms--because of what "may" happen as a result. However, he has not given us a standard for determining who is deserving and who is not deserving--or a standard for meriting freedoms.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SmileyRainbow1999

Con

Con has not supported his argument that everyone deserves the right to personal freedom, instead he has just been rebutting. Hopefully he will have some new points for me to rebut. Not everyone (as in the world) deserves the right (have a claim to) to personal freedom (the ability to not be controlled by a wider force. Because it WILL be used against people. Such as the Boston Bombings, the man had the freedom of travel which in then, he used to bomb Boston.
leonardlewis4

Pro

I believe Con is slightly confused per his round 2 "argument"...

Con,

I (leonardlewis4) am Pro. You (SmileyRainbow1999) are Con.

Okay, now that we've put that to rest...

Con says I haven't offered any arguments. I have. Primarily, my argument is an appeal to Natural Law, Natural Rights and a couple of contemporary documents that articulate the fundamentals of those concepts well. Granted, my argument is an appeal to authority, but it is a proper appeal. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, is a well-accepted, thoroughly established historical codification of Natural Rights underpinning of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights (recognized virtually universally). I included sources in the interest of time to provide all the information one might need to understand the argument represented by the concept of Natural Law/Rights. I also argued in favor of the authority to which I appealed using the logical progression of Con's argument to further make the point.

As for Cons claim that I have merely offered rebuttals... Well, there hasn't been much to rebut. Again, Con asserts that some people "deserve" personal freedoms some "do not deserve" personal freedoms. However, Con still has not provided an objective standard for declaring a person to be either "deserving" or "undeserving"... Hopefully he will. If/when he does, we should also expect sufficient warrant for imposing such a standard--something beyond, "bad things MAY happen".

|Con: "Not everyone (as in the world) deserves the right (have a claim to) to personal freedom (the ability to not be
| controlled by a wider force. Because it WILL be used against people. Such as the Boston Bombings, the man had the
| freedom of travel which in then, he used to bomb Boston."

Thus far, Con's equation seems to be: "Personal Freedoms" equal "Terrorism"
Debate Round No. 3
SmileyRainbow1999

Con

Pro, pro, pro....

I am not stating that personal freedom is terrorism; but i am merely using the boston bombings as an EXAMPLE
to how personal freedom can be used to violate others. People who deserve personal freedom should be people who have never commited a crime or act against others. This is not going against my own side (CON) because the topic IS
that EVERYONE deserves the right to personal freedom. So Pro, I know I am CON.

You have not offered any arguments, only EVIDENCE that support your case. Just because the Natural Laws and Rights articulate the fundamentals; it does not necessarily mean that is being put to use. For an example; search up Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech". You will find it there.
leonardlewis4

Pro

Con is now introducing a new nuanced angle of his original position. Note: His original position as stated is not 100% consistent with an argument contrary to the debate Topic. The debate topic is unqualified. Both I (Pro) and Con qualified our positions based on the debate Topic, but the Topic itself is not the nuanced Pro argument. Con's introductory argument follows:

| Everybody does not deserve the right to personal freedom because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms.
| It can also lead to corruptive behaviour and power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially.
| It may be a human right but certainly not everyone deserves it.

Con did not begin with the argument he introduced in the 4th round. Con's 4th round argument:

| People who deserve personal freedom should be people who have never commited a crime or act against others.

Until the 4th round, Con has implied that there should be some kind of proactive denial of basic rights to prevent "harm to others". This is the first mention by Con that only people who have never committed a crime deserve personal freedom. Con keeps saying that personal freedom can be used to violate the freedom of others... That's really his fundamental argument. I think that's a given... There's nothing really profound there. If you're free to get in a car and drive, you certainly have opportunity to mow down the first pedestrian you see.

Per Con's 4th round position, I think he's trying to ease-in to my position. Let me repeat my first round acceptance and framing of the arguments (which Con never challenged):

| Con must provide sufficient warrant for his argument that everyone does not deserve the right to personal freedom
| because of the potential for abuse or because of problem scenarios to which that freedom "may" lead. Specifically, as
| Con stated, "...because they may use it to violate other peoples' freedoms. It can also lead to [corrupt behavior] and
| power which may harm others in several ways, physically, mentally and socially." Note: Con did not argue (as I have) that
| certain personal freedoms may be taken away after committing a crime (for instance)... Rather, he states that certain
| people (we know not who) should never be allowed to experience personal freedoms because of what they "may" do with
| it.

Con has yet to provide sufficient warrant for his argument.

On the other hand, I argue in favor of personal freedom for all--according to the well-established concept of Natural Law/Natural Rights.

Natural Law and Natural Rights are deduced from the essential nature of human beings. The fundamental basis of Natural Law is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, individuals have both a "natural" right and a "natural" duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Individuals must be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Therefore, liberty should be extended to all, liberally. Without the actualization and protection of these freedoms, human beings are prevented or restricted from performing their "natural" duty to preserve their own lives.

Note: The idea here is not that governments should grant these rights. Rather, that humans, by nature, ALREADY have these rights by virtue of being human. Infringement of individual rights is therefore an unnatural act. But again, Murderers, rapists and the like (people who severely violate the natural rights of another) forfeit their own rights by virtue of their unnatural acts.

The purpose of government is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable Natural Rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the law. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the law and the people.

These principles were uniquely adopted and codified in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights).
Debate Round No. 4
SmileyRainbow1999

Con

SmileyRainbow1999 forfeited this round.
leonardlewis4

Pro

Arguments extended to close (Con forfeited final round).
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
Correction to round 3 post:

RE: I believe Con is slightly confused per his round 2 "argument"...

...should have been: "round 3 argument"
No votes have been placed for this debate.