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

Freedom will be a luxury in the future. Discuss in relation to 1984 & North Korea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 52202
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I didn't want you to miss out! Haha

In accordance with George Orwell's 1984 and the world's current totalitarian state, North Korea, freedom will indeed be a luxury. Freedom to act on one's will, freedom of expression and freedom to privacy is destroyed in both totalitarian regimes; given that they both conduct mass surveillance, propaganda and develop cult of personalities in order to restrict these factors that constitute freedom. How does my opponent construct a rebuttal to suggest otherwise that freedom will not be a luxury in relation to the above ideas?


Firstly, thank you for your generosity in creating another debate for me. Also, I am mostly playing devil's advocate, but I believe that freedom will be a luxury for some and not others.

I will start this round by talking about history. Empirically, states have never limited freedoms for all people, and even nations that do limit freedoms for some eventually collapse. Look at Communist Russia. They started to limit natural rights for some people, and they collapsed within a century. I don't doubt that in the near future there will be limitations of rights, but people will continue to demand their rights as long as people continue to think.

Next let's look at North Korea. They created a society in which no one has privacy, and no one owns anything. The only way they were even remotely able to achieve this is because they deified Kim Jong Un, and had a very narrow population. They can share in this because they are one ethnicity, one culture. Even with this, there are still large amounts of people executed daily in North Korea simply because they're Christians, and yet, Christianity continues to grow in North Korea. See, they may have their rights limited, but the regime will not be able to last much longer simply because you cannot limit a persons ability to think.

The Nazis had the right idea, because all Hitler had to do to unify Germany was to create "one German people," the Aryans. This was a powerful tool and really the only reason he was able to come to power, and he still was not completely successful.

America is quite a different country, however, because there is no "one American people." We are such a diverse melting pot that it would be nearly impossible for someone to do so. We are diverse not just in our physical characteristics, but also in our religions, our cultures, our ideals, and even our languages.

Now in the context of George Orwell's 1984, I have to say, that this point is moot, because there are so many books out in the world that are really all about post-apocalyptic societies that spy on people to such a high degree. I am saying that, before something like this could happen, there would need to be a major world event that literally affects EVERY single person on the entire planet, otherwise, you won't ever be able to change people's minds. The 9/11 disaster was necessary for the U.S. to get to the point of security it is at now, think about the magnitude of an event required to make us as bad as 1984, where the U.S. is practically communist. There are so many people against it, it would never happen (unless there is a major world event, of course).

So, to wrap it up, there is only one way to obtain a society that is like the North Koreans, and that is the unification of the people that are ruled over, both culturally, and ideologically. That could never happen to a country as diverse as the United States, because we are too diverse, both culturally and ideologically.

Now for CX, I have a few questions. Do you believe that a nation-state could be unified if the nation is highly diverse, and why? Do you believe it is possible for everyone in a country to agree about a subject without unification, and why? Do you think it is possible for a person to gain power without unified followers, and why? Do you think that unified beliefs about surveillance are necessary for surveillance to be overt, and why? Do you think that governments should be allowed to keep secrets from their people, and are there any circumstances in which it is ethical for the government to keep secrets from their people, and why for both? Do you believe that the American people will allow the federal government to overtly spy on them?
Debate Round No. 1


Blended_Kittens forfeited this round.


My opponent conceded.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.