The Instigator
Jasperps
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Is Freedom better than security

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 3 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,174 times Debate No: 70416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

Jasperps

Pro

First round is acceptance. I will be arguing that freedom is more important than security in relation to a country and it's government. Looking forward to a good debate.
Lee001

Con

I accept. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Jasperps

Pro

Is freedom better than security?
Yes. Freedom is in all aspects more important than security. Now a government has to find their desired balance between the two so obviously there will be some of both but when it comes to their importance, the answer is clear.

point 1:
A commonly used example of this topic is a jail cell. If you have a lot of security but, no/very little freedom than you are a prisoner. You have no rights except being alive. What's the point of being alive if you don't belong to yourself? What's the point of security if you are not free to be yourself/to be human? So let's look at this from your point of view by switching the argument. Say you had an immense amount of freedom with only a little security. Now maybe you don't feel safe, maybe you aren't safe but you can live life to the fullest. Look at it this way... Would you rather be confined to a hospital bed for your entire life, or be free to live your life for say, 50, 20, 10, or even 5 years? Personally, I would choose the later.

point 2:
My second point relates my first point. I think there's a question that we ultimately have to answer. What are we here for? That is, what do humans exist to do? I believe that this is where our opinions clash. I do not think that we are here to stay alive. I don't think that our sole purpose is survival. When we are in a state of freedom, we can think, we can feel, we can connect, we can experience being human. That's what separates us from other animals. We are not always thinking of survival, we are exploring, and innovating, and creating, and destroying. A governments primary goal should not be to ensure absolute safety but to create a state in which we are free.

Point 3:
Yes, security is important because we can't do any of this if we are dead. But we can't do any of this if we are overly secure either. Life is about taking risks otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere. What do you exist to do to just follow rules is that how we have accomplished things in the past? "If no one ever took risks, Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine floor." (Neil Simon)

To sum up my argument, I thought I would use a very fitting quote by Abraham Lincoln:

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." (Abraham Lincoln)

Your turn!
Lee001

Con

Lets define freedom. "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint"
Most times people are put in restraint is because they have a mental illness. "Restraints in a medical setting are items that limit a patient's movement. Restraints can help keep a person from getting hurt or doing harm to others, including their caregivers. They are used as a last resort."
So we see here that security is more important than freedom. If a mentally ill person was let out, being untreated they could hurt themselves, or hurting other innocent people.

If people chose to live freely and we had no security the world would be a disaster.
There would be complete anarchy. Just follow it through...What if there were not laws on the road to follow....What if anyone could break into your home...take anything they want kill people with no consequences but "government"and "rules" are two different things. Government is a few people in control of everyone else and therefore should be very limited which is why our Constitution spelled out very limited roles they were to have. Our founders knew what a Government in England had done to their rights and didn't want to see that happen again.

Rules...or laws are supposed to be made to protect us. A bad law, can be changed. But it is the people who have to keep watch that they are the right laws...not just made by a few to control everyone else. We could manage without a government....but we couldn't manage with some rules or laws. In our country we, the people are the government because we decide!

The government is just like our security. They make laws to abide by so that way everyone can become responsible and safe.

Sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Jasperps

Pro

Ok fair points. Here's what I have to say:

1) Ok so yes, security is better than freedom in a mental hospital but how can you possibly use that as an example for government. Are you saying that when a government installs security for their people, it is with the intention of keeping the people from harming themselves? I understand your next point which highlights security being important to keep people from killing each other but the mental hospital is not a valid example.

2) I didn't say no security. If you had no freedom than everyone would be tied up in a concrete room alone (or whatever other example of having absolutely no freedom you would like to give). Assuming that the definition of security is "the state of being free from danger or threat," than if you had no security as you basically said everyone would be in constant danger and threat. How could we debate those two options? We are discussing which is more important. Also, lets just say that we are talking about all or nothing. Would it be any better the other way around? Having only security/having no freedom would be just as bad. The fact that we can have this debate is because of freedom. Take a moment and think about what it would be like to have absolutely no rights.

3) First off, I just want to say that your writing style in that last paragraph is extremely poor and I'm still not sure if I have the right idea of what your saying. That said, forgive me/please correct me if I misinterpret what you said. Anyway, you just completely contradicted yourself. Earlier you stated that, "Government is a few people in control of everyone else." In your third paragraph you stated that the people should make sure the laws aren't, "Made by a few to control everyone else." Pick your side. In addition, did you mean that we, couldn't manage WITHOUT some rules or laws? I don't have much to say in response to this because it is very confusing and also slightly irrelevant.

Ok so the government is your security but how does that relate to freedom? You're just saying that the government and people make important laws. Also laws aren't always the same as security and they don't make people become responsible. It's hard for me to debate someone who isn't taking a clear stance. Your only paragraph with actual substance was the second one (about why a world of just freedom would be bad). At first you talk about a mental hospital as an example of government, then you say go on an illiterate tangent about the U.S. democratic system. Thanks for the debate. My gift to you will be the last word.

ps Don't bother correcting my spelling or grammar (it won't change the fact that your wrong).
Lee001

Con

I'm sorry everybody, my opponent may have over looked the point of what a debate it. He isn't making his point very clear like he should have in the 1st round. I'm finding it very difficult to understand what he's trying to say.

My opponent states "I understand your next point which highlights security being important to keep people from killing each other but the mental hospital is not a valid example."
My point is infact valid. People who have mental issues and are a danger and threat to our society is put into a mental institution . The Mental institution acts as a security to protect unstable people who may be a threat, therefore my argument is valid.

My opponent then argues: :First off, I just want to say that your writing style in that last paragraph is extremely poor and I'm still not sure if I have the right idea of what your saying"
This is quiet funny coming from someone who can really spell. He also says that "Your writing style in the last paragraph is poor" yet he is not a judge, and he isn't very good at specifying his belief and opinions in the first round.

Now finally, lets move on to his last statement "Ok so the government is your security but how does that relate to freedom?"
The topic that he chose was Is "Freedom better than security"
Clearly what this means is that he'd rather have people have complete freedom, meaning people would have guns, all drugs would be legalized, rape would be acceptable and so on and so on. I say that security is more important than freedom because we'd rather keep our loved one's safe, and innocent people safe. Sometimes we need to stop being selfish and thinking of our self and put things in perspective and think of the consequences and think of other people

Thank you for this debate.
Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Voting on this debate.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Alright you don't have to inform us about you wanting to do a debate like this. Just create one.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Im not childish..
Posted by TommyB12 2 years ago
TommyB12
I would love to do this debate with out Lee001. I think I can provide more of a principled argument in favor of liberty over security that is more challenging without the childish attacks. Send me a message if you are game! :)
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Fixed it, now try.
Posted by Jasperps 2 years ago
Jasperps
says you aren't accepting messages
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
Jasperp message me
Posted by npeterso2018 2 years ago
npeterso2018
Classic Jasper...
Posted by Jasperps 2 years ago
Jasperps
You felt like I was harassing you?? Please explain because that really wasn't my intention!
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
because he likes harassing me:)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by John95 2 years ago
John95
JasperpsLee001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I will quote Benjamin Franklin, "He who trades liberty for security has neither."
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
JasperpsLee001Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters had decent conduct so that point is tied. Spelling goes to Con due to Pro's multitude of grammatical errors throughout the debate. Con gets sources for being the only one to use sources in the debate. As for arguments, many of Con's arguments were looked over and left unrefuted and it's because of this I have no choice but to give this point to Con.
Vote Placed by footballchris561 2 years ago
footballchris561
JasperpsLee001Tied
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: Pro let his emotion get the better of him and like con stated lost sight of what a debate is. Also as stated by con, pro did not clearly define his stance. Pros rebuttals were not valid as he failed to show any flaws in cons argument.