The Instigator
Elkyriaze
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
JorgeLucas
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 25733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Elkyriaze

Pro

This is a logic only debate, no factual evidence to support claims please, no sources, no statistics, none of that stuff what-so-ever. Just cold hard logic to prove your case. Definitions are to be stated by Con in next round and may be subject to debate for all of round 2. No literal thinking here please, so don't go and make a claim that freedom of speech cannot put you in literal chains, this is supposed to be a metaphor. Semantics are allowed in moderation, although there isn't much to be semantic about here.
Con will debate that freedom is not metaphorically binding, I will argue the reciprocal. Please provide thought provoking material and just realist thinking practical garbage. Also, I'd prefer if my opponent wasn't a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+). I find that debates with young teenagers or children are much more open-minded and insightful, if I do say so myself.

If you don't agree with these conditions, then guess what debate you shouldn't accept? Other than that, I hope for a thrilling logic debate. Good luck to my opponent.
JorgeLucas

Con

I may be the head of the philosophy department at Harvard, but I am 16 years old so I accept the challenge. Joking aside, please specify what kind of freedom you refer to (social, economic, etc...). I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Elkyriaze

Pro

My thanks to Con, for accepting this debate.
Definitions:
(this part is sourced for convenience sake, not for argument's sake)
freedom: the quality or state of being free[1]
a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

Binding: against freedom.
So the resolution in simple words states that freedom is against freedom, a self defeating sentence that I will prove with the following arguments:

1) Freedom is a right. You are bound to your rights if you are free.
2) Freedom is an allowance/privilege you expect and receive from those around you without your consent.
3) Freedom is binding to everyone but yourself, no one can legally take away your freedom. Only you can.
4) Freedom forces law and order. Which is binding, hence, freedom is binding.
5) Freedom from law and order is slavery to Utilitarianism or anarchism. There is no such thing as complete freedom, therefore, all types of freedom are binding.
6) Freedom has its bounds. It is therefore binding.

1) Freedom is a right. You are bound to your rights if you are free.
Each individual has the right to freedom of speech, choice, and action if it complies with your countries laws. You have this freedom as a default from the day you are born and gain more of it as you grow. This freedom can only be taken away if your rights are taken away, so your freedom is bound to your rights, which is bound to you. Freedom is therefore bound to you.

2) Freedom is an allowance/privilege you expect and receive from those around you without your consent.
The laws of your country dictate what freedom you get. These laws prevent other individuals or companies undermining your freedoms. So as a matter of fact, people are forcing you to be free by not forcing you not to be free. Unless you commit a crime, these people will attempt to force you to retain your freedom via this method. But you have not given them any permission to give you freedom. Permission requires freedom in order to be made, and thus you are forced to be free in order to give permission.

3) Freedom is binding to everyone but yourself, no one can legally take away your freedom. Only you can.
As I stated before, freedom under law is freedom that is bound to you. None can take it away unless you have attacked the source of this freedom: the law. If you have not committed crime, the giver of freedom (the law) forces freedom onto you, freedom which you cannot avoid according to argument #2.

4) Freedom forces law and order. Which is binding, hence, freedom is binding.
Freedom does not work without a higher order defining it. However, this higher order does not reciprocate. You can have order without freedom, but not freedom without order. So to have freedom, you must have order. Being free means you are bound to this order. Consider nature, we are all bound to the rules of physics. Freedom cannot exist without a universe to be free in, the universe cannot exist without rules to let it exist, ie. thermodynamics etc. So to have freedom in the universe, you must have rules and bounds to let it exist. We are all bound to rules because of our freedom, mainly, the freedom to exist, which only occurs due to laws.

5) Freedom from law and order is slavery to Utilitarianism or anarchism. There is no such thing as complete freedom, therefore, all types of freedom are binding.
All humans work by a particular mindset, if they have a working mindset that is. Assuming that it were possible to live separate from the laws of nature, we would be bound by freedom from that to something completely different. This would usually mean binding to the methods of thinking in the human mind itself. We would invent a new system of law and order so that we may retain our freedom or our illusion of it. We would also make up laws not to govern us, but just to be free from them, which is slavery to that particular method of attaining freedom.

6) Freedom has its bounds. It is therefore binding.

There is no such thing as freedom without restraint. There will always be bounds. In human terms, this means that freedom will bind us to a certain law, way of thinking, or method of living. So fundamentally, freedom is its own prison. And the only escape is a different prison, which isn't really an escape.

We are bound to freedom, and as such, it binds us. There is no escape.


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

Con

First off, since the burden of proof is yours and my argument is fairly self-explanatory, I will just go ahead and begin with a rebuttal of your points.

1. The whole point of your argument is that freedom is binding, and thus cannot be taken away, but here you say "This freedom can only be taken away if your rights are taken away." This says that your freedom CAN be taken away, and specifies how it can be taken away, as well. This is a contradictory argument.

2. Laws don't really dictate what freedom you get. They dictate what freedom you DON'T get. You say that it is the laws of your country that determine this, but then proceed to say that laws prevent other individuals or companies undermining your freedoms. This is a free society, but today nobody lives in a free society. All modern governments make laws in areas that they should not. Also, if you live in a free society, but value equality over freedom, nothing stops you from getting together with other people and forming a communist community, as long as everyone, as you say, gives permission. The IDEAL laws do not force you to be free. They merely protect your freedoms.

3. The purpose of law in a free society is to punish those who take away freedoms. Thus, saying that the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is invalid. If nothing else could take away your freedoms, the law is unnecessary, since its sole purpose would be irrelevant.

4. You say that you cannot have freedom without order, but nowhere do I see any proof. While I may or may not agree with you on this point, you must elaborate for me to debate/concede the point. Moving on to the last sentence, you say that you have the freedom to exist because of the law. This makes no sense. You exist because of biology. Not the government.

5. You describe a world where people are consciousness alone. But if people take no physical form, they cannot be harmed by another human being. And while a government may form, it would still be unnecessary, and wouldn't be able to limit or protect freedoms as freedoms are now unlimited.

6. Your point here is that the limits of freedom are binding. But the point of your full argument is that freedom itself is binding. Not the limits put on it. Contradictory argument. Also, you say that freedom binds us to different ways of thinking or methods of living. But the whole point of freedom is that you can choose how you think and how you live. So saying that you can't escape freedom doesn't make sense, because if you think about it, freedom is its own escape.
Debate Round No. 2
Elkyriaze

Pro

My opponents rebuttals were not substantial enough for my arguments to legitimately be considered refuted. So thematic rebuttals won’t be happening on my side, I'll have to refute by sentences.

Defence: (what my opponent said is in bold)

1) your freedom CAN be taken away
precisely my point. However, this does not mean that it is not bound to you. It only means that this bond can be broken, and even then, only this particular bond.


This is a contradictory argument.
No its not, let me reword it in simple English. You have rights as a default. This 'default,' is the bond. You do not choose not to have it at first, and the only thing that can break the bond is crime.


2) Laws don't really dictate what freedom you get. They dictate what freedom you DON'T get.
Consider these two statements:
a) Cold is the absence of energy (heat)
b) Heat is the absence of no energy (cold)
both statements have the same conclusion. They are both equal. My opponent merely seeks to reword my arguments, but forgets that they need to be refuted also.

The IDEAL laws do not force you to be free. They merely protect your freedoms.
This rebuttal slightly misses the point I was trying to make, but let’s assume I was making that point anyways. In my opponents claim, laws protect your freedom. Protection is a type of bond. Protection restricts a type of freedom that contradicts your freedom, therefore, it is bound to your freedom, and it binds your freedom from other freedoms, and prevents your freedom from change, which is what protection means, force acting against exterior changes that wish to influence you. My opponent makes an argument in my favour: Freedom is protected/bound by law.

3) The purpose of law in a free society is to punish those who take away freedoms.
This is completely irrelevant, but anyways, WRONG! The purpose of law in a free society is to define order. Punishment, which is maintenance of this order, is taken care of by the Justice system, which runs hand in hand with the law but is completely separate to law.

My opponent goes onto say that the law is unnecessary if nothing else can take away freedom. I am seriously beginning to think that he did not read my arguments or else did not understand anything I wrote. Few of his rebuttals attack my arguments directly and the ones that do fail to completely refute them. But anyways, moving on:

...saying that the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is invalid.
It’s not invalid, and it’s not what I said. Here is the argument that you are supposed to be refuting: freedom under law is freedom that is bound to you. None can take it away unless you have attacked the source of this freedom: the law. If you have not committed crime, the giver of freedom (the law) forces freedom onto you, freedom which you cannot avoid according to argument 2. My arguments seek to prove that your freedom within the law is impregnable unless you or someone else attacks the law. My opponent misreads and thinks I have claimed that the law takes away your freedom. Not at all.

4) You say that you cannot have freedom without order
and then he goes on to say that he sees no proof of it despite my excellent example which followed straight after. Just on a side note, factual proof is against the rules, but examples used to illustrate rational ideas are legitimate. So in effect, I have put all the proof you need right there. Let’s have another look at it: we are all bound to the rules of physics. Freedom cannot exist without a universe to be free in; the universe cannot exist without rules to let it exist, i.e. thermodynamics etc. So to have freedom in the universe, you must have rules and bounds to let it exist. We are all bound to rules because of our freedom, mainly, the freedom to exist, which only occurs due to laws. In case my opponent gets the wrong idea, there is no such thing as freedom from the laws of nature. That would be called non-existence. In this debate, we are addressing the types of freedoms that exist physically. So my opponent has to demonstrate why freedom under the laws of nature is not binding.

You must elaborate for me to debate/concede the point.
I see, so it must be a case of not being able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning... Well, read what I just wrote Con, and maybe you will understand.

You have the freedom to exist because of the law. This makes no sense. You exist because of biology. Not the government.
Let me refer back to the definition of freedom: the quality or state of being free
a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence
c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
The government is not a definition a freedom. That’s why I did not claim so. Here is what I said: We are all bound to rules because of our freedom, mainly, the freedom to exist, which only occurs due to laws. This freedom of existence is subject to the laws of nature. If there were no laws of nature, there would be no freedom of existence, only freedom of non-existence, which is also binding, come to think of it. So my point is that freedom under law is freedom that is binding. But since my opponent brings it up, I may as well add that freedom from the law is even more binding. It is freedom of chaos, or lack of order. In complete chaos, the only thing you are free to do is not exist, which is so binding, I could affirm the resolution just by saying that.

5) You describe a world where people are consciousness alone.
No I’m not, that’s just your assumption. I gave no reason why people wouldn't be alone.

But if people take no physical form, they cannot be harmed by another human being.
That was completely missing the entire point 110%. My point is that if we could have freedom of existence in a universe containing no order, (where freedom of non-existence is the only freedom) then the human mind would conjure order in order for us to understand something. Once we have a delusion that we understand, we have freedom inside it, which is endemically the same as freedom to move around in a prison cell.

And while a government may form,
this has got nothing to do with Governments.

6) Your point here is that the limits of freedom are binding. But the point of your full argument is that freedom itself is binding. Not the limits put on it.
Let’s take a look at what I said: There is no such thing as freedom without restraint. There will always be bounds. In human terms, this means that freedom will bind us to a certain law, way of thinking, or method of living. So fundamentally, freedom is its own prison. And the only escape is a different prison, which isn't really an escape. My point here is that the limits of freedom are binding and that because we are subject to freedom, not the limits, then it is the freedom that binds us. Hence, freedom due to its limits is binding.

The whole point of freedom is that you can choose how you think and how you live.
My point was that you have a certain type of freedom subject to a certain law. You are talking about freedom from law which is altogether a different thing, a thing that I have already refuted in my previous post. The whole point of freedom is not the ability to choose, but the absence of restraint.

Altogether, my opponent really didn’t do anything in the way of rebuttals. Let me remind Con of the topic: Freedom is binding. You are supposed to be negating that resolution and not trying to appreciate what I said from a literal, incorrect standpoint from whence you can give a poor rebuttal.

The resolution remains affirmed.

JorgeLucas

Con

1. If the bond of freedom cannot be broken, it is not against freedom because one can be free of it. Also, you must explain how only crime can break the bond of freedom, because right now it is an arbitrary claim. I can't debate it because you haven't proven it.

2. As a rule, if you don't understand a subject, don't use it as a metaphor. You clearly do not understand thermodynamics. Statement a is valid, but statement b makes absolutely no sense. Independent and dependent variables are not interchangeable. And my rewording does refute your argument, because it proves that the limit on freedom is binding. Not freedom. Next, you say that protection is against freedom, in which case, once again, the limit on freedom is binding. You decline to address my point on starting your own communist society, which is an important point in my case.

3. The purpose of law is to define order? It doesn't sound like you are describing a free society. You are describing an authoritarian society. Also, the justice system runs together with the law, but yet is completely separate from the law? This is absurd. You contradict yourself in one sentence. And then you begin with the personal attacks. Just to let you know, disrespecting me is not the basis for debate. I read through your points multiple times, and did the best I could with all of your repetition and contradiction. Then you claim that saying the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is valid, but then say that the law does NOT take away your freedom. Again, more contradictions. In this paragraph, you also say that that the only time you can't be free is if you commit a crime. But what if you choose to live in my hypothetical communist society? You aren't free, but you haven't committed a crime either.

4. You didn't prove your point, but I understand what you are saying so I will move on. First off, freedom from physics is not the same thing as philosophical freedom. Philosophically, anybody has the right to break the laws of physics, they just physically can't. By your argument here, an illiterate person would not have the right to freedom of press, because they physically can't/don't know how to write. So basically, the laws of nature are binding to ability, not freedom. Next off, you attack my 'not being able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning.' I am able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning, but even if I couldn't, it would probably be because I am not 'a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+)'. Moving on from your insults, you create the concept of 'freedom of non-existence.' You must explain what you mean by this, and specifically how exactly it would be considered a freedom. In your last sentence, you say that this concept is so binding that you could affirm the resolution with just that. But you still would have to explain how it is a freedom.

5. Saying a person is consciousness alone doesn't mean they are alone. It means that have no physical form. Next off, how do you know exactly what would happen in such a scenario? I accept that you don't want us to use factual evidence, but that doesn't mean that fictional pseudo-arguments can now be considered valid. Also, you mention your freedom of non-existence again. You really need to explain this in your closing statement. Next, how can you say this has nothing to do with governments. You say we would invent a system of law and order, and we would make up laws. So maybe it isn't specifically a government, but it should have been easy enough to understand what I meant without focusing on word choice. Either way, you make the claim that we would make laws and give no evidence.

6. Your logic here is flawed. I can give you an easier example of the problem with what you say: bears are animals, and rabbits are also animals, therefore bears are rabbits. It is easy enough to see the flaw here, and the same flaw applies to your argument that freedom is binding because of its limits. Next you say that 'The whole point of freedom is...the absence of restraint. I agree with you here. That's unfortunate for you, because you entire argument is that freedom restrains. Finally, you claim that the resolution remains affirmed. I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. You are the one proposing that freedom is binding, so you must prove it. Your job is to provide evidence for why your claim is correct, not why your counter-claim is incorrect. It is your job to PROVE that freedom is binding. It is my job to AFFIRM that freedom is not binding. So the resolution does remain affirmed, just in the opposite of the way that you meant.
Debate Round No. 3
Elkyriaze

Pro

It is now too late for my opponent to state his arguments, so we are just left with what I have said. Poor form I must say.

Defense: (his words in italics)
1) My opponent works from the illogical concept that you can be free from freedom. The proper term for that is slavery to non-freedom.
"If the bond of freedom cannot be broken, it is not against freedom because one can be free of it." If this 'it' Con is referring to happens to be freedom, then he has made a selfdeafeating claim by saying that you can have freedom from freedom, which seeks to separate the one word into two definitions. "explain how only crime can break the bond of freedom." I would have thought it to be rather obvious given the constant talk of freedom in law. This freedom is the ability to do whatever you want that doesn't consequent in the loss of your freedom. When it comes to law, the only actions that can loose you your freedom would be crime. Quite obviously. In a nutshell, argument 1 states that if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Which so happens to be the 0th law of thermodynamics. Yes its a real law, funny name hey? in the equation, 'a' stands for freedom, 'b' stands for rights, and 'c' is you. A and B are directly joint. You have your freedom because of your rights. But A is not directly joint to you (c) whereas B is. So you have your rights as a default, and your freedom comes about because of your rights. Your freedom is linked to your rights which is linked to you, so therefore, your freedom is bound to you as well.

2) "As a rule, if you don't understand a subject, don't use it as a metaphor." Likewise, if Con doesn't know what a metaphor is, (which would explain why he accused me of using one) then why use it? I use examples from well established theories of physics, mainly thermodynamics, because it ties in with so many of my arguments very well. The two statements which I asked him to consider are not metaphors. They are literal facts (but still within the bounds of the rules of this debate). "statement b makes absolutely no sense." Correction: 'Its makes no sense to you.' My opponent is a very literal thinker, which is why his performance is quite low in this debate. I was hoping to debate someone who takes a more philosophical approach to problem solving. I am quite disappointed that Con is not one of these people. But anyways, I feel obliged to explain these 'metaphors' to Con, (now why would he call them metaphors when they are non-metaphoric examples?) statement A: cold is the absence of energy. Statement B: Heat is the absence of no energy.
Alternate views of St. A: Cold is the absence of heat. B: Heat is the absence of cold or presence of heat. Think of it this way: the lack of nothing is the equivalent of the presence of something. Heat is energy, cold is no energy, so the absence of cold means that there is heat present. "And my rewording does refute your argument, because it proves that the limit on freedom is binding." That's not how you rebut. You can't just say that and hope it to happen, you need to support your claim. Your rewording was refuted by my hot/cold example which proves that your claim and my claim are exactly the same. So now both our claims support the resolution. Be it by the absence of freedom, or freedom. I have claimed that freedom is binding, you have claimed that the absence of no freedom is binding. Which is the exact same thing. "the limit on freedom is binding." I have already proven that the limit on freedom makes freedom binding."You decline to address my point on starting your own communist society, which is an important point in my case." I suspect my opponent may be hiding his arguments amongst his rebuttals. Which is utterly poor show. If that's the case, I probably wont be able to find them all. But lets take a look at this: "You decline to address my point..." Very hypocritical. I have practically overlooked huge amounts of Con's blunders where he consistently misinterpreted my arguments or literally interpreted them in this philosophical debate. So just to make him happy, lets have a look at this 'communist society' point of his: "if you live in a free society, but value equality over freedom, nothing stops you from getting together with other people and forming a communist community, as long as everyone, as you say, gives permission." This claim doesn't advance my opponents claim that freedom is not binding. What it does prove however, is that some free countries don't value freedom as highly as equality. Which is irrelevant to this debate.
Let's just remember my original point: People are forcing you to be free by not forcing you not be free. Literally thinking, for the benefit of my opponent, you have not given anyone consent to give you freedom, so it has been shoved upon you without your permission. No one will attempt to take this freedom away from you, so until you decide that you don't want to be free, this freedom will be bound to you.

3) "The purpose of law is to define order? It doesn't sound like you are describing a free society. You are describing an authoritarian society." I'm really fed up with your practical interpretations of my arguments. I said that law defines order. In other words, law constitutes the meaning of order and what it is. That's how it works for every type of human government. "Also, the justice system runs together with the law, but yet is completely separate from the law? This is absurd. You contradict yourself in one sentence." I really am sick of you. Dont accept my debates in future if your just going to do that. "I read through your points multiple times, and did the best I could." I actually do believe you are intentionally trolling me, and not at all trying to deliver a philosophical approach as I had requested. If you were trying to be philosophical, you wouldn't be giving me all this practical garbage which I told you not to do. "But what if you choose to live in my hypothetical communist society? You aren't free" Yes you are free. Refer to the definition of freedom please.

4) "freedom from physics is not the same thing as philosophical freedom." See, you're a troll, on the rare occasion that I give something practical to demonstrate, you attempt to refute it with philosophy, and here is why your point is invalid: Philosophical freedom requires no defining from a higher order, and thus doesn't not at all attempt to refute argument 4. "I am not 'a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+)'." Do you think you have something to prove? I'm younger than you so don't appeal to your lack of age. So, how is freedom of non-existence a freedom? Life is binding. You cannot break the laws of physics, so you are bound to them. Freedom of non-existence is freedom from these laws. Technically, its not a freedom if considered by itself, but it is freedom relative to the absence of order.

5) how do you know exactly what would happen in such a scenario? That scenario was an example, and my defense of the use of that example is covered by my actual argument, which is: Assuming that it were possible to live separate from the laws of nature, we would be bound by freedom from that to something completely different. This would usually mean binding to the methods of thinking in the human mind itself. We would invent a new system of law and order so that we may retain our freedom or our illusion of it. We would also make up laws not to govern us, but just to be free from them, which is slavery to that particular method of attaining freedom.

6) More practical rubbish, you tried to rebut everything but the argument, which is: Freedom has its bounds. It is therefore binding. bounds does not mean limits, in this case it means bonds.

Concluding, this was a rather disappointing debate, I was hoping for something deeply philosophical and instead got a physical slap in the face. My opponent not only failed to abide by the rules of this debate, but did not give a clear argument to support his case either. Vote Pro.
JorgeLucas

Con

1. You say that I work from an illogical concept. Thus, in your mind, everything I say must be illogical and against the rules. Then you say that only crime can break the bond of freedom, and that this claim is obvious. In part 2, when I discuss another way, you fail to understand what I mean. More on that soon.

2. A metaphor is a comparison between seemingly unlike things. You made a metaphor. And it was wrong. Cold is not 'no energy' because it is a subjective measure of some energy that is less than comfortable. Heat is simply energy. It is not the lack of no energy. That is like saying light is just the absence of darkness. When you discuss my hypothetical community, you assume I talk about governments. I don't. I talk about a group of individuals coming together to give up some of their freedom.

3. Saying that law defines order in every human government is a factual example. I thought those were against the rules. Then you say that you are sick of me and am trolling you. These are not considered rebuttals. These are attacks, and dare I say concessions? Continuing, looking at the definition of freedom, communism fails definition a as it is based on coercion; b, because anyone in a communist society is dependent to others, not independent; and c, because one would have tremendous obligations to society. Next time, read your own definition.

4. You fail to address the difference between physical and philosophical freedom, and disregard my example of the illiterate person. Philosophical freedom may not require defining from a higher order, but does physical freedom? And maybe somebody reading this would think that physical freedom is defined by whatever god they believe in. As an atheist, I disagree, but wouldn't philosophical freedom require definition from said deity as well? Yes. Next, I wasn't appealing to my lack of age. I was more showing you that you wanted someone capable of deep philosophical thinking, but didn't want your opponent to be a philosophy professor (which, logically, means more that just specifically a philosophy professor). Then you say that life is binding. Everybody dies, so your point is invalid. Your explanation of freedom of non-existence doesn't even talk about non-existence.

5. You claim that I don't understand your arguments, but here you just restate an entire argument. If I didn't understand it the first time, as you claim, there is no way I would understand it when you restated it in exactly the same way.

6. Your argument was based in logic, I used logic to destroy your logic. If you say that only logic is allowed, then ban logic itself, it is no wonder you claim that I didn't follow the rules, as you set so many it was impossible not to. It is worth mentioning that you yourself used a source earlier on. Granted it was used to define terms, but it is still a source, and should be banned according to your strict interpretation of your arbitrary rules.

In the end, it is clear that I deserve this victory. I had better conduct, as I didn't constantly attack my opponent. I had better spelling and grammar. In fact, I deserve the point for sources as well, as my opponent used a source despite saying sources were off-limits. Pro constantly accuses me of not following the rules when he himself didn't follow them either. He may think my arguments didn't support my case, but the burden of proof was his, and his arguments definitely did nothing for his case. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Elkyriaze 5 years ago
Elkyriaze
@smithereens
I guess you have the right to rub it in my face for making it an open debate, but i would sure like to debate you in a similar debate Friday or Sat.
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
:\ lol @ jorgelucus,
that wasn't very nice of you to accept this debate, here's a few tips: To understand what your opponent is talking about regarding philosophy, picture his argument in a context that you think would support the resolution, don't assume you know what he is talking about and take it at face value. you practically refuted none of his arguments and you wonder why you drove him mad? Other than that, would you like to redo this debate against me Elkyriaze? I figure you would find me a competent opponent. :)
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
Elkyriaze, this was supposed to be me vs you :| care to do it another time?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
THEBOMB, look up "The Social Contract" by Rousseau: opening line is "We're forced to be free". It's quite simple: we have to make our down decisions. We are the arbiter of our fate.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
doesn't this resolution contradict itself?
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 5 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
what a funny debate topic :D
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Could you explain what you mean by binding a bit more?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
ElkyriazeJorgeLucasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote bomb, Pros arguments actually made perfect sense if you knew what they said, they were very very strong arguments and were not refuted at all by Con, which is what annoyed Pro.
Vote Placed by Frarf 4 years ago
Frarf
ElkyriazeJorgeLucasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are clearly illogical, and he contradicts himself a lot.