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

Personal Freedoms and Liberties Outweigh Social and Economical Equality

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: 3/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 49076
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that a society should place personal freedoms and rights above ensuring the equality of everyone. A persons natural God-given rights should be placed above their equality in society. I will also be defending the claim that social and economic equality are impossible.


I will be taking the con/negative side in this debate. I will be arguing that social and economic equality should take precedence over personal freedoms and liberties. I would kindly request the affirmative speaker to move onto round 2 and define the topic as well as provide substantive material. I shall then accept or provide an alternative definition as I choose, rebut their arguments and then provide substantive material for the negative side.

Good luck and may the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1


I will start by showing how important personal liberties are. Liberty, by definition, is the state of being free of oppression. Liberties are laws or policies that prohibit oppression. If a society has liberties, then it is free from oppression. Everyone can say what they want without fear of violence or imprisonment. An individual can choose to live his/her life by his/her values and ethics. This form of society is also known as libertarianism. That is just social liberty. Economical liberty is a free market. A person could start a firm without intervention or oppression. That person would be allowed to become wealthy or poor. Oppression works both ways. In a market with liberty, there will be rich and poor.
The next part of my argument is the value of personal freedoms. Personal freedoms include; choice of employees, right to have a opinion, right to raise you child how you like, and right to choice. These freedoms are essential to a free and open society that is not oppressed.
The part of my argument that is actually a debate is the that these liberties and freedoms outweigh the equality. To have equality in a society, people need to be treated equally without conditions. Liberty and equality cannot co-exist. For example, if a business is very successful because it has smart employees because it only accepts applicant with a 3.75 GPA or higher, it is not equal to another business that is failing because it accepts anyone. Selective hiring creates inequality, but selective hiring is a liberty. The business inst oppressed to accept anyone, it has a choice. The freedom of choice will spark competition between businesses, this will create greater quality products for less money. This is basic capitalism. Capitalism requires economic liberties to function. If an outside force, such as a government, forces the firm to accept all employees then the system is ruined.
That is just economic liberty, how about social liberty? Its almost the same a the market, if everyone is treated the same, then no progress is made. Quality of life doesn't improve because there is no need to be better. Social liberty entails the right to have and proclaim you opinion without being oppressed. If you aren't allowed to live your life the way you want to then you don't care about anything. If you aren't being held responsible for anything, like raising a child, then why care. Why care if there is no one rich that you envy? People need something the aspire to, something to achieve, this far outweighs and remote possibility of equality. Liberties and competition are what makes a society run.
The progress of society and the market are the most important things that can happen. Equality amplifies irresponsibility and ignorance.


I will start my speech off today with two points of rebuttal:

One of the main points that my opponent has raised in his substantive material can be surmised to this one sentence that he posted:

‘Quality of life doesn't improve because there is no need to be better.’

I will rebut this in two separate clauses. The first part of this sentence is, ‘quality of life doesn’t improve,’ however this is incorrect and far too narrow. Quality of life doesn’t improve significantly for one individual; however it does improve tremendously for the rest of society under the case of an equal system. The second clause of this sentence is ‘because there is no need to be better.’ This is untrue as there is no greater motivation to do well than competition and competitive peer pressure. Because what a person does under the influence of equality not only influences him/her but also the people around them in equal measure, in order to keep up the means of equality, they will feel not only intrinsic, but also extrinsic motivation, improving society a lot more than libertarianism would, as the motives for an equal society are a lot less selfish than those of libertarianism.

My opponent also stated: ‘Why care if there is no one you envy.’ The base of his argument here is that in order to perform well, people need a role model who is better than them in order to care and do well in life. However if we take the principle of communism into consideration here, we can see that everyone else becomes a role model for whoever is looking for one. In an equal society, there are a near infinite amount of role models, and this motivates everyone to work harder and improve society as a tenable whole.

I shall now move onto my substantive material.

My first point for today is that an equal society is a far more peaceful and contented society than a libertarian one. In the case of a libertarian society, corrupt values have an abundance of areas among people who have not done well, or indeed have committed no mistakes of their own, but have ancestors who have. Moreover, it presents the world as an unfair place and this leads to discontentment among citizens which then leads to violent encounters. Many civil wars have started among citizens who have been disadvantaged because their ancestors have made political mistakes. Under an equal society, there would be no need for this unfairness that leads to righteous indignation as everyone would be equal and have an equal opportunity moving society forward as a whole.

My second point is that an equal society makes a lot more progress as a whole than a libertarian one does. This is because since everyone is working for themselves as well as everyone else, they are in effect, their own master and yet also affected by those around them. This concept appeals to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which will make a lot more people work a lot harder and be a lot happier than they would be under a society dictated by the principles of liberty. This will improve the country or nation as a whole thus increasing quality of life and comforts.

I now await the third round.

Debate Round No. 2


I will start by classifying my opponents argument into one sentence. "Socialism is superior than libertarianism". So my argument will be against socialism.

I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal. He stated that " there is no greater motivation to do well than competition and competitive peer pressure." This competition and peer pressure is impossible because there is no goal. It is a competition to reach nothing. In socialism making a profit is seen as thievery because you are creating inequality. Socialism is flawed because it creates a perfect condition for laziness. If I am not accountable for my actions then why do I need to be responsible. People need the gaping hole beneath them, that is the greatest motivator. The fear of poverty is what people work off of. Socialism would work perfectly if humans weren't inherently lazy by nature. If a equal life is presented to someone without any cost they will take it.

My next argument will be about the positives of libertarianism. Every great idea that was ever thought of was thought of by one person, not the collective. Individual aspiration allows brilliant people to shine and contribute to the society as a whole. Without rich people there would be no jobs, most charities wouldn't receive money. In a equal society there is no motive to contribute because you won't see the result. Humans are also greedy by nature, libertarians use this human greed to improve society. Socialism forces people to give to the most inefficient charity ever, the government. If the person gave to the most efficient charity then this will ultimately go back into the public, then the rich will see society improve and give more. This is also called the trickle down theory. As long as there is competition quality, price and society will improve.

My final argument will be about the state in socialism. In socialism, the government is in total control. If it becomes corrupted(China, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Germany, North Korea, Australia, ect.) then the government will take advantage of society for the "good of the people". The government is also terribly inefficient and ineffective because it regulates itself. It is not held responsible for any of its mistakes. If a society regulated itself then it would be extremely efficient and effective because it has to pay for the mistakes and it also reaps the benefits. The only purpose that the government would play would be to organize the will of the society and to take action based upon that. It would also play a role in upholding absolute objective morality that the society will agree on. People are also inherently moral beings.

I now await a rebuttal, also please leave 10 question that I will attempt to answer, I will do the same at the 4th round.


I dont undersrand what you mean by 10 questions - Please clarify this next round. I wont be able to post any arguments till I understand what you mean. Please dont post any arguments next round but just clarify what you mean and I will finish off round 4 by posting my arguments for those.

Debate Round No. 3


What I mean by 10 questions is that you post ten question that you believe I cannot answer about the topic. I will also give you 10 questions about socialism that I believe you cannot answer. Since this is the last chance for me to give you your questions I will do so now. Please answer them and refute my last post as well as answer these.
1. Who or what determines the value of products in a socialist country?
2. What is stopping a government from becoming corrupted or abusive?
3. Where do most jobs come from in a socialist nation?
4. What regulates what the government does in socialism?
5. What is stopping a socialist country from turning into a communist one?
6. What motivates people to do work and not live off the system in a socialist country?
7. Why do you think socialism and communism have built up such a bad reputation?
8. Why have some of the worst genocides and dictators come from communist and socialist countries?
9. Can liberties exist at all in socialism?
10. Why has communism always failed?


Vignesh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.