The Instigator
Fanboy
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
leprechaun
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Fanboy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,970 times Debate No: 34815
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Fanboy

Con

This is part of DDO Basic Tournament, number 2.

Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

I am Con.

Sorry for the delay but we had a hard time agreeing on a topic.

BOP on the affirmative.
leprechaun

Pro

First round is for acceptance. I would like to mention a few things before Con commences his arguments

Definitions

Freedom - 1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
3) The condition of being free; the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints

Security - 1) The state of being free from danger or injury

Only these definitions will be used. No other definiton can be used.

Also, BoP will be shared. Con too will have to prove that Security is more important than freedom.

No new arguments will be posted in round 4, just a summation of the previous points will be posted.
Debate Round No. 1
Fanboy

Con

https://www.youtube.com...

Resolved: Freedom is more important than security

(sorry for the poor sound quality)

I thank my opponent for participating this debate; I hope we have a spirited discussion. For discussion of the BOP refer to the comments. Freedom is certainly an important value to hold and definitely contains significance in the realms of values and philosophy. However, there are clear reasons to think that Freedom is of less value than Security. I accept the definitions my opponent posed.

I will offer four primary arguments against the notion that freedom is of greater value than security.My first argument is that Freedom is not intrinsically valuable. Furthermore, Security has more instrumental value. Next will be Security leads to better freedom. My last argument is that Anarchy is not an ideal system compared to the state.

Quite simply we should all agree that a person does not have the right to do whatever he desires to do. In fact, it’s impossible to have complete freedom; we are bound by our characteristics and by our past. However, true security (which is what we are arguing about) preserves life and prevents instability. Therefore, logically it prevents more deaths than Freedom. Unrestricted freedom (including brute freedom) has been shown in the past to create disastrous results. When individual freedom is unrestricted by laws people devise ways to achieve power over other people. True security would never do this thing, because by definition the individuals would not have the amount of freedom to attain this power. What good is the greatest amount of freedom if you don’t have a platform of security in which to express it? If I were to endow you with all the freedom in the world in front of a firing squad do you have any platform to exercise your freedom? No, thus freedom restriction makes all the sense equal to our capacity to exercise the right. This is why freedom isn’t intrinsically valuable; it only has instrumental value because if freedom doesn’t bring about something else with value, it ceases to be valuable. The cases of discrimination upon blacks after the civil war might be an example. We are only truly free to exercise our freedom in a secure environment. Freedom of expression may be able to prevent many deaths, but only if it is protected by a platform of security in which we automatically remove more preventable deaths.

This is why Security better supports life, and since life is of greater value than freedom, the thing that insures this life better is of greater value. The fact is that because Security provides something greater and more effectively (for reasons formerly discussed) than Freedom, Security has greater instrumental value. There are many reasons to think that Life is of a greater value than freedom. Without life, humans cannot maximize pleasure and satisfaction derived from the other values (such as Freedom). Life is a prerequisite for happiness, love and freedom. Even the great psychologist Abraham Maslow supports this view when he places survival at the foundation of his triangular-hierarchy. Another way to look at this might be in terms of time period. While any sacrifice of life is surely permanent, sacrifices of freedom needn’t be. Besides if we have no life, it stands to reason that you can have no other values. Security also better leads to many things that freedom cannot completely account for. Happiness is better supported by Security as well. For example, all most everyone in the United States is Free (notable exception include Charles Manson), not everyone is happy. According to study done by General Social Survey(http://www.technologyreview.com...), the biggest thing that makes people happy (or correlates with happiness) is health (20 percent more happy than average person). Another aspect is marriage (10 percent). The last aspect that is important is income (3.5 percent). Life necessarily has a level of health to go along with it. But true security would provide health more effectively than Freedom, after all having your physical body protected via Security is more effective than by arbitrary freedoms. Next with marriage, certainly marriage is a symbol of security more so than the singles life of freedom. Further, in practice, marriage is a form of security in the sense you rely on this partner and they provide you with security and love (obviously). While financial freedom is great, financial security is better. You can maintain income and you typically have more of this. Therefore, happiness is better supported by Security than by freedom.

This next objection requires a bit of explanation. There are two different kinds of freedom, metaphysical and political freedom. In this debate, however, we are focusing on the latter. Political freedom can be seen in two different ways. The common sense meaning of political freedom is having no restraints placed upon you by the government. This would seem to be the ultimate limit of political freedom, which we will call brute freedom. However, there is a more subtle and sophisticated conception of freedom that can be employed. People can be a slave to their addictions, passions and desires; and when they are, they are not really free, even though they are doing what they desire. Really being free is not merely doing what you desire but having rational and reasoned control over what you desire and how you chose to achieve that. When we want to be free, what we really want to do is what is rational and in our best interests. Being a slave to your passions and having meaningless and brute freedom is really meaningless. Because such irrational actions are not consistent with rational freedom, a government can increase its citizens’ rational freedom. Security and laws are necessary to develop the existence of true freedom. If you end up giving people brute freedom you end up with anarchy. Brute freedom must be limited by Security but rational freedom needn’t be. This is why rational freedom is better than brute freedom. This rational freedom is promoted by certain restrictions on our actions, restrictions which encourage a person to act rationally. This shows that reasonable and useful freedom is only useful if security and laws support for it.

“Rather than negating freedom, (government) creates it. If men are to be free, they must live by rational rules; otherwise they will be slaves of their passions and the victims of the passions of others.” –Robert Hoffman “Anarchism”

The argument I making here is that pure freedom is to Anarchy as security is to the State, and Anarchy is less than preferable than the State hence Security is superior to freedom. As argued above Anarchy is the only possible situation in which pure political freedom (brute freedom) could be allowed. Hence the most comparable form would be anarchism, and any form of the state would suffice for a form of Security (although true security would have to be attained by potentially perfect system). The reason why Anarchism isn’t a good idea are plentiful. People are inherently self-interested. When left to their own devices they will seek what they want or need at the expense of others. The concept of scarcity makes the state a necessary evil. While we can appeal to Hobbes, we can also appeal to history. During the English Civil War the Levellers (anarchists), promoted chaos and caused much destruction. Unfortunately for most humans, some people demand immediate gratification of all desires. This is why many portrayals and representations of anarchistic or post-apocalyptic society are so grim. It is difficult to imagine why self-interested individuals would stop being self-interested if they had no restrictions.

For these reasons I urge a Con vote.

Now over to my opponent, Leprechaun, Good luck!

leprechaun

Pro

I thank Con for his quick reply and apologize for my delay in posting my arguments.


"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

The first Amendment of the Bill of rights states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (http://www.billofrights.org...)

Therefore, it is our Constitutional Right to obtain freedom.
A key difference is that freedom never indoctrinates people to believe they need it. Instead, it is something they realize on their own, after enough people have died — that freedom is the only route to happiness. Those who fight for freedom know best its value, but so often fail to transfer that understanding to their children. Soon those children, or their children, fail to see freedom’s value. After all, freedom doesn’t use scare tactics, or squeeze dissenters, discredit disbelievers or use the media to show them how wrong they are. Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up your own. (http://christianmichael.org...).
An example to this would be - innumerable wars have been fought till date, each with the basic reason being freedom. The French Revolution or the American War of Independence had been fought to attain freedom from their merciless foreign rulers. Even the War of Independence in India which went on for about 200 years (1757-1947) led to the death of millions of soldiers and freedom fighters. Thus freedom to everyone is something worth fighting for and the sacrifices of our soldiers is what, that resulted in the existence of a free nation - U.S.A.

after all having your physical body protected via Security is more effective than by arbitrary freedoms.

The "physical body" is never protected /secured. You could die anytime due to a cardiac arrest etc. However, if one is not free as expressed in the Constitution, one would have numerous emotional and psychological breakdowns thereby resulting in death.

There are two different kinds of freedom

I clearly disagree with this opinion of yours as we are talking about all forms of freedom - freedom of speech, political freedom, religious freedom etc.

"Freedom is the ability to exercise a natural right unencumbered by strictures from the criminal or uncivil aggressions of individuals, institutions or government" - James Bovard

One cannot have security without freedom that is, people must have the freedom to provide/receive security. Freedom without (or with minimal) security, however, is possible.


Also, there has been a question on this very site which asks which of the two - freedom of security, was more important and 67% have voted for freedom. (http://www.debate.org...)

Freedom should never be sacrificed for safety or security because it is far more valuable than safety or security. Those of us that have freedom, or at least the illusion of it, don't really understand what people who don't have it would give up to get it. A brief look at history would offer a glimpse of the countless people who sacrificed their safety, their lives, and even the lives of their loved ones just in the hopes of gaining liberty; it is costly and difficult to get. Security is rather fluid; what is secure today may not be secure tomorrow. It fluctuates depending on things like the threat, the economy and the ability to stay one step ahead of the other guy. It's not a sure thing. Freedom is not fluid. It is very easy to lose and impossibly difficult to get back. Pragmatically, if people are free, they are able to create their own safety freely, with no restrictions.

Thank You. Vote Pro.

Over to you FanBoy.

Debate Round No. 2
Fanboy

Con

Introduction:
Although I believe that this debate is over, I thank my opponent for his reply.

A note on types versus kinds.

My opponent claims that there are many instances of freedom’s such as Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Speech. This is true but these fall under the category of political freedom rather than metaphysical freedom. There are two distinct kinds of freedom, not types, metaphysical and political.

DDO and This Debate Violations
My opponent has violated his own rules by changing the definition pre-agreed on in the first round. He said that no other definitions could be used and then construed Freedom to be what James Bovard says it is. This is not only an appeal to authority but a redefinition which is against the rules by his own standards.

My opponent has cited Christian Michael’s blog to prove a point however, my opponent has directly plagiarized Christian Michaels. Not a word is changed, and further he doesn’t put the argument in quotations therefore he is representing it as his own. This is a clear violation of the DDO Basic Tournament Rules as well as the DDO ToS. Even if you don’t think this is significant, he has plagiarized again in the last paragraph directly from the opinions section. Anyone who wants to check this(http://www.debate.org...), simply click the find key and look for the first few words of his paragraph. He has clearly simply copied and pasted this from someone else’s work.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution
The resolution is framed in a universal way and makes no explicit claim to any country. Therefore, the resolution must be taken in a universal sense; my opponent cannot appeal to the laws or customs of any country when trying to prove the resolution because if the resolution were to be true, it would be true in every country not just the United States (even though it’s not true). If I were in China, the resolution would be equally invalid as if I we were in New York or Britain for that matter. The Constitution, although meaningfully asserted, offers no arguments to why we should have Freedom rather than Security. In fact, it’s not supposed too. It’s a rulebook not a justification.

BOP and Dropped Arguments
My opponent has dropped the majority of my arguments, such as the analogy from Anarchy. In fact he has merely pulled out choice sentences in my case and failed to respond to the main points. Due to him having full BOP this is unbelievable. If he even drops one of my arguments, he loses. However, he has quite literally dropped all three. Therefore, he has failed to meet his burden.

Conclusion
This would normally be longer but given the circumstances I submit my opponent should forfeit the debate for violating the rules via Plagiarism and definition changing. He has also dropped my entire case, therefore it should be clear to vote Con.
leprechaun

Pro

Firstly,

A note on types versus kinds.


Error from my side, sorry.

DDO and This Debate Violations

Let me repeat the quote

"Freedom is the ability to exercise a natural right unencumbered by strictures from the criminal or uncivil aggressions of individuals, institutions or government" - James Bovard

Now, My definitions -
1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
3) The condition of being free; the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints

Freedom is the ability to exercise a natural right unencumbered - Definitions 1) and 3)
by strictures from the criminal or uncivil aggressions of individuals, institutions or government - Definitons 2) and 3(without externally imposed restraints)

So, where is it that I have added a new definition?

This is a clear violation of the DDO Basic Tournament Rules as well as the DDO ToS.

My opponent has initiated the debate and in his opening speech(Round 1) never stated anything related to plagiarizing being a violation. Also about the DDO rules for the Basic Tournament(http://www.debate.org...), there is nothing mentioned about plagiarizing.Hence, my opponent is simply making up stuff because of the fact that that he is out of rebuttals.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution

If you check, most Constitutions have implemented "the right to freedom" in their Costitution and thus it is safe to safe that the law is universal. some important countries that have "right to freedom"in their Constitution are - South Africa, Australia, Inda, The USA etc.

BOP and Dropped Arguments

Con has not read my deebate properly. In his argument about State and Anarchy, he literally beats around the bush and a single line written by in the previous round, rebuts his argument - "One cannot have security without freedom that is, people must have the freedom to provide/receive security. Freedom without (or with minimal) security, however, is possible."


Conclusion


Con has used just 2284 of his 8000 characters and thus clearly highlights my point that he is out of arguments. Pro has sucessfull rebutted all of Cons arguments. Thank You.



Debate Round No. 3
Fanboy

Con

Fanboy forfeited this round.
leprechaun

Pro

Alright. A summary -

1) A majority of Countries have "Right to Freedom" implemented in their Constitutions. Therefore, it is our Constitutional Right to obtain freedom.

2) Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up your own.

3) Freedom should never be sacrificed for security because it is far more valuable than security. A brief look at history would offer a glimpse of the countless people who sacrificed their safety, their lives, and even the lives of their loved ones just in the hopes of gaining liberty; it is costly and difficult to get. Security is rather fluid; what is secure today may not be secure tomorrow.

4) One cannot have security without freedom that is, people must have the freedom to provide/receive security.

5) An opinion poll on this site : "Is Freedom more important than Security?", has resulted in 67% votes to the affirmative, thereby proving my case.(http://www.debate.org...)

6) Con makes a baseless remark about how I have violated the debate rules and that I should forfeit. However nowhere in his opening speech he has mentioned plagiarizing being a violation.

7) Ironically, Con forfeits Round 4 thereby giving me an automatic win.

8) FanBoy(Con) appears to have left DDO as his account appears to be no longer active.(http://www.debate.org...)

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Obvious formatting error have prevented a few minor typographical corrections in my RFD to appear. "Inspiring" was autocorrected by Word from "important."

I feel that these mistakes, while clumsy, are not enough to make my RFD unintelligible.

Bladrunner correctly points out the sweeping nature of this debate, calling it "absolutist." I agree, and I am grateful to have had this mentioned. It allows for a very large x factor when scoring.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I found the following argument, presented by Con, to be inspiring: "freedom cannot exceed our capacity to exercise our rights." In other words, freedom does not exist unless it is actually used. Compelled by this premise, I also took note of his remaining attack on the resolution, which I interpret as, "Government can protect and allow freedoms, by way of restricting inter-citizen oppression." That is, laws that protect the citizens from criminality also allow freedom to be used.

Supporting Quote: " This shows that reasonable and useful freedom is only useful if security and laws support for it."

To defend his resolution, Pro appeals to the authority of the Constitution, and on axiomatic bromides that wax poetic about how great freedom is. He presents a stronger argument when he argues that freedom can be limited by natural death. "the "physical body" is never protected /secured. You could die anytime due to a cardiac arrest etc." Unfortunately, he never offers strong supporting premises for his rebuttals or to advance his main argument.

Con responds by accusing Pro of two conduct violations: First that Pro attempted to change the agreed upon definitions, an accusation that I found unconvincing. His second accusation was of plagiarism. I normally check for plagiarism myself, but I missed the quote in question. I considered the first offence a conduct issue, and a minor one at that. The second, plagiarism, is far more serious, but I did not feel that it warrants Pro"s FF.

A very unfortunate FF makes this contest difficult to score. I cannot tell if the FF was intentional, but I am forced to "neutralize" the conduct score that I would have otherwise awarded to Con due to plagiarism.

As for the coveted "Arguments" score, I award this to Con. The FF was scored as a conduct violation, which cancels out the unattributed quote-mining.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Hoo, boy, this debate was a mess.

I'll start with conduct.

To Con: the first thing you cite was not plagiarism. Poor or even misleading formatting, perhaps, but it <em>was</em> cited. While the fair use grounds might be shaky, it wasn't necessarily plagiarism, which requires that the work be passed off as one's own. Citing it removes that, though it still allows for possible <em>infringement</em>. But it's a much weaker claim. The second one that you posted was, however, plagiarism.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
To Pro: defending plagiarism on lawyerly grounds that it "wasn't stated as a rule" will not win you points with the voters. It's standard to at least lose conduct for plagiarism, and in some cases to lose arguments, and/or S&G and Sources, as well. Further, despite your claim, it <em>IS</em> against the DDO ToS, though you are correct that it wasn't explicit in the tournament rules. http://www.debate.org... <strong>Content Posted and Code of Conduct</strong>, B, <strong>Will not</strong> upload, copy, distribute, share, sell, create derivative works of, or otherwise alter or <strong>use any Content</strong>, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever except as expressly authorized in this Agreement; and to do so <strong>in any manner exceeding the scope of your rights to use such Content (e.g., license rights associated with premium content or subscription-based materials), without permission from the Content owner, or otherwise in violation of another person's rights to such Content.</strong>

Plagiarism is bad. If you had a defense to the charge (as you did in the first case, namely, that you had in fact cited it), you should have used it, rather than trying to pretend it's not a bad thing.

To Con: You forfeited a round. That's a conduct point, as a general rule. The only way you're saved at all is by Con's plagiarism.

I give conduct to Con, because I'm not sure that TUF saw the plagiarism charge; I'm on the fence about whether the points should be zeroed for both violations, or if Con should get the point for Pro's plagiarism, but I certainly can't condone a single-round forfeit as <em>worse</em> than plagiarism (which is defended, no less).
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
S&G and Sourcing were equivalent enough for my tastes.

That just leaves <em>arguments</em>. Frankly, this debate was a mess. The resolution was vague enough, followed by definitions which left something to be desired. Pro, while you can defend your "new" definition in the context of an individual, 2 and 3 have the potential to cancel each other out. Your "new" definition included the word "rights", which was not present in your original definition. And which was <em>crucial</em> to your overall case. Without the "rights" word, "freedom" is "do-as-you-like". Without security, such a freedom on one individual's part can trivially infringe on the freedom of another. Once you limit "freedom" to only that which one has a "right" to do, you immediately remove that problem. So you can see why your opponent would reject that redefinition. However, your opponent didn't really make that case. And he forfeited a round. This doesn't mean you necessarily win (it's not in the rules of the tournament, either, and certainly isn't in the ToS). Whether it's sufficient to give you a win is up for debate, I suppose, but in light of the problems with the format here, and the fact that you had BoP (as you noted in the comments), I can't give you arguments. Nor him arguments. This was an absolutist debate, and the absolutist case is often absurd. Security is worthless without at least <em>some</em> freedom, freedom is impossible without at least <em>some</em> measure of security. Neither of you could really defend your positions (and I believe they're probably impossible to defend).

Thus this winds up being a really long RFD to justify just one point: Conduct to Con for Pro's plagiarism.
Posted by cybertron1998 4 years ago
cybertron1998
this was an interesting turn of events
Posted by leprechaun 4 years ago
leprechaun
Sorry. Bop on Pro. :)
Posted by Fanboy 4 years ago
Fanboy
My opponent has made a mistake, He has burden of proof.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
FanboyleprechaunTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Saying that security is more important than freedom does not imply that at every point an additional increment of security is worth sacrificing an additional increment of freedom; that's left open. The question in the debate is what is ultimately more important, and Con argued out that life is at the top of the hierarchy of needs. Pro did not address this fundamental point, or Con's related arguments about security being necessary for freedom. Pro mainly ignored Con's case. Neither forfeits nor plagiarism are in official rules, but both are well established by debate convention as conduct violations. The conduct violations offset.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
FanboyleprechaunTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see the comments section; I do not have the space to fully explain my scores here.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
FanboyleprechaunTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
FanboyleprechaunTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Security takes a major role in enjoying and utilizing freedom. Conduct to pro from the forfeiture.