The Instigator
Futurepresident2048
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TBR
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should freedom be applied to all people before equality

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 1 vote the winner is...
TBR
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 677 times Debate No: 72703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Futurepresident2048

Pro

Resolved:
Freedom for the citizens of the United States is a more important and valuable right, then that of equality. Freedom should be applied to all people before equality comes into play.
Pro: Argues in support of said statement
Con: Argues opposite of why equality is more important

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttles and closing arguments
TBR

Con

Accepted. Back to you pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Futurepresident2048

Pro

(Like before no sources needed, just make sure your facts are correct, unless it's not a factual argument)

1. Freedom brings about equality.
We see that the only reason there was ever an equality issue in the US, is cause of one simple fact. African-Americans weren't free, if we had a society in which apthe were free from the start, equality would not be an issue. If every race that ever came to America was, instead of being called an immigrant, a free person. Well this argument wouldn't be nesseccary. When you give every human the exact same free rights, equality just happens cause if everyone is free then there is equality. Now the negation might bring up that fact that races can still discriminate. The amount of people that would, would be very small as if everyone just was free and no titles were used on anyone such as minority. Then it would be a small population of those who discriminate and those who do, would be hurting themselves by losing business.

2. Equality first doesn't bring freedom
If you, right off the bat, forced people to treat everybody the same. Well then you would only have people falsely being nice to others as they are forced to do so by the government. Theres no freedom there, and instead of mending relations between the races (which we shouldn't even be calling in the first place) we are damaging them further as they build more hatred since they don't have the freedom to decide for themselves. If instead we gave them freedom first then assimilation would take its course.
TBR

Con

"all men are created equal" - Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson)

This immortal declaration sure seem like the right place to start this discussion within the context of American equality. Who better to start the ball rolling on what equality is than Thomas Jefferson, and it"s hard to find a root more substantial than our very declaration of independence. If it was just as simple as the statement above, I would close my case and wait for the voting. But it may not be that cut and dry. What were our founding fathers saying? They sure weren't talking about slaves, or women. Or were they?

What, in the simplest sense, Jefferson was saying is " all men share a common human nature, but he sure was not naive man, Jefferson that is. He knew that all men were not exact copies of one another. That all skills, all abilities were not common at birth. So, let"s push further. It has to mean equal somehow.

According to Jefferson, man itself was "created" with this equal. Endowed (bequeath) rights. In the very nature of man is equality and rights are received as a part of that equality. In other words, denying equality is denying man his nature and no man can inherent his God given rights as some subhuman lacking equality. That equality innate to man is what allows him to enjoy freedom, and peruse his happiness. A slave was still "equal" but not given his "rights" or "freedoms". The world is imperfect, freedoms had to follow, but equity existed as a part of simply being human.

Part of the problem for Pro is even more fundamental to this argument. Freedom, as he discusses it, is an abstraction. As an example, "freedom of the press" was enumerated in the bill of rights. That is tangible. I can know what it is, and tell you what it is. So rather than discuss "freedom" as an ethereal concept we need more descriptors, move from the metaphysical to the tangible. What freedoms must be "applied to all people" before equality. Aside from being an awkward sentence, it sure seems that the freedoms pro wishes to discuss are tangible, hence having the ability to be "applied".

We don"t need to be overly obtuse. Pros debate was spurred by recent events relating to "equality" for all citizens regardless of sexuality. So, the intimation is we are discussing "equality before the law". This concept is well explained in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 amendment of the US constitution. What then we are discussing is not about amorphous "freedoms" but a conflict between equality innate to humans as Jefferson wrote, and backed by law through our constitution, and some undefined "freedom". What freedom would that be? The freedom to deny the essence of humanity, equality? No freedoms are in jeopardy when the constitution is protecting equality, it is nonsensical. The equality IS first, and freedoms as pro seems to admit are "applied".
Debate Round No. 2
Futurepresident2048

Pro

My opponent started off by bringing up the Declaration of Independence saying "all men are created equal"
Now that is true that the Declaration of Indepedence says that, but what's another way to describe Independence? Freedom. Within a document pertaining to the freedom of a people, were the words "all men are created equal" which supports my very first point in my opening argument that Freedom brings about Equality. So thank you to my opponent for supporting me.

"denying equality is denying man his nature and no man can inherent his God given rights as some subhuman lacking equality."
In this argument my opponent failed to realize the very fact that equality is a result of freedom, there is no rights for any human if there is no freedom first applied to that human being.

My opponent then tries to bring up freedom being "abstract" and that my argument has no certain stance as freedom is losley defined. However, freedom isn't abstract at all, freedom does have a definition as it is natural. Freedom is a natural right that we all have in which we do as we please. Of course my opponent could argue that doing as we please will lead to the harming of others, however, that is why we have government, to prevent people from abusing freedom. Freedom isn't murdering, freedom is not having somebody else tell you what to do.

The argument I have made is that of logical common sense. Freedom is a natural right, not given to us by any government but by ourselves as humans. Equality, which is very good, cannot happen without freedom. If we as a people don't recognize freedom first, then you cannot recognize equality. My opponent mentioned how this is a result of arguments pertaining to Indianas religious freedom law. The goal being to given people the freedom to deny participating in a practice against their religion. That doesn't haram equality, as equality has to do with people being equal in all respects. Denying service to someone is excersising freedom and has no touch on equality. Whereas it is only logical that freedom must always be applied before equality.

I urge a vote in stance of freedom first.
TBR

Con

Rebuttals

1. Freedom brings about equality.

We see that the only reason there was ever an equality issue in the US, is cause of one simple fact. African-Americans weren't free, if we had a society in which apthe were free from the start, equality would not be an issue. If every race that ever came to America was, instead of being called an immigrant, a free person. Well this argument wouldn't be nesseccary. When you give every human the exact same free rights, equality just happens cause if everyone is free then there is equality. Now the negation might bring up that fact that races can still discriminate. The amount of people that would, would be very small as if everyone just was free and no titles were used on anyone such as minority. Then it would be a small population of those who discriminate and those who do, would be hurting themselves by losing business.
This is a bit of supposition. I’m not entirely sure what to make of it, but the basic contention seems to be that applying this still undefined “freedom” will provide the context for equity. I don’t know that is worth over parsing this issue, however, if the two are mutually exclusive, and the insistence that one must follow the other, then I am bound to say it is not so. Lacking any freedom, all men are equal as Jefferson said. Further, equality has existed where less personal freedoms have been realized.

2. Equality first doesn't bring freedom
If you, right off the bat, forced people to treat everybody the same. Well then you would only have people falsely being nice to others as they are forced to do so by the government. Theres no freedom there, and instead of mending relations between the races (which we shouldn't even be calling in the first place) we are damaging them further as they build more hatred since they don't have the freedom to decide for themselves. If instead we gave them freedom first then assimilation would take its course.

This assumes some use of force is necessary to be considered equal. The state of being equal can exist while people still don’t accept the fact, or are being “forced” to do anything. It is also odd to assume that freedom for all exist while some are being denied equality is freedom at all.

Closing

That pro insists that there is an order in this is odd in the first place – when I consider the insistence I release that if order (freedom before equality) must be evaluated, then for freedom to exist for some, equality must be in fact first. Enjoying freedom without equity would be no true freedom at all, and if freedom MUST be for all, then we must have equity for ALL for freedom for all to work.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
I have no idea why but Futurepresident2048 has gone. Account closed.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Futurepresident2048 - Where did you go?
Posted by kingkd 2 years ago
kingkd
Freedom and equality go hand in hand. Often they don't exist without one another
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
"Why pick the number 2^11"

2048-2015+15(his profile reported age)=48. If we assume that he is 15, the first election cycle where he would be eligible (minimum 35) would be 2036. So, I don't know why either.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
I don't want futurpresident2048 to be the future president of the US. Maybe he could be the future president of an organization or something. Why pick the number 2^11.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
Futurepresident2048TBRTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Better sources goes to Con because Pro didn't site anything. I also think pro made a good point about the fact that equality has to exist for freedom to exist, because if you are not equal you are oppressed, and therefore not free. You both made good arguments great debate guys.