The world is less free today than it has been in the past
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1- Acceptance
Subsequent rounds- Debate
I will be arguing on the agreeing side, I look forward to debating with you.
Good luck. :)
The world does not appear to be becoming less free in the physical sense. People are still allowed to have all manor of opinions in the western world (largely). But with the dawn of interconnectivity in every part of our lives it is far easier to limit us based on the information this interconnectivity shares about us.
If you take the true meaning of freedom as to be completely anonymous in ones actions it is far harder to do so now days than ever before. There is always someone or something recording our actions. With this level of records to restrict our future on a case by case basis it is hard to see how any government or organisation cannot make use of this thus limiting our freedom.
As my proof for this I reference the existence of "no fly" lists in the US prohibiting physical travel sometimes based on information collected on line.
The conventional indicators of freedom include a citizen's political rights and civil liberties, which I will adopt in this debate. Based on these indicators, the world has been becoming steadily freer, not the opposite. For lack of space, I will simply quote the annual Freedom in the World surveys conducted by the U.S.-based NGO Freedom House.
From 1973 to 2014, the global percentage of countries that are not free has fallen from about 41% to 25%, and it is 27% to 45% for free countries. Based on the indicators, clearly the world has been becoming more free.
Anonymity is not an indicator of freedom. What my adversary advocates is freedom from responsibility. Data collection is regulated by the judicial system and my opponent must prove that it the process unfairly infringes on the freedom of its citizens. Otherwise, even an increase in number of laws can be considered a violation of citizens' freedom, which is an odd argument.
Sources in comments.
We cannot treat freedom as merely these archaic, out of touch, values.
We should consider privacy as well. Far from being freedom from responsibility, the right to hold your own opinion without the condemnation of that very opinion due to other background factors is a basic right (freedom of speech) . Taking an example in the US; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act outlines the procedures for gathering intelligence. This act has constantly been amended encroaching more and more into people"s privacy (covered by the 14th constitutional amendment) This results in the individuals freedom of speech and freedom of movement being limited in many cases due to the consequences of this surveillance(No fly Lists). Further shown by the PCLOB report.
I hasten to add that the US is a listed free country on my opponents" source showing its incomplete definition of freedom.
Pro claims that violations of privacy lead to the infringement of individuals' fundamental rights to movement and expression. I would like to remind him that these fundamental rights are classified under "civil liberties", and have been accounted for when labelling USA as "free". This implies that the infringement of privacy that Pro finds so deplorable is a tiny consideration against the repressive political landscape that much of the rest of the world lives in. (e.g. rigged elections, nepotism, discrimination) Pro should note that a Sudanese ex-Muslim woman was sentenced to death for apostasy this year.
My arguments remain intact, and Pro's negated. I maintain that on the whole, the world has been getting freer over the past few decades.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: pro tries redirecting the debate and putting most of the burden of con, but con calmly, smoothly, and confidently fulfills his (unfair) BoP with excellent sources, and pro fails to properly rebut con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.