The Instigator
spectrum
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
pickpocket094
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,145 times Debate No: 6042
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

spectrum

Pro

To refrain from a debate revolving around semantics here are some definitions.
Freedom- The absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
Absolute- Free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
dictionary .com "http://dictionary.reference.com...;.

I will like to thank my opponent and I look forward to an interesting debate.
My argument revolves around entanglement, and the concept of the big bang.
Entanglement -
"When pairs of particles are generated by the decay of other particles, naturally or through induced collision, these pairs may be termed "entangled", in that such pairs often necessarily have linked and opposite qualities"
wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org...;

big bang-
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."
wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org...;

In union of these concept one speculated that as a product of an expanding universe which was put forth into entropy by two colliding forces, everything that is and ever was is in fact entangled.
That is that everything that is around us, is still touching.
With this in mind it is irrelevant to argue that limitations set forth by any force measurable holds any true effects in with holding the freedom of you and I.

It is thought this we leave forth only two viable options for the concept of freedom,
It is either that freedom is just the expression of an action preformed in relation to time or that it is irrelevant to any discussion of the observable universe .

I will clarify any part of my argument at my opponents request.
pickpocket094

Con

First and foremost i'd like to thank my opponent for posting what appears to be a interesting debate.

Though I can not quote Wikipedia on the big bang theory, I can attempt to highlight the ideas of some key philosophers. Before I get started I would like to base the reason why I am using the work of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Pope Leo XIII. These men have three very different ideas on how a society and government is and must be run. Though they all differ greatly, they focus on the ideal that in order to protect our natural rights, we must give up some of our natural rights.

First I'll talk about John Locke, who's work inspired Thomas Jefferson while he was forming the United States of America. He believed that in a natural society free of government, people will be 99.8% good. This meant that a large group of the population would have the land that they needed and nothing more. More or less, it would be a happy society where the people would have the things they needed to live with little to no excess. The other .2% is why Locke believed we needed a government. He felt that the small portion of society would be naturally evil and would upset the way of life for others.

He firmly believed that all men and women had the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He also believed that although many people would be good and respect these rights, others would be out there to take these rights away. In order to protect the life, liberty, and property of the society, a government must be put in place that can offer such said protection. In his government, the people would give up a few of there rights in order to protect their natural rights. For example a person gives up the right to go how fast they want on the highway, but in return their life is safer and more protected.

Thomas Hobbes had a more sadistic look on society. He felt that all people were naturally evil and thus would do anything they wanted. A point strongly ehpmisied in his writting was that no matter what, men will do anything in their power to survive. This is why he called for a government that would be much more strict then Locke's. In his government the people would give up almost every single right except for one. The right to life. As long as they did what the government said to do, their lives were protected.

Finally we reach Pope Leo XIII. In his society all people were simply blank slates. They had the morals that god instilled in them, but what they did with them was up to the individual. His ideals for the government were very religious when compared to the previous two philosophers. He felt that the government must give up some rights in order to empower the government and in return would recieve the protection of their natural rights. The governments only job was to protect the immortal souls of the citizens by offering them opportunities to only make the right choice.

Alright, now its time to get to the argument at hand. My opponent has talked about the fact that the "freedom of you and I" can not be limited by any force. The simple truth is that this statement is false. In every government we have now, we give up some freedoms to keep our greatest freedom, that of life. Countries that have all their freedoms are countries of anarchy. Such a system of government has never worked in the history of this planet.

Going back to the ideals of the philosophers, in anything but a perfect society, we can not maintain all of our freedoms individually. You can attempt to protect your freedom of life, but if you go to sleep and a person who wants to take that freedom comes and kills you, that freedom is taken from you. It is with that i debate that we need a system of limitations in order to protect our freedoms. It is also my belief that this system of limitations is best described as a government.
Debate Round No. 1
spectrum

Pro

Con If you were to carefully read my argument you would understand that I have dis proven the
ideal of freedom.
"In union of these concept one speculated that as a product of an expanding universe which was put forth into entropy by two colliding forces, everything that is and ever was is in fact entangled.
That is that everything that is around us, is still touching.
With this in mind it is irrelevant to argue that limitations set forth by any force measurable holds any true effects in with holding the freedom of you and I.
It is thought this we leave forth only two viable options for the concept of freedom,
It is either that freedom is just the expression of an action preformed in relation to time or that it is irrelevant to any discussion of the observable universe ."

To simplify; All Observable functions of our universe are in fact touching, connected, joined etc......
This means that our universe is a liquid like construct, no matter is divided.
BY understanding this concept the prejudice of freedom is a false ideal created as one of man's need to provide explanation to his discribable (real) surroundings.

freedom = "irrevelant inside out universe" there for
we either have no freedom or we have unlimited freedom:
By understanding that there is no limitations of the observables in our universe we can emply that any observables
is not restricted by another for all observables are equal, or that there is no such thing is the concept of restriction between these observable there for there is no restriction, ties between them.
pickpocket094

Con

I did read your argument carefully but thank you again for restating it.

I don't disagree that all molecules in the universe are connected in some way. I do however, disagree that because everything is touching, we are all automatically forced to lose all sense of freedom.

It is with that I went to explain why the definition of freedom is defined so that multiple arguments can be brought up defending such said freedom. Where it makes sense on a molecular level, I talked about how it does not make sense on a global level taking into account the human factor.

Assuming we are all "liquid like construct, no matter is divided" on a level above molecular, this debate should and would not be happening. Me and my opponent are divided on this topic right now. I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it goes against the popular ideals of all people. This is not an illusion of freedom because my opponent and I are acting on it right now. If my opponents theory goes anything beyond the smallest level of life, his argument does not hold water.

With that, I state that the claims that we have "no freedoms" and are " liquid like construct, no matter is divided" are completely false as my opponent and I have proven by voicing our freedom of speech in a divided manner. Now moving on to the fact that we have unlimited freedom. As I talked about in my first argument referring to the work of the "founding philosophers" of government, the ideal that we have complete freedom is naive to think. Seeing as how this debate is not limited to the ideals that freedom is limited specifically to the molecular level, I now ask that my opponent prove his ideals of unlimited or no freedom, keeping in mind that in his own words he described it as "a false ideal created as one of man's need to provide explanation to his discribable (real) surroundings."

Key word in that quote is "man," not molecule. My opponent has yet to proven or hinted at anything that describes freedom in relation to a human being as a whole, not as a group of particles touching.
Debate Round No. 2
spectrum

Pro

spectrum forfeited this round.
pickpocket094

Con

My opponent was clearly online and had the time to see and respond to this debate. He failed to prove that the theories he was pushing were realistic on a large scale. I only ask that you remember that the debate was about freedom, something my opponent claimed was just something humans made up to describe our surroundings. Simply put, I proved that freedom is more than that.

In the end, my opponent failed to respond when he was challenged on the subject. He refused to answer a question that would prove his argument incorrect. I hope that all the voters reading this have read carefully and now will vote the way they have been convinced is correct.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pickpocket094 7 years ago
pickpocket094
spectrumpickpocket094Tied
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