The Instigator
DevonNetzley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

freedom is'nt free

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 19426
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

DevonNetzley

Pro

is freedom free? i don't think freedom is free. who agrees?
Ore_Ele

Con

Freedom [1] - "the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint."
Free [2] - "enjoying personal rights or liberty."

Based on the number 1 definitions of "freedom" and "free," it is safe to say that freedom is free, by definition. Now, if my opponent mead "free" as in "free from cost" (like "buy one get one free"), then freedom is still free, because freedom is a concept, an idea, not a physical characteristic. As such, I can hold any idea without having a cost for that idea.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DevonNetzley

Pro

freedom is most certainly not free. that what you have posted is simply a definition from a dictionary. use YOUR words in this. i don't know if you are against or with from that post. war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments in war are monstrous.in the Revolutionary War, there were 10,623 causalities and 4,435 K.I.A.
i cannot make any more arguments until my opponent responds. thank you for reading.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent points to the American revolutionary war, as a cost of freedom. I would like to point to the Canadian revolutionary war, which resulted in the deaths of 0 soldiers, because Canada didn't fight one. They achieved independence non-violently in 1867 [1]. This clearly shows that freedom can be given freely. Given that the revolutionary war was clearly not needed, and no other war by the US was used to preserve our freedoms (war of 1812 was an invasion into Canada, civil war was for maintaining the union, Spanish-American war was an intervention of another nation, WW1 was an intervention, WW2 was an intervention, Korea was an intervention, Vietnam was an intervention, etc).

It should also be noted that one does not fight for freedom, but fights to prove freedom. As has been said several times on this board, your rights exist regardless of whether or not your government recognizes those rights. This goes in line with what the founding fathers said about rights being "self-evident" and "inalienable" [2, definition of inalienable].

I would also like to point out that my opponent said nothing against freedom being a concept and an idea, and as such can have no cost.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1867%E2%80%931914)
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DevonNetzley

Pro

you make some very good points but here are a few things. canada was technically not at war, for they did not fight. asa you clearly stated in your argument. and vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason. all in all we lost many brave men and women in these senseless wars, well over 500,000 people. a hefty price to pay to BE free. but were not free. if you think your free in this country try and walk in your nearest deli shop and take a leak on the cheese.
i believe i have made my point. thanks for reading.
Ore_Ele

Con

In R2, my opponent said, "war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments in war are monstrous." However, as pointed out, the revolutionary war was not needed to achieve "freedom" (I pointed to Canada's non-violent achieval of independence). My opponent had no counter for that. I also point to the many wars we've had since and said that not one of them was about our freedom. My opponent had no counter to that and even said, "vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason."

My opponent actually then goes on to claim that we do not have freedom, which contridicts his entire notion that we use war to preserve our freedom. My opponent gives the example that you can't take a piss on someone else's block of cheese and claiming that proves you don't have freedom. This is where my original argument of "freedom is an idea or concept" comes into play. Because it is an idea and concept, it is unique to each and every individual person. Everyone has their own ideas on what freedom really is and what rights and liberties are.

Since my opponent has not been able to defend a single case of buying or paying for freedom, his cases falls.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
But surely you can agree that there are cases where presenting the single source of wiki is better (at least for readers) then presenting 10 sources that are all listed in wiki. The case that I used, was the history of Canada (namely their path to independence). Sure, I could have just copied the links from wiki and made my sources list look awesomely huge, but that seems more like source padding than anything meaningful.
Posted by TheTruthAnalyst 5 years ago
TheTruthAnalyst
Yes, you should check any source. My opinion is that original sources are best, that's all. If Wiki had something I wanted to use I would look at their source and use that, not Wiki.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
But don't you do that with any source? If your opponent links to the NYtimes, you check to verify that they are sourcing properly. Any source your opponent uses should be scrutinized and closely examined. That includes the sources within the source.
Posted by TheTruthAnalyst 5 years ago
TheTruthAnalyst
Sorry, my phone doesn't have service here so I can't verify, but you know what my vote is.

Yes, wiki can have good information with solid sources, but linking to wiki puts the burden on the opponent to find and verify each of the sources used. Wiki also has frequent unsupported information, and biased sources. My opinion is that you should provide direct sources for your information.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
You're free to think that wiki isn't a reliable source, but the fact that the wiki article has a number of sources linked to it. Wiki is nothing more than a meta-source.
Posted by TheTruthAnalyst 5 years ago
TheTruthAnalyst
I would have given Con the point for sources, except for a few things. Two different dictionaries were used, the definition of freedom selected only applies to individuals, not to concepts(concepts don't have rights), and it is clear from context that free is used as 'free from cost', and wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Con gets points for arguments, even though I think they could have been strongly refuted, they weren't.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
DevonNetzleyOre_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's case was an epic fail.
Vote Placed by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
DevonNetzleyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Rather obvious I might say.