The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Complete Freedom

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 120251
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




1st round is acceptance.

Let's debate!


Every type of organism have their own interpretation of freedom. For fish it is enough water to swim, For bird is a good tree to take off, Land, And build nest. And what about humans? They all have their own interpretation, Again. Kim Joh Un want the world via nukes(power), Lil tay wants money(wealth), And Lincoln longed for human right(morality). Everybody has their own interpretation of freedom, And that is the right to desire. Everything could be granted or denied, And the rear option is not freedom, While the other one is. We could grant our own wish via ourselves, Which could lead to complete freedom. The denial of complete freedom is affected by the international rule of freedom, Which, Through the eyes of elsewhere could mean this is not freedom by all means, We were owned by others. That is the point of other nations, Instead of a giant alliance across the world. We could even start our own nation and declare, Although your own government from the capital city will deny it, But you have your own sense of freedom. That, If matches your definition, Is your point of "freedom".
Debate Round No. 1


Just saying, I am for partial freedom not no freedom.

I believe that we should not have complete freedom. This is because, Even though freedom is important, It would cause chaos.

Let's make a scenario: This country gets complete freedom and people can do whatever they can. However, Since they are completely unbridled, Nothing can stop malicious people, Like murderers.

It would be dangerous right?

However, We should not completely NOT have freedom because, Then no one will be able to do anything they want to do, Which is a horrible life.

Therefore, There should not be complete freedom but there should be a partial freedom.


anc2006 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


This is why partial freedom should be enforced not complete freedom.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

You can't have complete freedom. It is like complete socialism or capitalism. A Utopia which stays a Utopia due to the difficulty of doing it practically.
Posted by Club 3 years ago
With complete freedom it's called a state of nature. This philosophy was used in creating the American Bill of Rights. The philosophy was created by Thomas Hobbes.
Posted by DumplingDebate 3 years ago
Cause I want to see the result
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
Posted by DumplingDebate 3 years ago
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
No one can have complete freedom without infringing on the freedoms of others.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
would be hell on earth for almost everyone
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
Con can you define complete freedom.
Definitions matter. If you define it there is a possibilty you both will be talking past each other.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

Why did you have to be Con?
I wanted to be Con.
oh well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
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: Pro forfeited 2 Rounds. So Con wins conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.