The Instigator
Smooosh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
NKJVPrewrather
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"Freedom isn't free" is an asinine statement for asinine people!!!!

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 108135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Smooosh

Pro

My opponent may choose to post in the first round or simply accept in the first round and get the final argument. No kritiks.
NKJVPrewrather

Con

Freedom is bought at a greate price born of sacrifice. My spiritual freedom comes from Jesus dying. My Constitutional freedom comes from soldiers dying.
Debate Round No. 1
Smooosh

Pro

If we are expected to continuously pay taxes to send our soldiers to foreign countries to die and kill, that's not freedom, it's imperialism. If we were free in the manner the constitution grants us freedom, then we would be able to keep our taxes and not have to worry about possibly being drafted. If we were a free country, our military would be solely to defend our country, but since we are not a truly free country, our military is a business and we the taxpayers are expected to pay the bill and possibly be drafted. That's not freedom. My opponents argument is from an unfree perspective.
NKJVPrewrather

Con

I'm a progressive, so I oppose most wars as murder. I also think a lot of governmernment policy is unconsistutional. I agree that currently, we are not free, but if patriots peacefully resist the government, and corporatist elite, we will have freedom. I also oppose both parties.
Debate Round No. 2
Smooosh

Pro

I am certainly glad to hear you are opposed to war, as am I, but unfortunately we are still a cog in the war machine we call America. Of course neither you or I are guitly of murder, but simply being philosophically opposed to war doesn't excuse us of being guilty by association because we fund our countries empirical pursuits. As individuals we may not have done the dirty deeds ourselves, but we are members of our society and our society is responsible for its actions therfore, we as individuals who make up our society are responsible for the actions of our society. If you or I truly wanted to dissociate ourselves with actions we find ethically or morally wrong, we should demand that we not fund those things. The same goes for our government. I don't think I know anybody who likes our government, but it's rather complacent not to realize that we are the ones who put that government there.

The idea that we need to help other countries be free comes at a cost and the biggest cost is our freedom. We cannot consider ourselves to be a free country if we have to pay for wars we don't want. It's a tough stance to have, but if we don't realize that those who cannot fight for and gain freedom on their own do not deserve freedom, sad but true. It would be far cheaper for us to keep our money and not fund these destructive wars and retain our freedom. We cannot get on with our pursuit of happiness if we have to constantly fight for the happiness of others. Freedom IS free, morally and economically!!
NKJVPrewrather

Con

Agreed. I'm not a liberal, but I am tired of war which kills people, and torture is involved. I'm just saying that our freedom comes with a price tag. It doesn't just happen. This applies to all freedom, spiritual, or otherwise.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
That's like saying 'you're free to break the law so long as you don't get caught'
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
Actually, you are free to do those things, but the consequences could really suck if you get caught!!!!
(Disclaimer: I (smooosh) Am in no way encouraging anybody to molest anybody or steal from any shops!)
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
To be free of what exactly? I can book 2 weeks off work and go any country I want, but i'm not free to molest women and steal from shops.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
Both would be acceptable because I could make a case for each. You may have stumbled onto a weakness in my argument with the second point, but that could prove to make this a more interesting, dynamic debate. I encourage you to argue both points if you think you can. By the way, lord of the flies is one of my favorites and I wouldn't mind debating on that sometime!!!!!
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
I don't know how I feel about this. Often in the US it describes our military fighting for our freedoms (a statement I am kind of iffy with) but then you can also interpret it as fighting for independence has costs. Like if you are being oppressed and fight against your government. Which one do you mean?
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Smooosh
You are welcome to accept the challenge if you disagree. I just worded that way to be provocative!
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
It depends...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 3 years ago
David_Debates
SmoooshNKJVPrewratherTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources used, no major spelling errors. Both parties failed to define any terms, and I am left believing that the meaning of free has to do with costs, and freedom has to do with autonomy of one's body. Both Pro and Con would be off topic in this debate. I cannot award either with a point. Pro claimed in R2 that citizens of the US are not free because they run the risk of being drafted. Con agreed, as it is a price to pay for freedom. Pro then stated that there are massive costs when it comes to wars fought by the US in the name of securing freedom, to which Con agreed. This was not a debate. Pro agreed the resolution was false (as he stated there are costs involved in securing freedom, and I assume he does not believe himself to be an asinine person) and Con made no arguments in the entire debate. I cannot vote for either side, but if someone reports me (God damnit I know someone will) I'll pick Con because Pro conceded in all his rounds. Anyone who requests further RFD can message

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