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

Freedom of Expression Is Equivalent to Freedom

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 9/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 103961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Freedom of expression and freedom are equivalent. All freedom is necessarily freedom of expression.

Everything a person intentionally does is necessarily an expression by himself or herself and of himself's or herself's. Everything a person intentionally does is necessarily an action he or she wants to do.

Expressing is necessarily an action. Each action necessarily has the property that it can be done. For the reasons of the previous two sentences, if a person has the freedom to do any action, then he or she has the freedom to do the action "expressing himself or herself as he or she wants to express himself or herself."

If a person has freedom of expression, then he or she has freedom. Conversely, and as suggested by the previous paragraph, if a person has freedom, then he or she has freedom of expression. So, by Biconditional Introduction, a person has freedom of expression if and only if he or she has freedom. Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom are logically equivalent.

Freedom of expression can be defined as freedom, and freedom can be defined as freedom of expression.


As your points make sense, they do not actually explain what everything else would then mean.

If I were to get the freedom to get whatever lunch I wanted, that is not freedom of expression. Expression is being able to express who you are, technically speaking, legally. People may judge you but you still have the freedom.

Freedom is a very broad term. You can have freedom of expression, freedom of slavery, or freedom of, like, homework. Expressing yourself is being able to be who you want and also freedom of expressing your opinion. You can have freedom of slavery but that doesn't necessarily mean you have the freedom from other things like talking about freedom of expression, the right to vote. If you didn't know [which I'm guessing you did] after slavery was abolished African Americans still couldn't exactly vote. 5 votes from them would count as three vote overall, which is not technically freedom of expression if you ask me, because like I said, freedom is a very broad term and can be used for any things. Basically just saying that freedom of expression represents every freedom ever is a pretty big claim.

That's all I have to say for now and I'm excited to see what you come up with.
Debate Round No. 1


"Freedom of expression" taken in a highly literal sense does mean general freedom. Everything I intentionally do is an expression of myself, my wants, and thus who I am as a person.

As can be seen from sense 1a of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's definition of "expression," found at, expression is related to representing in any way. However I represent myself, that representation is an expression of myself. Everything I intentionally do affects my identity and thus my representation. If I move my arm, for example, that small action is nevertheless an expression of myself, as it expresses my desire to move my arm and it affects my identity and representation in reality.

Having the freedom to get whatever lunch you want is a freedom of expression. In having whatever lunch you want, you are expressing your desire of what you want for lunch. You are registering yourself, your feelings, and your wants in reality.


I can think of other examples but freedom of homework IS NOT expressing yourself. Freedom of chores and stuff is not expression. So if you have the freedom from anything captivating you, that is not freedom of expression.

Your intention here is to jump to the conclusions of people's actions and not just analyzing the statement. What I mean is, you take sentences like, Freedom of homework, and then assume things like, that means they can do whatever they want and then that's a way of expressing yourself. Using scenarios like this doesn't explain the question given in front of you which is why freedom of captivity in anyway is not a sign of freedom of expression.
Debate Round No. 2


Freedom of homework is a type of freedom of expression. If I do not have to do homework, then I am free to express and realize my dreams regarding whether I want to do homework. Freedom of chores is another type of freedom of expression. If I do not have to do chores, then I am able to better express myself because I can better show the world whether I actually want to do chores.

If a person does not freely express himself or herself, then he or she is not free. If a person is not free, then he or she does not freely express himself or herself. So by Biconditional Introduction, a person does not freely express himself or herself if and only if he or she is not free. By a property of biconditional statements, a person freely expresses himself or herself if and only if he or she is free. Therefore, freedom of expression and freedom are equivalent.


I keep telling you, you're jumping to the conclusions of people's actions!

You can't just assume the person doesn't want to do chores or whatever. You HAVE to analyze the work in front of you.
If someone has the freedom of no chores, you're immediately thinking about their actions afterwards. If you can't make a decision based on the topic you're given then that means in this case freedom of expression is not equivalent to freedom. You're making the decision for a what-if scenario.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
Freedom is a lack of all cost expressed openly, the debatable point is that freedom is admitting publicly to giving up ones own, or some-one else's Constitutional Right to self value. As all things said to be free do not have a self-value placed upon them as well as a value assigned by others.

We take liberty to describe any amount of freedom. At some time the person, or people making a claim of freedom must acknowledge the understanding they are giving up, or are asking others to give a liberty of self-value.

The legal argument before the Supreme Court by President or Prasedera of the United States would be to show that any Amendment used as an legal argument could be fought equally using nothing more than the basic principles held by the Declaration of Independence or United States Constitution. Proving before law that an Amendment made on the United States Constitution may have been unnecessary, and simple just a unnecessary complex method of interpretation fabricated to instill a belief of Justice and not uphold impartiality.

No-one can have freedom it is like worshiping a false profit. A person as a live being can only be granted liberty. freedom is reserved for objects of material nature. A book can demonstrate a freedom. A flashlight can demonstrate a freedom. An origination or group can demonstrate a freedom. The people inside the group can not. They are simple at liberty assigned to them or self proclaimed.
Posted by hwang710 2 years ago
Sadly people in some countries don't have freedom.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
freedom to kill people i freedom.. -james bond
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
freedom is freedom
Posted by canis 2 years ago
If you can not express you self..You can not be you. Being you is freedom. A rapist or murderer can not be alowed to expres him self...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jc1996 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved true for the contention because anything that would help maintain the democratization of society, as well as the values adhering to democracy. Criminality, drugs, and excess profanity are NOT freedom of expression, but suffrage, sex and pornography, education, public debate, and liberalization is as being manifested to First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Thus, Pro has more convictions than Con.

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