Instigator / Pro
Points: 4

Freedom

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Exile
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Required rating
5
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
By most objective standards the USA is not as free as for example Canada to the North
Round 1
Published:
i was looking at the Cato institutes index on freedom  online in it it marks Canada much higher in individual freedom that the  USA and more free in terms of economy https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new  https://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world  https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Published:

This all depends on how you define "freedom." If we're purely talking about economics, then countries with the largest and diverse economic systems like Hong Kong and Singapore are going to be more "free" based off of the sources that you cited. Or if you're referring freedom to the presence of social programs with countries like Canada then sure it may seem like those countries are more free than the US. What many people overlook is the amount of taxation is required to maintain social benefits, which is sky high in Canada. 

Freedom has always been defined as the minimal role of government in a person's life. What made the founding fathers so smart about creating the constitution is that they realized that there are certain rights every human being should have. It wasn't until  the 20th century that people began to see the beauty in the constitution, and ended up moving to the US. Our constitution is so effective that it has remained unchanged since then. Not reworked. 

Round 2
Published:
No that is NOT the definition of freedom freedom is the options and opportunities all citizens have to live life as they please, and even the cato index of freedom you can google it conceeds that economic freedom is just one sort of freedom and that sometimes a bigger government exists to protect its ctizens from predators a police force protects citizens from crime an army from invaders a fire department from natural disaster and a social safety net to protect the poor and middle class from the abuse by the rich here is my proof https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new  
also the heritage foundation has data showing many big government welfare states in europe are still very competative and business friendly https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark
Published:
Your definition of freedom is contradictory, because you can't have options and opportunities for all citizens without a strong government presence in an individual's life. In Canada and Scandinavian countries, the plethora of government programs they offer come with MUCH higher taxes. Last I checked, being taxed on programs that don't benefit every one of it's people isn't free. Is it truly "free" to have a 50% income tax to pay for benefits that your government FORCES you to have? [1]

The concept of freedom has always been the minimal impact of government on an individual's life. Otherwise, US Constitution would be obsolete today. People who live in developing countries yearn to come to the US for opportunity; to open a business, get better education, etc. If that weren't the case, then who would immigrate to the US? Cite whoever you want, but you can't deny our foundations as a country. 

Added:
Bump for voting
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @billbatard
Lol you had your chance to define freedom in the first round and you didn't so don't be surprised if you lose the debate as a whole solely because of that. And you can cite as many sources as you want but it doesn't even apply to your argument. Let the votes speak for themselves.
Contender
#8
Added:
and you dont define fredom by governments minmal role if that were true somalia would be the freest nation on earth
Instigator
#7
Added:
proof that once again i am right and everyone else is wrong https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new
Instigator
#6
Added:
not by any objective measure no, taxes and guns arent that important to rational people
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Exile
Yup, America has so much more freedom than Germany, or Norway and the countries he adores
#4
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
I did my best lol. He didn't define the context of freedom... which he should have done. Comparing other nations to America is a lost cause.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Exile
I wish our constitution hadn't been reworked since then!
#2
Added:
--> @billbatard
Why is this called freedom when the description is talking about America comparing to other nations
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This debate touches on the concept of opportunity cost, trading one thing for another at some expense to other things you might want. Pro seems to argue quality of life, and con counters that if it's at the expense of forcing you how to live it, that's at the direct expense to freedom of choice (particularly related to how we spend out hard earned money).
The main failing in pro's case was not highlighting data points, particularly what exact definition of freedom he was using and ensuring his sources were using the same (or a compatible) one.
S&G:
Seriously, put definitions into the description. If not done, than there's no point complaining about the other side introducing a fair definition.
Sources:
So sources need to be integrated into arguments, not just tossed on at the end like a drunk text.