Instigator / Con
7
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#5252

Is freedom in nature good ?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Pro
4
1319
rating
260
debates
41.35%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Round 1
Con
#1
Being that the opposing side is in the affirmative, I'll allow them to put forth most of the argumentation this round.

I say that freedom in and of itself would be not bad or good.

It is neutral. It all depends on what is done with it.

The opposing side will be arguing that freedom is good and in nature in and of itself, that's what it is.

Which means the opposing side whether they realize it or not, have to argue in all cases, all cases with freedom applied is good and freedom is good.

Now do we really have to clarify what good is?

Let's say in short it is ultimately what is constructive for life of all species known as homosapiens. That is what builds it up as opposed to breaking it down directly or indirectly all at once or in cumulative fashion.

Ok , to the pro side, take it away.
Pro
#2
Freedom is good.

Good is that which is most desirable.

Freedom is most desirable for all people.

Freedom, which means to have greatest number of options in life, is most desirable.

The less options person has, less he is able to do.

Freedom lets him do what he wants to do, and for him, that is not just good but best.

Maybe my opponent wants to push this debate into me defending all cases of freedom, even the ones that are obvious violation of freedom of others.

But since my opponent didnt specify which person's freedom are we debating, we can only conclude that we defend freedom of all people.

So anything which decreases amount of freedom in all people would be bad, anything which increases it would be good.
Round 2
Con
#3
"Good is that which is most desirable."

I said good is let's say in short it is ultimately what is constructive for life of all species known as homosapiens. That is what builds it up as opposed to breaking it down directly or indirectly all at once or in cumulative fashion.

What you're saying for what is good is insubstantial.

"Freedom is most desirable for all people."

The problem with this is, it has to be proven that all people desire freedom.

Just a suggestion. Don't base a definition on subjectivity.

The meaning of what is good the way I put it is objective and means the same no matter who you talk to.

Simply the growth, flourishing of human life thriving and building up off the life all on the planet. The opposite of that is not good. It has nothing to do with personal desires and preferences. This is where liberalism exposes its flaws.

"Freedom, which means to have greatest number of options in life, is most desirable."

The problem with this is verifying where the line is drawn. Supposing a prisoner has a large amount of privileges compared to anyone else in the prison. 
Come to find out, there's another prisoner that can do a little more .

If you didn't know these people were prisoners and didn't know about the polarities, you would be erroneously framing anything you perceive as freedom based off this again insubstantial definition.

For the sake of the topic, the best meaning to work with is an isolated circumstance versus as a cumulative whole.

Freedom is a choice one can make based on their will in a singular or isolated event.

"The less options person has, less he is able to do.

Freedom lets him do what he wants to do, and for him, that is not just good but best."

The question is, is the person free? Just because the person have less options doesn't mean the person is not doing what they want.

See these are issues you're running into framing things in this insubstantial manner.

"Maybe my opponent wants to push this debate into me defending all cases of freedom, even the ones that are obvious violation of freedom of others."

Well let's go over this again. Your position is freedom is good. That's a flat broad statement. Now to try and retract that now or amend it, you indeed forfeit the original challenge.

This is why I challenged you on this in the forum. I don't think you realized you were taking on a rash non evaluated stance making the statement freedom is good and not neutral.

The key in taking on any valid stance you're best to be specific as applicable.

"But since my opponent didnt specify which person's freedom are we debating, we can only conclude that we defend freedom of all people."

Freedom is good. That's broad enough to get everyone. Whether we're talking about everybody or one person, you already have the burden of proving having freedom is always good.

Even the law doesn't agree or else we wouldn't have laws.

Freedom is good in a context. It's not just freedom period. When folks are marching for freedom, pushing for rights and justice for good of a people, that's in a particular context.

People law abiding are not pushing for freedom and rights for criminal people .


"So anything which decreases amount of freedom in all people would be bad, anything which increases it would be good."

By this logic, being that this is "all people ", it's bad that murderers have their freedom reduced in prison. It would be good to release them.

No. Wrong.

Unless you want to argue that most of them desire the most to be out of prison based on the insubstantial definition of good that was provided by the opposing side.

We have a problem when it comes to those slaughtered victims that desired most to live but were murdered see.

It can't be both ways. Just sticking with the definition of "most desirable", we ought to have a majority of murderers or a majority that are not murderers that have an objective immutable principle to live.

I don't see any where further this topic can go.

I yield.


Pro
#4
My opponent brought up example of murderers.

Murderers decrease freedom. They dont increase it.

My opponent said that not all people want freedom, but that is false.

Each person wants to do what he wants to do.

That is "his freedom".

Freedom for all comes in form of "greatest equal options", where greatest number of people have equal freedom.

My opponent said that freedom contradicts to survival.

It doesnt.

You cannot have freedom if society doesnt survive, so survival is a necessary step in freedom.
Round 3
Con
#5
"Murderers decrease freedom. They dont increase it."

It still doesn't change the fact that taking away freedom can be good because of no freedom to murder. Hence having freedom is not always outright good. I just poked a hole in your stance, concede to that.

"My opponent said that not all people want freedom, but that is false."

Please quote I said that word for word. I believe I said if not mistaken, you prove all people want that. How do you know all people want this without even knowing them?

"Each person wants to do what he wants to do."

Prove that I do and it'll be case closed on that.

Prove that I do comrade.

"That is "his freedom".

Freedom for all comes in form of "greatest equal options", where greatest number of people have equal freedom."

So what?

Tons of people have freedoms taken away, I bet you won't take issue with that.

"My opponent said that freedom contradicts to survival.

It doesnt."

Please quote me quote me quote me.

I notice individuals say I say things without actually proving it. It's like you're trying to evade being wrong.

"You cannot have freedom if society doesnt survive, so survival is a necessary step in freedom."

The opposing side has to concede that in society, particularly today with laws, prisons, society is aimed at surviving with limiting freedoms and of course giving freedoms. I'm not saying giving freedom is outright bad . But freedoms are taken away because they're not outright good.

Not always good but neutral. I believe the opposing side has now realized that and we can call it a day.

Pro
#6
I concede.
Round 4
Con
#7
Any feedback on the topic, any after thoughts, any additional interview questions even though this was a different topic. 

We have more rounds left, good as well to use them.
Pro
#8
I still do keep my opinion that freedom in nature is good, because everyone wants to be able to do what he wants.

I just cant get myself to attack your arguments.

So I can either concede either ignore your arguments, but I think we can agree that concession is better here.
Round 5
Con
#9
"I still do keep my opinion that freedom in nature is good, because everyone wants to be able to do what he wants."

I understand it is your opinion. You do not have proof that everyone wants freedom. Let's look at newborns. Everyone would include newborn people. They don't know what freedom is do they?

So how do you argue they want that or anything but that which is naturally necessary to survive?

They don't naturally have the freedom to fend for themselves, let alone desire it .

Everyone would apply to me, would it not?
You have not proved that I desire freedom.

Everyone would apply to all people where as there are groups that it would be good and has shown good to have their freedom taken away.

These are facts. It's just like I said in my interview with you.
We have facts staring us in the face,but yet there's still denial going on believing what you believe.

This is why you have no rebuttal,no counter because you have no facts to counter me with to verify your stance as true. The facts are not on your side for that. They're on my side.

So I understand it's your opinion, it's what you believe. You just believe what you believe apparently without in-depth thought. Otherwise you would have considered all these other variables I've presented to you throughout the course of this debate.

So I can understand you conceding due to all this.

Sometimes it takes some time to just admit to yourself "oh I was wrong on this" meanwhile rather you just wanting to rest on your opinion. But even saying "in my opinion" versus proving something to be the case is telling right there.
Pro
#10
Thank you for the debate.