CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A totally free individual can do as he /she wishes once they do not break the law or infringe on the freedoms of others .
Individuals will often sacrifice what they feel is their idea of personal freedom for the sake of duty as in accepting a position as a means of supporting a family , they’re may not be totally happy with such but see it as a duty as a feeling of personal freedom has to be sacrificed for the greater good .
The only true freedom is inner freedom , prisoners in concentration camps , prisons and others in what would be deemed dire situations have come up with some of the most remarkable scientific, artistic and literary works , one only has to look at the likes of Hawkings trapped in a body yet free in mind or Einstein whilst working as a patents clerk and coming up with ideas that changed the world
A totally free individual can do as he /she wishes once they do not break the law or infringe on the freedoms of others
Your definition presumes that any law is appropriate to freedom. To clarify, if there is a completely tyrannical law, you definition hasn’t precluded it from a state of freedom.
My definition is slightly more basic. A free person is not interred with by another. If maximizing freedom in a population is the goal, then it becomes necessary to interfere with those specific acts that interfere with others. Especially, freedom is the first part of your definition and maximizing it in a population requires the second part of your definition.
Yes my definition did not take into account tyrannical law , I presumed and thought it a given that a totally free individual living under tyrannical law would not feel exactly free
I think I might have heard something like this in the movie the pursuit of happyness:
I would like to think freedom is the right to pursue happiness in life so long as it doesn't infringe on other's right to do the same. I know it's not a rigorous definition, but it sounds nice.
Most people don’t define these kinds of concepts very rigorously. Though not rigorous, it’s not inaccurate. And there’s plenty in your definition that you could dig into and elucidate if you chose, making it more rigorous.
Freedom is a word used to describe an object. Liberty and independence are words to describe the united state people like to feel but accidently call freedom. The rules of free describe a person conduct as being done without cost or self-value. Which is almost impossible. This is why the word free describes objects, ever notice that the First Amendment does not say freedom of grievance? Grievance is a united state of speech, press, and religion.
There are different kinds of freedom, so it depends upon the context the word is being used within. Political freedom is very different from ontological freedom, for instance. But the general function of 'freedom' is to connote the absence of constraint upon an agent.
Considering freedom as an absence of constraint (let’s say constraint imposed by other agents), what do you believe is the role and consequence of freedom in society?
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by 'society', but I'm going to treat it as though it's calling out a series of interpersonal interactions (rather than some institution). Hopefully that still gets at your question...
With respect to freedom I think of it more as a state of existence, rather than as something with a particular function. It calls out the relative exercise of power between persons, such that saying someone is free is calling attention to their relative position towards those they interact with as characteristically non-constrained by other agents.
Claims about freedom, though, do have a role and this is to negotiate between interests which are perceived as being in competition (and which may actually be). Claims to freedom are assertions of one or more agents' interest against the real or imagined competing and constraining interest of one or more other agents; the function of such a claim is generally as a socially defensive negative claim. Claims against freedom are similar, but generally function as a socially offensive positive claim over and against the interest of others.
Unlike other left-wingers I do not pretend that freedom is itself a good thing. Freedom is part of utopia but definitely not the ends (rather than means) and is never going to be unfettered if we want the ideal society.
Freedom is tolerance of the ability of people to act as they please.
Would you accept a notion of freedom as the condition of being without interference? It shifts the focus of the definition to the free person rather than to the tolerance there of.
My definition was descriptive, not compelling. There is no “should” in my definition. It is merely a statement that freedom is the condition of being without interference. If you find this inaccurate, then object to the definition. Don’t object to what you expect the definition implies based on what you believe my morality to entail. You object to unstated, non-existent beliefs when what I am discussing here is a definition.
Anyone who abuses anyone else (especially in a way that directly, not indirectly, imposes on their freedom) should themselves be free to do it in your definition if we consider 'freedom' as a good thing in itself.
I’m glad we’ve got that settled. I hope you understand the definition I presented. It’s what everyone else means by freedom. Also, the definition in no way implies it’s own opposite. That was a stretch even for you.
It may make you feel better to feel in the majority little sheep but not only is that a logical fallacy in itself (appeal to popularity) but it's itself wrong as most people believe freedom is tolerance and allowance of people to behave as they please.
It’s neither a matter of feeling better nor an appeal to popularity. Understanding your definition of freedom will be useful to me when I converse with you. Understanding my definition will be useful for you when conversing with almost anyone else. This is because most people don’t view their freedom in terms of what they allow, they view their freedom in terms of what is allowed of them.
It may make you feel better to feel in the majority little sheep but not only is that a logical fallacy in itself (appeal to popularity)
But you think the ability to charm people makes you less of a dick head than a genuinely good person who comes off like an ass hole. Based on what you said before, a popular sociopath is a better person than a better person who isn't popular.
If the people who 'abuse freedom' are 'not free' to abuse it in our ideal scenario then we begin to understand that freedom is not a good thing in itself at all. :)
If the people who 'abuse freedom' are 'not free' to abuse it in our ideal scenario then we begin to understand that freedom is not a good thing in itself at all. :)
I never mentioned an “ ideal “ scenario such a state is non existent unless one is talking about inner freedom .
Abuse of freedom and those who do it are infringing on the rights and freedoms of others so again you’re not talking about freedom you’re talking about abuse .
Freedom is not a good in itself at all
Yes , slavers would totally agree with your assessment
The problem with your definition, and the reason for my suggested adjustment, is that your definition implies that tolerance conveyed to others is freedom. My definition implies that freedom is a condition or state, not a thing conveyed to others.
Nothing about my definition, lack of interference, implies being interfered with.
On the other hand, if freedom is tolerance of others acting howsoever, then what if your tolerance of the guy punching you? What of the tolerance for those who interfere at will?
I took issue with you definition and suggested an alternative. You can’t seem to manage to even discuss my definition.
If you expect to be understood, then don't talk to dick holes like Amarel.
freedom is a bad thing overall. A utopian society would more tamed than free
Truly intelligent and rational beings cannot be tamed, if you have a tamed society you have a stagnated society where humans cannot outgrow a certain level of consciousness due to the need to keep them domesticated. Also didn't I already explain to you why "utopia" is a false concept of what a society should be?
I don't believe in free will so I'm unsure where it is you feel my definition doesn't work. You're a slave to your impulses and thought patterns which are slaves to your brain's structure, neurone firing and bodily hormones at the time.
The fact that tolerance is not the same as freedom has nothing to do with free will. My problem with your definition of freedom is that it is merely tolerance. If tolerance is what you mean when you say feeedom, then you are not discussing the same issue as everyone else when they use the word freedom. That’s an important lack of communication.
I asked if a person be free when they are alone. They cannot be tolerated by anyone if they are alone. There is no one to tolerate them. But if you believe they cannot be free, then your arguments against freedom are not arguments against what other people mean when they say freedom.
If you insist that freedom means tolerance, while failing to tell people that as you argue against tolerance and call it feeedom, then few are less capable communicators than you. Directing your failure at your audience is another indication of this fact.
But now we are far off track. I wish to discuss freedom, not tolerance, which is an entirely different subject meant for another debate.
A person all alone can experience freedom without the necessity for someone else’s tolerance. This is because freedom is the condition of non-interference by others.
Have you ever been interfered with? Has anyone ever messed with you? Made you do something or stopped you from doing something? Freedom is when that’s not happening.
Time moves one second at a time from ones own perspective no matter what speed they are going. It only progresses at a different rate between perspectives when different speed perspectives are compared.
You didn't say per second but sure I get what you meant to type etc now. Out of curiosity are you a believer in Einstein whereby you believe it moves at the exact speed of light forward?
Since I already know that light moves at the speed of light, but time itself cannot be said to move at the speed of light, I know that nothing in your source says otherwise. Which means I’m not going to read it in order to prove myself right. However, you can provide a quote from this source to the contrary, if any such quote exists.
You don’t understand. I can quote the same source in support of my position, since mine is correct. But if I don’t quote the content, it’s not saying anything.
I glanced at it and only saw what I already know. If you present an alternative, you have to present reason to believe the alternative. Providing a quote will prove your positive assertion. But my assertion, that Einstein didn’t say a thing, cannot be proved with a quote because it’s the negative. Since what I saw in the article was similar enough to what I already know, I am not interested in reading the rest. But if I read the rest, I will still be without a quote to prove that time does not travel at the speed of light.
It’s an easy enough matter for you, having surely read your own source, to copy and paste the quote that confirms your assertion.
If everything can be broken down to a simple quotable quip, it follows that we can infinitely break the quote down to one letter which is absurd.
There's a minimum complexity to convey a concept fully and that entire page needs to be read to even begin to truly comprehend the theory of relativity.
The entire theory of relativity does not need to be understood to know that Einstein never said that time moves at the speed of light. You don’t have to known what e=MC2 means for me to show you that Einstein said it. A quote will do. You can’t provide a quote in support of your position because there isn’t one to be had. Which is fine.
But you should know that people are not persuaded on assertions alone. Especially if the assertion regards knowable facts that can be referenced.
Time doesn't move under most physicists' outlook. Things move along it.
I disagree to the concept that time is a physical dimension and oppose the theory of relativity but unlike most flat earthers and what you people call tin foil hat wearers I understand (to a severely detailed extent) the theories of mainstream physics and why people think it's been proven true.
Einstein went so far as to not just say he knew how fast reality is moving along time but that he believed that one could physiologically prove with future technology (future of him, it's already been carried out) that if an object is thrust so fast it moves faster than light it will actually disappear and appear behind in time.
What actually happened half proved him wrong and half proved him right. It turned out the particles thrusted consistently would teleport but would not go back in time. He had an actual correct analysis, there is such a thing a maximum speed but what happens when we push past it is skipping time (which is obvious if you think about it) and not disappearing and reverting to where we were before which is what he prophecised would occur.
He thought this would be the secret to travelling to the past. Instead it was the secret to teleportation.
You can't quell freedom without giving someone the freedom to quell the freedom of others and decide what freedoms people should have. So you can either have freedom or you can have an oppressed population with those lording over them free to do whatever they want. Those who write the laws always end up being above the law and the worst abusers in society.
You can't have peace and happiness without freedom because you can't have tyranny without either rebellion or such an oppressive and brutal form of tyranny that it turns the masses into subhuman slave robots.
Do you believe that enforcing law is inherently tyranny as in malignant control?
Individual laws can be just but the very existence of law implies tyranny. Government IS tyranny, and there has never been a benevolent government in the history of humanity.
This is somewhat contradictory. Government aside, if an individual law is just, then how is its existence unjust?
It's not that complicated dick face, people shouldn't kill each other therefor a law that says don't kill people is just. However the very existence of law means that there are people enforcing that law who have the right to kill you. It's society that's contradictory, not me.
While there has never been a benevolent government, it does not follow that all government is thus malevolent.
It's not that complicated dick face, people shouldn't kill each other therefor a law that says don't kill people is just. However the very existence of law means that there are people enforcing that law who have the right to kill you. It's society that's contradictory, not me.
You don’t understand what law is, though it isn’t complicated. Laws are statements of consequences, not moral recommendations. They necessitate someone assuring the consequence takes place. In other words, they require enforcement, by their very nature. To say that laws against murder are just is to say that the codification of enforced consequences for murder is just. To then say that the enforcement of consequences is unjust is to contradict the notion that the given law is just. You cannot be for law but against its enforcement because it’s a contradiction.
LOL...Wait, that WAS a joke right?
Your amusement at my articulation of your false dichotomy only demonstrates that you remain unaware of your fallacy.
You don’t understand what law is, though it isn’t complicated.
You don't understand what debate is, Amarel. It isn't complicated. You simply address your opponent's points instead of making arbitrary claims about what he does or doesn't understand.
Laws are statements of consequences, not moral recommendations.
These terms are not mutually exclusive you idiot. A law is both a statement of consequence and a moral recommendation.
In other words, they require enforcement, by their very nature.
In other words, his point stands. A law which uses force to enforce a ban on force is obviously a self-contradictory law.
To say that laws against murder are just is to say that the codification of enforced consequences for murder is just
If you won't stop abusing the online thesaurus then at least do yourself the courtesy of choosing the correct words to use, you fucking halfwit. No, it is not just to murder somebody for committing murder. Obviously. Doing this removes your moral basis for banning murder in the first place!!
To then say that the enforcement of consequences is unjust is to contradict the notion that the given law is just.
Wtf? This is gibberish, Amarel. Most people use words to clarify their own meaning, but you do the opposite. You use words to obscure your own meaning. Your statement is again, self-contradictory. You admitted that enforcement is a consequence. The crime has already occurred at this point and the law has already been broken. Hence, nothing is gained from "enforcement of consequences".
Your amusement at my articulation of your false dichotomy only demonstrates that you remain unaware of your fallacy.
Your belief that articulation disguises your complete lack of valid argument is misguided and, frankly, immature.
And I have explicitly explained why this anarchic form of liberty is futile and enables only the strongest and most hostile to thrive.
At least then success would be based on natural selection rather than arbitrary selection by the values of society. In reality though it's possible to have anarchic liberty without a "law of the jungle" type of situation if you have a culture which is based in reason and conditions people to be reasonable.
No, it's not possible outside of your imagination. Step outside of your room for once your little Hermit and see people in the real world; they're built to be led or to lead.
It's not as arbitrary as Kim Kardashian having her butt hole licked by society while people ten thousand times better than her live their whole lives in poverty.
You think the Kardashian show is right-wing and conservative as opposed to socially liberal show that left-wing support the liberty to screen? You're quite delusional.
You mean like that Israel is run by Zionists who run Illuminati?
If you deny that zionists run Israel then you don't know what zionism means in it's very definition. As for the Illuminati, they are gone as an actual institution, I use the term as an archetype for international power structures that operate covertly.
Like the idea that Marx was a saint or that Communism can ever work without corrupt government enforcing it?
I never claimed he was a saint or that communism in and of itself can work. Communism is like a prototype of the future system.
No it's not. The zionist movement was started by an atheist semite named Theodor Herzl and if Israel really was that Zionist they'd not have pulled the Jews out of Gaza the way they did when offering a treaty that Hamas shat all over.
That's a hilariously biased definition. If you define it purely as that then it's definitely not the bad guy.
I thought you meant supremism of the semite race and right to dominate the land of Israel above all else and by any means. This is not what the Israeli government displays at all. They are highly patriotic but they are not the jingoists you portray them as.
I want a one world nation so I disagree to their outlook but I thinks it's foolish as hell to deny the Holocaust and blame them for what's going on. Israel has made moves, yes, but Hamas has made far worse ones and PLO are both negotiating anything despite being less violent than Hamas.
Alright I was hoping you'd slip and I could slam you and nom by using your proof against yourselves.
See, there's no Semite race. There's a group of races including Arabs that are semites. The race that Zionism holds supreme is the Jewish race that you and nom deny exists. Since you didn't call me out on my BS the trap is failing bad due to your if orance so I'm just done here. You have no clue what you're talking about and frankly you're underwhelming even as a troll.
Goodbye, I probably won't reply to your posts and when you do get arrested for the bullying and death threats I hope you consider how far gone you are and rehabilitate yourself.
If not, good luck in life and enjoy the site and your freedom for now.
So is community and society and 'mutual gain' these are all social constructs. In reality there's only the self and what promotes the self and this is why the right-wing are good at dominating if allowed to bully.
So is community and society and 'mutual gain' these are all social constructs.
No their not. A community/society is a group of people and mutual gain is when people gain mutually. A social construct is something like money where you attribute value to something that has nothing to do with it's physical properties.
In reality there's only the self and what promotes the self
This is why I say you are a self confessed sociopath/psychopath.
You don't get it do you. I know how selfishness works and how high functioning psychopaths think. I also know how to run society so that their self interest can align with the well-being of those around them. That system is far from anarchic but not tyrannical it's something called in between which is something your extremist mindset can't comprehend.
It's meant to imply that although my thinking may seem black and white to you, in reality my reasoning is too advanced for you to process i.e too high a frequency for you to detect.
Freedom means you can do whatever you want. When you are truly intelligent then what you want to do is what is logical and what is logical for your own self interests also coincides with what is best for civilization as long as you have a real civilization to coincide with, because civilization produces more than anyone can on there own.
I agree that rational self-interest is a benefit to more than just the self, but what is freedom for human beings; who are predictably irrational for logical reasons?
Death threats aren’t illegal if they are unrealistic. That’s why internet threats by strangers are completely legal. They are impotent.
If I saw you face to face and said “Next time I see you, I’m dropping an ICBM on your house”. You might be able to get low level harassment, but no crime derived from the threat itself. At least in my state.
Unlike real life threats, internet death threats have the entire evidence chain laid out for the prosecution team as long as the guy like Andy is willing to give them deleted ones etc. And I know Andy is the type of guy who'd be more than happy to do that to protect the likes of a user like you at the sake of the legal innocence of a user like factmachine
Without context, it's kind of meaningless.. If I'm free to do everything, then I'm not really free to do anything..
So, in terms of WHAT I'm LEGALLY free to do, I like the context the Bill of Rights conveys.. It tells us what we're FREE to do, by telling the government what it CAN'T do. I'm good with that.
Are you free to go buy a soda? Does it say the government can’t stop you?
Hello again, A:
Yes.. Yes it does.. The 4th Amendment prevents the government from curtailing your movements.. You HAVE a right to move around at your pleasure.. The 4th Amendment also prevents them searching you or your house, and your 5th Amendment right to due process of law should make it easy to STOP them..
Hopefully, you're not suggesting that because sodas aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they can pass any law about soda they choose..
I’m not. My point is that there is a lot that isn’t in the bill of rights. There was opposition to even having a bill of rights out of fear that people would argue that your rights are limited to the few important ones they articulated.
I think they underestimate the willingness of people to give up rights