LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

It is now too late for my opponent to state his arguments, so we are just left with what I have said. Poor form I must say. Defense: (his words in italics)1) My opponent works from the illogical concept that you can be free from freedom. The proper term for that is slavery to non-freedom. "If the bond of freedom cannot be broken, it is not against freedom because one can be free of it. " If this 'it' Con is referring to happens to be freedom, then he has made a selfdeafeating claim by saying that you can have freedom from freedom, which seeks to separate the one word into two definitions. "explain how only crime can break the bond of freedom. " I would have thought it to be rather obvious given the constant talk of freedom in law. This freedom is the ability to do whatever you want that doesn't consequent in the loss of your freedom. When it comes to law, the only actions that can loose you your freedom would be crime. Quite obviously. In a nutshell, argument 1 states that if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. Which so happens to be the 0th law of thermodynamics. Yes its a real law, funny name hey? in the equation, 'a' stands for freedom, 'b' stands for rights, and 'c' is you. A and B are directly joint. You have your freedom because of your rights. But A is not directly joint to you (c) whereas B is. So you have your rights as a default, and your freedom comes about because of your rights. Your freedom is linked to your rights which is linked to you, so therefore, your freedom is bound to you as well.2) "As a rule, if you don't understand a subject, don't use it as a metaphor. " Likewise, if Con doesn't know what a metaphor is, (which would explain why he accused me of using one) then why use it? I use examples from well established theories of physics, mainly thermodynamics, because it ties in with so many of my arguments very well. The two statements which I asked him to consider are not metaphors. They are literal facts (but still within the bounds of the rules of this debate). "statement b makes absolutely no sense. " Correction: 'Its makes no sense to you. ' My opponent is a very literal thinker, which is why his performance is quite low in this debate. I was hoping to debate someone who takes a more philosophical approach to problem solving. I am quite disappointed that Con is not one of these people. But anyways, I feel obliged to explain these 'metaphors' to Con, (now why would he call them metaphors when they are non-metaphoric examples? ) statement A: cold is the absence of energy. Statement B: Heat is the absence of no energy. Alternate views of St. A: Cold is the absence of heat. B: Heat is the absence of cold or presence of heat. Think of it this way: the lack of nothing is the equivalent of the presence of something. Heat is energy, cold is no energy, so the absence of cold means that there is heat present. "And my rewording does refute your argument, because it proves that the limit on freedom is binding. " That's not how you rebut. You can't just say that and hope it to happen, you need to support your claim. Your rewording was refuted by my hot/cold example which proves that your claim and my claim are exactly the same. So now both our claims support the resolution. Be it by the absence of freedom, or freedom. I have claimed that freedom is binding, you have claimed that the absence of no freedom is binding. Which is the exact same thing. "the limit on freedom is binding. " I have already proven that the limit on freedom makes freedom binding. "You decline to address my point on starting your own communist society, which is an important point in my case. " I suspect my opponent may be hiding his arguments amongst his rebuttals. Which is utterly poor show. If that's the case, I probably wont be able to find them all. But lets take a look at this: "You decline to address my point. .. " Very hypocritical. I have practically overlooked huge amounts of Con's blunders where he consistently misinterpreted my arguments or literally interpreted them in this philosophical debate. So just to make him happy, lets have a look at this 'communist society' point of his: "if you live in a free society, but value equality over freedom, nothing stops you from getting together with other people and forming a communist community, as long as everyone, as you say, gives permission. " This claim doesn't advance my opponents claim that freedom is not binding. What it does prove however, is that some free countries don't value freedom as highly as equality. Which is irrelevant to this debate. Let's just remember my original point: People are forcing you to be free by not forcing you not be free. Literally thinking, for the benefit of my opponent, you have not given anyone consent to give you freedom, so it has been shoved upon you without your permission. No one will attempt to take this freedom away from you, so until you decide that you don't want to be free, this freedom will be bound to you.3) "The purpose of law is to define order? It doesn't sound like you are describing a free society. You are describing an authoritarian society. " I'm really fed up with your practical interpretations of my arguments. I said that law defines order. In other words, law constitutes the meaning of order and what it is. That's how it works for every type of human government. "Also, the justice system runs together with the law, but yet is completely separate from the law? This is absurd. You contradict yourself in one sentence. " I really am sick of you. Dont accept my debates in future if your just going to do that. "I read through your points multiple times, and did the best I could. " I actually do believe you are intentionally trolling me, and not at all trying to deliver a philosophical approach as I had requested. If you were trying to be philosophical, you wouldn't be giving me all this practical garbage which I told you not to do. "But what if you choose to live in my hypothetical communist society? You aren't free" Yes you are free. Refer to the definition of freedom please.4) "freedom from physics is not the same thing as philosophical freedom. " See, you're a troll, on the rare occasion that I give something practical to demonstrate, you attempt to refute it with philosophy, and here is why your point is invalid: Philosophical freedom requires no defining from a higher order, and thus doesn't not at all attempt to refute argument 4. "I am not 'a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+)'. " Do you think you have something to prove? I'm younger than you so don't appeal to your lack of age. So, how is freedom of non-existence a freedom? Life is binding. You cannot break the laws of physics, so you are bound to them. Freedom of non-existence is freedom from these laws. Technically, its not a freedom if considered by itself, but it is freedom relative to the absence of order.5) how do you know exactly what would happen in such a scenario? That scenario was an example, and my defense of the use of that example is covered by my actual argument, which is: Assuming that it were possible to live separate from the laws of nature, we would be bound by freedom from that to something completely different. This would usually mean binding to the methods of thinking in the human mind itself. We would invent a new system of law and order so that we may retain our freedom or our illusion of it. We would also make up laws not to govern us, but just to be free from them, which is slavery to that particular method of attaining freedom. 6) More practical rubbish, you tried to rebut everything but the argument, which is: Freedom has its bounds. It is therefore binding. bounds does not mean limits, in this case it means bonds. Concluding, this was a rather disappointing debate, I was hoping for something deeply philosophical and instead got a physical slap in the face. My opponent not only failed to abide by the rules of this debate, but did not give a clear argument to support his case either.