America is the Land of the Free

First I will give a big picture summary of why I’m winning this round: I am winning the interpretation of the Resolution- this debate is about whether or not the US is a free society. Under this interpretation, Con stands no chance of winning this debate due to his unresponsiveness to my arguments. I provided multiple sources showing the US ranks at the top of the world in freedom and has an entrenched tradition of protecting the speech even of hated minorities. Due to larger sample size and its focus on systematic application of rights, my evidence and arguments outweigh the isolated cases Con cites. I am hands down winning that the US is a free society, and thus the debate. Even if you think Pro is right that I need to show that America is #1 in freedom, I am STILL winning this debate. The only two issues Con has disputed are privacy and free speech, meaning I just need to show that America is the land of the free on these two issues. On no other issues has Con put forward a positive case that the US isn’t #1- if you buy his restrictive Resolution, don’t give him any benefit of the doubt in evaluating his arguments. I have shown privacy violation is not a violation of freedom since privacy does not involve autonomy- I don’t restrict your ability to make moral decisions by watching you. I have also pointed out that my Social Progress evidence ranks the US as NUMBER ONE for freedom of speech, thus meeting even Con’s extremely restrictive interpretation! So on the only two contentions Con has, I have shown that the US can be consider #1. For Con to win this debate, he needs to win that his interpretation of the Resolution is better AND that America is not the most free country in the world. Next I will go through a line-by-line analysis of why I am winning this debate. The Resolution: Con loses his right to unilaterally determine what the Resolution means after R1. To have a fair debate, both sides need to understand the Resolution. From my opening argument I was clear about my understanding of the Resolution, if Con really wanted his restrictive interpretation he should have clarified at the earliest opportunity. I explicitly stated in R1- “When we speak of “the land of the free,” we mean the land where political liberty is respected and protected. ” Worse, when we look at Con’s arguments, none of them support his interpretation of the Resolution. His first two rounds make no mention of whether or not America is the most free country, only about the general sense in which America was free. I am not a mind-reader, I can only determine the intent of the Resolution based on the context provided in R1 when I accepted the debate. My first two rounds are clearly structured around the understanding that the Resolution asks whether America is a free society. To allow Con the ability to re-define the resolution such that two of my rounds are irrelevant is incredibly unfair and a bad precedent to set on DDO. Debate may be useful in finding truth, but fundamentally it is a competition where judges pick a winner- thus the judges must preserve the fairness of the competition. If you as a judge think that my interpretation is a reasonable understanding of the Resolution, then you must vote Pro! I have shown my interpretation to be reasonable in two ways: First, my interpretation makes sense grammatically. “The” is often used to refer to abstract ideas and does not necessarily denote a special exclusivity- I even provided a dictionary definition to show this. Con never disputed that my definition of “the” was legitimate, he only asserts that his definition is right. Second, my interpretation makes sense under a literary interpretation of the Resolution. The Resolution is a reference to a popular phrase, thus this interpretation is reasonable. The reason Pro chose the Resolution was precisely because it is literary. We don’t say “America is a land of freedom” because “America is the land of the free” is more poetic. Some people may understand this phrase to mean America is the MOST free, but many people (myself include) take it to represent the central place freedom has as an American value. Again, everything about R1 suggested Con was broadly questioning whether America still valued freedom NOT that he wanted to argue whether there might be a country more free than America. I don’t concede that Con’s interpretation is indefensible, only that it is much more difficult and easier for Con to abuse. The bottom line is Con only "clarified" the Resolution half-way through the debate as my arguments were beginning to gain momentum. If he wanted to be whether America was "most free" he could have clarified in R1 or even R2, he could have set definitions in R1, or even just made the Resolution "America is the most free country in the world. " There isn't any discussion of how America compares to other free countries until AFTER Con "clarified" the Resolution. Con's final arguments are very different from his opening arguments- this isn't because the debate evolved, its because Con's interpretation of the Resolution evolved. Free Speech: The simple fact that my evidence ranks the US as #1 in free speech wins me this argument- Con never addresses this point. Con no longer disputes any of my arguments about the nature of freedom and why his examples fail, he offers no response to my analysis. Con’s only other argument is that “the land of the free” should at least rank in the top 5 for “Personal Freedom,” but this is cherry-picking the data. The "personal freedom" category doesn’t even include “Free Speech. ” The more relevant category is the broader “Opportunity,” which America DOES rank in the top 5! Thus I meet Con’s standard even under a restrictive interpretation. Con offers no argument or framework to evaluate how my evidence could show a country to be the “most free,” thus no explanation of how my data creates a case that America isn’t the most free. As I said in R3, my data show a lot of different countries ranked differently, absent analysis it says nothing about whether America is most free. Simply pointing to a broad range of data with inherent uncertainty and variability is not an argument. We can see the Con offers no positive case for how the US is not #1; don't write his arguments for him. I have pointed out that high rankings are consistent with the claim "America is the land of the free. " Privacy In R1 I present a very detailed argument for what freedom is and how it can be violated that Con doesn’t dispute. Privacy plainly fails to meet the criteria for violation of freedom- watching someone does not usurp their moral autonomy. To say otherwise means my freedom is violated every time someone looks at me. Con’s only response is the assertion that freedom means “freedom not to be recorded. ” This isn’t an argument, it is just using freedom in a sentence. This doesn't come close to touching my analysis of the concept of freedom. We may have a right to privacy, but this doesn't make it relevant to freedom. I pointed out that privacy rights may be generated by other moral concepts like dignity. Thus a right to privacy doesn't make it related to freedom. Finally, Con articulated a list of freedoms in R2 that DID NOT include privacy- even by his own standards privacy is irrelevant to the Resolution! Conclusion: Without a stable Resolution all debates are meaningless. I am the only one in this debate that has articulated a consistent advocacy, I deserve to win this debate.