LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

1. You say that I work from an illogical concept. Thus, in your mind, everything I say must be illogical and against the rules. Then you say that only crime can break the bond of freedom, and that this claim is obvious. In part 2, when I discuss another way, you fail to understand what I mean. More on that soon. 2. A metaphor is a comparison between seemingly unlike things. You made a metaphor. And it was wrong. Cold is not 'no energy' because it is a subjective measure of some energy that is less than comfortable. Heat is simply energy. It is not the lack of no energy. That is like saying light is just the absence of darkness. When you discuss my hypothetical community, you assume I talk about governments. I don't. I talk about a group of individuals coming together to give up some of their freedom. 3. Saying that law defines order in every human government is a factual example. I thought those were against the rules. Then you say that you are sick of me and am trolling you. These are not considered rebuttals. These are attacks, and dare I say concessions? Continuing, looking at the definition of freedom, communism fails definition a as it is based on coercion; b, because anyone in a communist society is dependent to others, not independent; and c, because one would have tremendous obligations to society. Next time, read your own definition. 4. You fail to address the difference between physical and philosophical freedom, and disregard my example of the illiterate person. Philosophical freedom may not require defining from a higher order, but does physical freedom? And maybe somebody reading this would think that physical freedom is defined by whatever god they believe in. As an atheist, I disagree, but wouldn't philosophical freedom require definition from said deity as well? Yes. Next, I wasn't appealing to my lack of age. I was more showing you that you wanted someone capable of deep philosophical thinking, but didn't want your opponent to be a philosophy professor (which, logically, means more that just specifically a philosophy professor). Then you say that life is binding. Everybody dies, so your point is invalid. Your explanation of freedom of non-existence doesn't even talk about non-existence. 5. You claim that I don't understand your arguments, but here you just restate an entire argument. If I didn't understand it the first time, as you claim, there is no way I would understand it when you restated it in exactly the same way. 6. Your argument was based in logic, I used logic to destroy your logic. If you say that only logic is allowed, then ban logic itself, it is no wonder you claim that I didn't follow the rules, as you set so many it was impossible not to. It is worth mentioning that you yourself used a source earlier on. Granted it was used to define terms, but it is still a source, and should be banned according to your strict interpretation of your arbitrary rules. In the end, it is clear that I deserve this victory. I had better conduct, as I didn't constantly attack my opponent. I had better spelling and grammar. In fact, I deserve the point for sources as well, as my opponent used a source despite saying sources were off-limits. Pro constantly accuses me of not following the rules when he himself didn't follow them either. He may think my arguments didn't support my case, but the burden of proof was his, and his arguments definitely did nothing for his case.