LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

1. If the bond of freedom cannot be broken, it is not against freedom because one can be free of it. Also, you must explain how only crime can break the bond of freedom, because right now it is an arbitrary claim. I can't debate it because you haven't proven it. 2. As a rule, if you don't understand a subject, don't use it as a metaphor. You clearly do not understand thermodynamics. Statement a is valid, but statement b makes absolutely no sense. Independent and dependent variables are not interchangeable. And my rewording does refute your argument, because it proves that the limit on freedom is binding. Not freedom. Next, you say that protection is against freedom, in which case, once again, the limit on freedom is binding. You decline to address my point on starting your own communist society, which is an important point in my case. 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. 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. And then you begin with the personal attacks. Just to let you know, disrespecting me is not the basis for debate. I read through your points multiple times, and did the best I could with all of your repetition and contradiction. Then you claim that saying the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is valid, but then say that the law does NOT take away your freedom. Again, more contradictions. In this paragraph, you also say that that the only time you can't be free is if you commit a crime. But what if you choose to live in my hypothetical communist society? You aren't free, but you haven't committed a crime either. 4. You didn't prove your point, but I understand what you are saying so I will move on. First off, freedom from physics is not the same thing as philosophical freedom. Philosophically, anybody has the right to break the laws of physics, they just physically can't. By your argument here, an illiterate person would not have the right to freedom of press, because they physically can't/don't know how to write. So basically, the laws of nature are binding to ability, not freedom. Next off, you attack my 'not being able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning.' I am able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning, but even if I couldn't, it would probably be because I am not 'a professor of philosophy or a really old adult (21+)'. Moving on from your insults, you create the concept of 'freedom of non-existence.' You must explain what you mean by this, and specifically how exactly it would be considered a freedom. In your last sentence, you say that this concept is so binding that you could affirm the resolution with just that. But you still would have to explain how it is a freedom. 5. Saying a person is consciousness alone doesn't mean they are alone. It means that have no physical form. Next off, how do you know exactly what would happen in such a scenario? I accept that you don't want us to use factual evidence, but that doesn't mean that fictional pseudo-arguments can now be considered valid. Also, you mention your freedom of non-existence again. You really need to explain this in your closing statement. Next, how can you say this has nothing to do with governments. You say we would invent a system of law and order, and we would make up laws. So maybe it isn't specifically a government, but it should have been easy enough to understand what I meant without focusing on word choice. Either way, you make the claim that we would make laws and give no evidence. 6. Your logic here is flawed. I can give you an easier example of the problem with what you say: bears are animals, and rabbits are also animals, therefore bears are rabbits. It is easy enough to see the flaw here, and the same flaw applies to your argument that freedom is binding because of its limits. Next you say that 'The whole point of freedom is...the absence of restraint. I agree with you here. That's unfortunate for you, because you entire argument is that freedom restrains. Finally, you claim that the resolution remains affirmed. I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. You are the one proposing that freedom is binding, so you must prove it. Your job is to provide evidence for why your claim is correct, not why your counter-claim is incorrect. It is your job to PROVE that freedom is binding. It is my job to AFFIRM that freedom is not binding. So the resolution does remain affirmed, just in the opposite of the way that you meant.