LOD (Logic only debate): freedom is binding.

My opponents rebuttals were not substantial enough for my arguments to legitimately be considered refuted. So thematic rebuttals won’t be happening on my side, I'll have to refute by sentences. Defence: (what my opponent said is in bold) 1) your freedom CAN be taken away precisely my point. However, this does not mean that it is not bound to you. It only means that this bond can be broken, and even then, only this particular bond. This is a contradictory argument. No its not, let me reword it in simple English. You have rights as a default. This 'default,' is the bond. You do not choose not to have it at first, and the only thing that can break the bond is crime. 2) Laws don't really dictate what freedom you get. They dictate what freedom you DON'T get. Consider these two statements: a) Cold is the absence of energy (heat) b) Heat is the absence of no energy (cold) both statements have the same conclusion. They are both equal. My opponent merely seeks to reword my arguments, but forgets that they need to be refuted also. The IDEAL laws do not force you to be free. They merely protect your freedoms. This rebuttal slightly misses the point I was trying to make, but let’s assume I was making that point anyways. In my opponents claim, laws protect your freedom. Protection is a type of bond. Protection restricts a type of freedom that contradicts your freedom, therefore, it is bound to your freedom, and it binds your freedom from other freedoms, and prevents your freedom from change, which is what protection means, force acting against exterior changes that wish to influence you. My opponent makes an argument in my favour: Freedom is protected/bound by law. 3) The purpose of law in a free society is to punish those who take away freedoms. This is completely irrelevant, but anyways, WRONG! The purpose of law in a free society is to define order. Punishment, which is maintenance of this order, is taken care of by the Justice system, which runs hand in hand with the law but is completely separate to law. My opponent goes onto say that the law is unnecessary if nothing else can take away freedom. I am seriously beginning to think that he did not read my arguments or else did not understand anything I wrote. Few of his rebuttals attack my arguments directly and the ones that do fail to completely refute them. But anyways, moving on: ...saying that the law is the only thing that can take away freedoms is invalid. It’s not invalid, and it’s not what I said. Here is the argument that you are supposed to be refuting: freedom under law is freedom that is bound to you. None can take it away unless you have attacked the source of this freedom: the law. If you have not committed crime, the giver of freedom (the law) forces freedom onto you, freedom which you cannot avoid according to argument 2. My arguments seek to prove that your freedom within the law is impregnable unless you or someone else attacks the law. My opponent misreads and thinks I have claimed that the law takes away your freedom. Not at all. 4) You say that you cannot have freedom without order and then he goes on to say that he sees no proof of it despite my excellent example which followed straight after. Just on a side note, factual proof is against the rules, but examples used to illustrate rational ideas are legitimate. So in effect, I have put all the proof you need right there. Let’s have another look at it: we are all bound to the rules of physics. Freedom cannot exist without a universe to be free in; the universe cannot exist without rules to let it exist, i.e. thermodynamics etc. So to have freedom in the universe, you must have rules and bounds to let it exist. We are all bound to rules because of our freedom, mainly, the freedom to exist, which only occurs due to laws. In case my opponent gets the wrong idea, there is no such thing as freedom from the laws of nature. That would be called non-existence. In this debate, we are addressing the types of freedoms that exist physically. So my opponent has to demonstrate why freedom under the laws of nature is not binding. You must elaborate for me to debate/concede the point. I see, so it must be a case of not being able to fathom deep philosophical reasoning... Well, read what I just wrote Con, and maybe you will understand. You have the freedom to exist because of the law. This makes no sense. You exist because of biology. Not the government. Let me refer back to the definition of freedom: the quality or state of being free a) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another: independence c) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous The government is not a definition a freedom. That’s why I did not claim so. Here is what I said: We are all bound to rules because of our freedom, mainly, the freedom to exist, which only occurs due to laws. This freedom of existence is subject to the laws of nature. If there were no laws of nature, there would be no freedom of existence, only freedom of non-existence, which is also binding, come to think of it. So my point is that freedom under law is freedom that is binding. But since my opponent brings it up, I may as well add that freedom from the law is even more binding. It is freedom of chaos, or lack of order. In complete chaos, the only thing you are free to do is not exist, which is so binding, I could affirm the resolution just by saying that. 5) You describe a world where people are consciousness alone. No I’m not, that’s just your assumption. I gave no reason why people wouldn't be alone. But if people take no physical form, they cannot be harmed by another human being. That was completely missing the entire point 110%. My point is that if we could have freedom of existence in a universe containing no order, (where freedom of non-existence is the only freedom) then the human mind would conjure order in order for us to understand something. Once we have a delusion that we understand, we have freedom inside it, which is endemically the same as freedom to move around in a prison cell. And while a government may form, this has got nothing to do with Governments. 6) Your point here is that the limits of freedom are binding. But the point of your full argument is that freedom itself is binding. Not the limits put on it. Let’s take a look at what I said: There is no such thing as freedom without restraint. There will always be bounds. In human terms, this means that freedom will bind us to a certain law, way of thinking, or method of living. So fundamentally, freedom is its own prison. And the only escape is a different prison, which isn't really an escape. My point here is that the limits of freedom are binding and that because we are subject to freedom, not the limits, then it is the freedom that binds us. Hence, freedom due to its limits is binding. The whole point of freedom is that you can choose how you think and how you live. My point was that you have a certain type of freedom subject to a certain law. You are talking about freedom from law which is altogether a different thing, a thing that I have already refuted in my previous post. The whole point of freedom is not the ability to choose, but the absence of restraint. Altogether, my opponent really didn’t do anything in the way of rebuttals. Let me remind Con of the topic: Freedom is binding. You are supposed to be negating that resolution and not trying to appreciate what I said from a literal, incorrect standpoint from whence you can give a poor rebuttal. The resolution remains affirmed.