America is the Land of the Free

I apologize for some confusion in prior rounds- I have been swapping “Pro” and “Con,” referring to my opponent as Pro. The order of speeches threw me off and I was thinking of myself as Con. Conduct: My opponent claims I called his arguments “ridiculous,” but this is not a conduct violation: This is just an assessment of the quality of an argument, it isn’t even an insult to the argument itself. Even if it was an insult, insulting the quality of an argument isn’t bad conduct. You can call the argument dumb while respecting the person making the argument- I have said nothing ill about Con or his character. Additionally, I never called Con’s argument “ridiculous!” Do a search of the page- I never said this. If anything, conduct should go to Pro. Framework: Con tries to massively reshape the scope and topic of this debate by claiming the Resolution means that America is the most free country in the world. I have been arguing this debate with the interpretation of the Resolution I presented in my opening: “When we speak of “the land of the free,” we mean the land where political liberty is respected and protected.” Prefer my interpretation of the Resolution for the following reasons: If Pro intended for the strict interpretation he advocates in the second to last round, he should have made this clear in R1 or corrected my interpretation at the earliest possible chance. Instead Con waited until after 2 of my speeches to drastically shift the debate. This is a massively unfair skew-it invalidates half of my rounds and forces me to invest a huge amount of time fighting for a fair resolution after the debate has begun. If you want to vote on conduct vote on this. My interpretation is supported by the context of Con’s R1 argument. Con’s case supports my understanding that the debate is about whether or not the US is a free society. Con says: “It is no longer a FREE SOCIETY” “For that reason, I say Americans are not Free.” Nowhere in his opening round does Con use language indicating that Resolution is about whether America is the MOST FREE country. Con instead talks about America being one of many free societies, as my interpretation does.3. My interpretation is supported by grammar: "The-3b) used as a function word before a singular substantivized adjective to indicate an abstract idea" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Thus, "the" in the Resolution indicates the abstract idea of a land that values and embodies freedom. The quesiton isn't whether whether the US epitomizes freedom, but whether the moniker of "land of the free" can be fairly applied to the US.While Con is correct that sometimes “the” indicates a noun unique to its class, but when a word has multiple definitions we determine the correct definition based on context and reasonability. The context of Con’s R1 does not support Con’s definition of “the.”4. Even if Con wins that grammar best supports his interpretation, the Resolution is best understood as a poetic formulation of the question “is America a free society.” The Resolution is a famous phrase meant to illustrate freedom as a central American value- its literary origins indicate that it is not meant as a literal claim but a poetic one. If the Resolution were “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” we woudn’t expect the debate to actually be about birds. Honestly when I read the title just took it as a catchy Resolution to reflect Con's R1 position that America is not a free society. Con’s intent and advocacy are best determined based on what was written in R1.5. If I thought the Resolution was intended as Con claims, I would never have accepted this debate. Con set up the debate, he has the job to make the topic clear- don’t punish me for Con’s lack of clarity. Case: Con’s only response to my Heritage and Social Progress sources is that the U.S. is ranked behind a lot of other countries. This is irrelevant, the U.S. is ranked as one of the most free societies in the world, it is clearly a free society. Studies will always show variability, what matters is that the US is overall ranked top 5 for aggregate Opportunity. Pro cherry picks one category to discredit my study- but my evidence shows the US ranks NUMBER ONE for Freedom of Speech! Thus, even if you buy Pro’s interpretation of the Resolution, I have evidence that the US is indeed the top country in free speech. Also, I have no idea why Con thinks it is embarrassing to be ranked behind Uruguay. Uruguay was the Economist’s “country of the year” in 2013 and performs well in terms of economy and liberty. Just because a country is in South America doesn’t mean it isn’t a free country. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have provided evidence that shows that America systematically protects free speech. My Heritage and Social Progress evidence both show this, as do my arguments that hated groups like Neo-Nazis and the Westboro Baptists are allowed to voice their opinions. This evidence outweighs the few cases Con mentions in R2. Con doesn’t respond to most of my criticism- his cases represent action taken by private individuals that do not limit anyone’s ability to voice their opinion. He claims “social censorship,” but this is just flowery language aimed at discrediting my argument. He never attacks the moral arguments I make for why individuals have a right to respond to the speech of others. Even if social pressure not to say something is “social censorship,” such pressure doesn’t constitute a violation of freedom. I may refrain from telling my mother-in-law she is boring out of fear of social repercussion, but I am not being censored. Con's standard for violation of freedom is so expansive as to render all social interaction tyrannical. I provided a clear standard for freedom and Con's examples do not violate it.In all of Con’s cases, the individuals were still free to voice their opinion so no loss of freedom has occurred. Whether the firings were justified is irrelevant- employers have a right to fire their employees. But private statements can affect professional performance- the example I gave was harm to perception of journalistic integrity. The bulk of Con’s R4 arguments concern a different topic than the rest of this debate. I remind Con and judges that standard DDO convention prohibits new rounds by Con in the final round. First, infringement on privacy does not violate freedom so this argument is irrelevant to the resolution. Privacy violation does not interfere with individual autonomy. By definition surveillance does not interfere with action, it is only watching. Privacy doesn’t fall under the list of freedoms Con lists as relevant to this debate: "Religious freedom, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Press." Con even acknowledges that this argument is a stretch- he says “If one considers Privacy a Freedom” but provides no argument that it is a freedom. I maintain invasion of privacy is wrong because it harms human dignity. It is wrong but irrelevant to this debate. Second, security is a prerequisite to freedom. A state vulnerable to terrorism, large black markets, human trafficking etc. cannot be free. These acts are antagonistic to freedom. The actions of the NSA are needed to guarantee security of the state and thus to protecting freedom. Third, Con’s case is based entirely around the NSA. This is a “live” matter of public policy, not a permanent fixture of US politics. Pew research shows that opinion is rapidly changing regarding Snowden and the NSA. As public opinion changes, public policy will evolve through the democratic process. Technology is evolving at an astronomical rate and the short term governmental response to this evolution is a bad metric to evaluate how free a country is. The mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA didn’t even exist a 5-10 years ago. This is an issue that can only be evaluated once the dust has settled. http://www.pewresearch.org...