American Culture has deluded what freedom is

I would really love to clarify, what seems to be a misunderstanding on behalf of my opponent. In the comments, my opponent has told me that my use of the word deluded does not apply to this scenario, and since I don't consider my self having an advanced understanding of the English language, I believed him.The resolution of the debate says deluded, not dilutedWhile I believed him, even though this was an obvious lie to me, I did not clarify so in the acceptance round, as I went back and checked the terminology (Note, this was after I accepted). If Mikal wishes to take this semantical position on the diluting of water, then that is up to him. I hope the audience will vote on the actual resolution, that American culture has deluded freedomNow my opponent may simply try to call this out as a grammatical structure error, claiming that he was reasonable to assume that the resolution was "dilluted". Lets be clear on one thing.....I had clarified several times that this was a philosophical debateMikal, while I respect his aptitude for attempting to resolution snipe, did two things that made this cheap tactic fail..... [1]P1: A verb/adjective can come before a noun (In gramattical sense, it will be defined as OP contecual) [2]P2: Deluded is a participle adjective [3]P3: A participle adjective can apply before noun [4]C1: Therefore, the structure of my resolution is gramatically correctNow that I have cleared up the fact that the resolution abides 100% by grammatical standards, and yes, I had done lots of research, I can begin the crux of my arguments....Grammar Sources[1] 30-ish post enlightenment session with Wrichcriw[2] http://www.englishclub.com...[3] http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com...[4] http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu...Definition ClarificationsDue to the confusion that my opponent has either entailed or intended on grammar structure, I will post some abiding definitons here. I will post merriam, and cite oxford to make sure were absolutely clear on the institution of the "word play" in this debate.de·ludeverb\di-G2;lüd, dē-\: to cause (someone) to believe something that is not true [1] [2]Disclaimer: Mikal, do not touch that button in the debate editor, ok?We are debating that American culture has dilluded what freedom is1di·luteverb\dī-G2;lüt, də-\: to make (a liquid) thinner or less strong by adding water or another liquid[3] [4]^ The above definition, has been striked out, to show that it has no signifigance in this debate. Further arguing that this definition is relevant to this philisophical debate, will almost always be semanticalIn the case that my opponent really wants to get semantical, which seems exremely unfair given the context of the debate, I will attempt to show that dillution has a different meaning in the financial sector. This is to show, that my opponent didn't even use the word dilluted in the right context.Definition of 'Dilution'A reduction in the ownership percentage of a share of stock caused by the issuance of new stock. Dilution can also occur when holders of stock options (such as company employees) or holders of other optionable securities exercise their options. When the number of shares outstanding increases, each existing stockholder will own a smaller, or diluted, percentage of the company, making each share less valuable. Dilution also reduces the value of existing shares by reducing the stock's earnings per share.[5]^ The above was also crossed out, to once again show that we are not debating dilliution in any form. Note, this was not a rebuttal, but a clarificationDefinition Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[5] http://www.investopedia.com...I.Freedom is a MindsetNow, to prove my case, I have to first prove that American culture has mislead the people into what freedom is. Lets rexamine what freedom in the most simplified form of all those definitions.......The ability to act on unconstrained willLets quickly examine the sentence structure really quick in a short complitation. Due to the nature of my arguments, this is best examined backwards, from will down......Examination 1/Unconstrained Will: What is unconstrained will? Can we assume unconstrained will, in actuallity, is no different than free will? In my opinion, it most certainly is. I need to get more in depth for the purpose of this debate. Lets look at the first word, constrained....con·strained[kuhn-streynd]Show IPAadjective1.forced,compelled,orobliged:aconstrainedconfession. [1]Okay, so by the definition of constrained, we can assume that unconstrained will is the absense of being obliged, forced, or compelled. Does my opponent concede that free will is a trait? I think so. As the definition essentially equates to free will.If he thinks otherwise, it will be his duty for the BOP, to prove that a human being cannot mentally resist force, compelled, or obliged to do something. For him to disprove this contention that free will is a trait, he needs to.....- Prove that will itself is not a trait- Prove that a man can not be mentally free- Prove that a man can not mentallyresist force, persuasion, or obligation.Failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the above premises, are negated, will allow the contention, that free will is a mind set, go unchecked. Which will be crucial in proving my case.Examination 2/Abillity to Act: What is abillity? Now, the argument I'm pretty much certain Mikal will make, is that abillity is....Possession of the means or skill to do something: [2]^ The above Oxford definition, indeed works in Mikals favor, correct? In a sense it does, but lets look at what comes immediately after the word. Looking directly after the word, we see "to act". So, if someone, is, per say, unable to climb a mountain without falling, does he still have the abillity to act on the will to try? Or to clarify further, does the man, lack the "abillity", to try to "act", on that unconstrained "will""? He most certainly does not. This is also crucial to my argument. To disprove this contention, Mikal must prove the following.....- That a man lacks the abillity to act on his will- That enviormental circumstances restrict the abillity to act on willFailing to prove the above premises, will result in him failing to negate this part of the BOP.Examination 3/Freedom is the abillity to act on unconstrained will:I have now proven, that free will is a mind set, and that a person can have the ability to act on the impossible. If all this is true, then it is impossble to deny that freedom is a mindset, correct? Lets think about it through this example................------------------------Jackie Monroe (Male), is an advocate for freedom. He firmly believes that freedom is a value. Jackie Monroe, has always suffered from a rare heart condition, which makes it near impossible for him to partake in physical activity. One day, Robinson was walking across the beach. Suddenly, he heard cries, like they came from a small kid.Jackie, looking out in the distance, and was panicked to see a small kid drowning. He shouted for someone to rescue the young child. No one came. He knew he had to save the child, but he had a problem. Jackies heart condition prevented him from swimming to the child. He would surely die.But jackie was willful. He knew in his heart, that he had both the will and the ability to try to save this child, even though it was impossible. Jackie swam, with all his might. He felt his heart beat slowing. He continued to swim, as he had unconstrained will to keep trying. Jackie, got the kid to shore, although his heart burst the moment he hit the beach. The child was saved. -------------------------What do we notice about Jackie in this short story? Jackie utilized freedom as a value, a tenet, and foremost, a thing of personal honor. I have just shown, that freedom is actually a state of mind. To be at liberty is to be unconstrained. To be free, is to have both will, and to disregard the constraints that tell us we can not do what we think we can do. Therefore, freedom and liberty, while synonymous, are not the same thing. My opponent must attack this point hard, to prove my next contention. Examination Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Final NotesI have exhausted the character limit for this round, entirely debating every defintion. This is entirely crucial to my case, and while it seems quite odd that I would spend a whole round arguing what freedom is, and is not, but given the context of the debate, it is essential I partake in doing so.As for the next round, I plan on further clarifying any questions my opponent might have, and establishing American Culture. I have some intresting arguments to make, such as quoting great pieces of literatur like Cicero, Aurrellius, and the founder of freedom/liberty terminology, John Locke. Its been fun participating in this debate, and I wish my opponent the best of luck.Overall Debate Criteria(1) I am quite worried that my opponent will continue on a path of arguing dillution and not delution. He should, and will be required to, argue the resolution he wrote, and did not fix until after the fact. (2) Arguing definitions should be discouraged. Semantics are the disdain of civil debate.(3) This is not about who made a better case. Negation of one's case should be considered.With that said, I ask the audience to give fair and due consideration to this debate, and vote for the man who put forth the best arguments. Thank you for your time readers! Note: To specify immediately, I have 6 characters left. I encourage my opponent to track his.