America is no longer what may be termed "the land of freedom"

I) Counter-counter Argumentation My opponent states that America is the land of the free because American citizens are freer than other people. In this case, we must debate, how are Americans freer than others? To answer this, one must ask, what is exactly freedom? From a "dictionary" perspective, freedom is the ability to do what one wants, by buying what one wants, going where one wants, and saying what one wants. From this point of view, Americans are indeed very free; the "every-man for himself" policy, an encouragement to the creation of the "self-made man", so central to the American dream, is very benefiting to commercial enterprise, and a spirit of innovation, which always astounds any foreigner when visiting the united states: the fact that society is constantly propelling itself forwards, with a constant wish and capacity to innovate. Americans can also own a wide range of guns, and have a much larger area in which they may travel without border control, due to the size of their country. One of the major points young Americans are less free upon, however, is drink, which, hilariously when compared to guns license or driving license age, is much later, at twenty, than many countries, where it is at 16 or 18. Furthermore, and this is what makes America more free than lawless African countries, Americans live in a democracy which does not imprison them for whatever they say, and represents what they think However, freedom is not just about doing what you want. Part of freedom is knowing that you can walk out into the street and be safe, because there are police officers who keep cool and can help you, that the weird guy on the other side of the street cannot easily buy or steal an automatic rifle, that good ambulances will come and save you and treat you and that the state will take care of you regardless of your fortune if something happens, and that anyone who discriminates you on basis of your appearance, sex or origin will be prosecuted. Most importantly, freedom is being informed. Having reliable, unbiased knowledge. We'll see my arguments about this last part later. As for the rest, it is very often not the case in America, often because such laws are seen as an infringement on the rights of Americans. But is it? Are Americans free when their government listens in on their conversations, like Mr. Snowden has revealed? Are Americans free when any guy walking down the street could have a gun in his pocket and could shoot them without remorse? Are they freer than people in the Netherlands, where drug addicts are identified by the state because the state distributes legal, safe drugs and alcohol? Are they freer than people in Belgium, where an ultra effective police force considers a man running on the loose with a small pistol the maximum possible crisis? Are they freer than the Germans, who thoroughly teach students about sex education, evolution, and then theology, and whose teenagers have a dramatically lower pregnancy rate than the United States, yet are still religious enough to have one of the last Christian parties of Europe at the head of their country? I cannot name a country that deserves this title. I do not believe that any country is allowing its citizens to live in complete freedom. But I do not believe that Americans are free from fear, crime, illness, poverty or an over-religious & controlling state. I would also like my opponent to show proof as to why countries in the world still admire America. I find this hard to believe, given that a large part of the population in developing countries has been alienated by America"s world-wide drone assassination campaign, and the new unilateralist & militaristic approach developed since President George W. Bush"s mandate. Furthermore, the sentence in the last lines of my opponent"s first argument confuses me; " [Liberia] is a prime example for a country that has strived to be like the United States. That is why America is most deserving of the title, and therefore still is, the "land of the free"." I"m afraid I must ask for clarification on how the fact that Liberia attempted to resemble the United States makes the United States the land of the free, and underline the conflict between the date of that event, and the time period we are discussing. Counter Argumentation: P1: The fact that America is not the land of international awareness is grave for freedom. It means that Americans do not have a second perspective, one that is other than an American point of view. Do the Americans read British, Russian, Australian, Brazilian, European press? I doubt it, because as you conceded, America, supposed to be the world superpower, lacks international awareness. This means that the government can do pretty much as it pleases when it comes to foreign affairs. Why? 1)International awareness & universal suffrage. The other party is elected by Americans who don"t really care if they can't name all 191 other UN member states, and give the difference between that list and the Olympic committees'. Therefore, the other party doesn't always care to oppose the present government on the matter of foreign affairs. 2)International awareness & cultural openness. Not reading foreign newspapers means that, since no great political body is opposing the government on foreign affairs, you almost never get informed on the opposite point of view. I hardly think that a great majority of Americans go to see what the BBC or the ABC have to say about them, let alone a translated version of European or Asian medias. Therefore, I have difficulty believing that Americans are free from the opinion their government will invariably, as all governments do, enforce upon them; who is the number one enemy, who fosters terrorism, why people are doing this war, etc. P2: 1) On the second point, I am afraid that the rejection contains a sentence I've heard a lot on internet forums; "America's security is in freedom". I believe that what this sentence expresses is "America's security depends on freedom being everywhere, in all countries". This, in itself, is a logical and perfectly acceptable statement, which unfortunately seems to me to be agreeing with what I said; America is fighting for freedom, with the aim of providing security to its citizens. Not with the aim of establishing freedom throughout the world because freedom is something Americans believe in. This seems to concede my point that American wars are about security, using freedom as a sort of excuse. If America did fight for freedom just for freedom, why have the Iranians and Koreans not been freed? Why is Tibet still a Chinese colony? Why have there not been interventions all over Africa and in Russia? I think that what America fights for is Freedom where it can keep a country stable, and oppression where freedom cannot achieve that. Example? Egypt's former elected tyrant, supported by the US. Does America only attack countries showing a direct threat to them? Those who terrorize their [often government-informed] citizens? 2) "Free countries tend to be allies and supporters of the U.S.A." 2-a - I"m afraid that if we were to say that a country is freer than another because of the number of free countries that are its allies, Switzerland wins hands down. But that's not what my opponent meant. 2-b - I refuse to see this as a valid point, since alliance systems today are much more complicated than that sentence seems to imply, and countries tend to be allied with the USA because the USA is the world power. Not because it's free, but because the US has more aircraft carriers and dollars to spend on international aid than any other country. Countries are concerned by their security. They will ally with countries strong enough to provide this security. And there are also non-free, or at the very least, ambiguously "free" countries, which are "allied" with America too; Israel, and (I may be mistaken with this one) Russia, for example.