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

He has certainly impressed me with his ability to provide intelligent and thoughtful refutations, all whilst on vacation. Now, the end of this insightful debate round. Refutation of Point 1:My opponent has revealed a very great need for knowledge of foreign affairs. I agree wholeheartedly that Americans should learn about the world around them, so as to operate more efficiently on an international scale. However, my opponent doesn't show a strong link between knowledge of global affairs and freedom. He claims that it prevents others from imposing their ideas onto you, but I don't see how a lack of knowledge in one area coerces someone to accept whatever is told them. If I don't know anything about God, and someone tells me everything they believe about God, it doesn't force me to believe what they say. Also, the lack of perspective on American's parts is certainly not beneficial, but not freedom-impairing in the slightest. Refutation of Point 2:PART (A)My opponent conceded this point. .. mostly. However, I don't see my opponent's point that he's trying to make. Yes, there are other democracies. However, I've shown that America's (specicific) Constitution puts it at the head of the charge for freedom. This was conceded by Pro. I need say nothing else. As far as the "constraints" my opponent mentioned. .. I don't understand. I think he means to imply gun laws. .. If I'm incorrect, I do apologize. It is a proven statistic that gun proliferation is beneficial to security. Chicago, the U. S. ' most adamant supporter of gun control, has the highest violent crime rate in all of the country. Meanwhile, Plano, a city in Texas that is a popular supporter of gun rights, has the lowest violent crime rate in the U. S. . http://os.cqpress.com...There are many more statistics to offer in support of my position. However, seeing as Pro hasn't offered evidence whatsoever, I believe this will suffice. PART (B)My opponent offers one example, that is not sourced, of the American government supporting a dictatorship. Then he proceeds to state how this disproves America's long history of supporting freedom-fighters, and even similar acts today. I don't believe that the U. S. ' (admittedly poorly handled) attempt to support Egypt is proof that America is not "the Land of Freedom". PART (C)Again, a reference to point B by my opponent. This point was thrown together quite quickly and awkwardly. Again, I've explained how the U. S. had good intentions, and handled the situation poorly. Also, one example doesn't disprove everything a country stands for. This point is irrelevant, and the fact the U. S. can support global freedom, while still nto declaring war on every dictatorship, is conceded. PART (D)I already explained that world-wide freedom boosts America's security. I have also proven how the U. S. does not need to declare war on every "less free" state in order to promote freedom. Therefore, the fact that the U. S. associates with some countries who are less free is irrelevant. The U. S. still benefits from countries being free, and gains allies through common ground. If certain countries also wish to become allies, the U. S. gains more security, which keeps it at the forefront of promoting freedom (in time, possibly even to these "less free" countries it is associated with). Point 3:PART (A)I concede this. I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the restrictions of certain laws, rather than the number of laws themselves, are what affect freedom more. The U. S. has a lot of laws, but the laws allow for much more freedom (due to the Constitution) than other countries' laws allow for. PART (B)Ah, here we go with gun laws (more specifically this time). I've already refuted this. The knowledge makes free point never existed until this round, to my knowledge (bahaha). However, I believe I've succesfully countered it. PART (C)Yes. Elections would be different if the people were informed, I acknowledge this. If all the citizens of the United States were aware of current events, I would hope that certain leaders in the United States' government would lose their positions of power. However, this fact does not back the resolution. Just because the outcome would be different, doesn't mean freedom is promoted. I'm a bit confused about my opponent's reference to how the United States deals with Islam. If he is implying we should "coexist", then I would inform him that Islam, or at least those who practice it fully, are not open to the reasoning he suggests. If he is implying we should eradicate it completely, then I believe the United States can't do this. The United States Constitution allows for freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So long as a Muslim is okay with not infringing on other U. S. citizens' rights, I have no quarrel with him living in the United States. But even if there was a more accurate way to approach Islam, the U. S. doesn't lose the title of "the Land of Freedom" for mere inefficiency. This point is refuted and irrelevant. ConclusionMy opponent's final stance was as follows:America is not free anymore- due to American's being mentally coerced, fearful, and lost in a world that they are supposed to dominate, due to lack of information. My response is simple. Americans, due to their influence over every aspect of their country, are far from mentally coerced. There was no argument that solidly supported this stance. This point is refuted. Americans, rather than being fearful, are fighting fear itself. As the leading drive int he war on terror, the United States is the prominent warrior in the fight against fear. Also, with the right to bear arms being protected by the Constitution, Americans are free to protect themselves from anyone who would coerce, intimidate, threaten, or attempt to take their life. This point is refuted. Americans' lack of international knowledge does not bear a significant impact on their freedom. This link was never shown, and merely speculated about. Also, as proven before, and dropped by Pro, American influence on other countries' freedom, or lack thereof, does not take away from the fact that America, itself, is free. This point is refuted. So there you have it. America, for the reasons of:-Its Constitution-No other country being more deserving of the title-Its security in global freedom-Its promotion of global freedom-Its democratic elections-Its citizen-driven government-Its being home to a free peopleMay still be referred to, accurately, as "the Land of Freedom". This resolution has been negated. "O say does that star-spangled banner yet waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. " -The Star-Spangled BannerTo my opponent:It was an honor to debate you, my friend. I was impressed, and certainly felt challenged, as well as thrilled, to debate someone of your caliber. I thank you for your kind words, and they will not be disputed (if only for the reason that you asked they not be). If you are ever down for another debate, please consider me as a possible opponent. I would be greatly pleased if we do ever debate again. It was fun.