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

I hope he's enjoying his vacation. Now, for the debate:First off, I'd like to remind the Pro of something. The resolution states "America may no longer be called "the Land of Freedom". This is what we are debating. We are not debating if its security is of greater importance than freedom. If this is the case, but I can still show that it is the land of freedom, then the resolution has still been negated. I would encourage my opponent to show how security and freedom are mutually exclusive, because it appears (as I'll get to) that he agrees with me that world-wide freedom supplies the USA with security. Next, my opponent brought up an argument which I will address later as P3. Lastly, before I refute, I will provide a much needed definition of freedom. It is rather long. Freedom: 1a: the quality or state of being free: asa : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or actionb : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independencec : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>f : improper familiarityg : boldness of conception or executionh : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home> 2 a : a political rightb : franchise, privilegeFor the sake of providing equal footing in the round, and using a relevant definition, I suggest we use 1-a. If my opponent thinks another definition would be more beneficial, he may bring it up and provide reasons why. However, I must stress this point. I am not debating whether America is completely free. No. Rather, I am debating whether it may be referred to as "the Land of Freedom". P1: Americans being uninformed of international events means the death of freedomI apologize to my opponent, but I am not seeing the link here. Maybe it is counterproductive to the spread of freedom world-wide, but it doesn't change America's freedom. American's aren't fed information by the government. Rather, the United States provides the constitutional liberty for freedom of press. This means that any news agency can report whatever they wish, and the people may choose whether or not they wish to watch or believe them. This is greatly beneficial to the hunt for truth in many matters. Why? Because those that report falsely will eventually lose all credibility. My opponent then stated his opinion on how he "hardly thinks Americans go to see what BBC or ABC have to say about them". Maybe so. But they certainly have the freedom to do so. American government can't keep the people blind to international affairs, so long as the American people have freedom of press (not to mention the internet! ). So, in the end, we are left with a statement based off fact (Most Americans are uninformed about international events), but jumps to an illogical claim (it is the death of freedom). P2: America values security over freedomMy opponent tried to show here how America now values security over freedom. However, he even admitted to the fact that, for America, Freedom and Security go hand-in-hand. When world-wide freedom is bolstered, so is America's security. Security and freedom, as I stated earlier, are not mutually exclusive! No matter what the aim is, if the result is the same either way, America isn't sacrificing freedom. Also, I'd like to point out, again, that America's freedom doesn't derive from the world's. Its security might. But its freedom is its own. America could still be named "the Land of Freedom", even if the rest of the world was under complete totalitarian rule. (This also links into both my first argument about America being the "most qualified" and my argument about America's freedom coming from its people. )America does not have to fight for freedom alone. In fact, it would be foolish to fight for freedom and endanger America itself. My opponent tried to find fault in America's wars by asking why N. Korea and Iran haven't been freed. Or why there aren't interventions in Africa and Russia. My answer is two-fold.1. If America is destroyed or partially destroyed, the world will lose its champion for freedom. (The "Land of the Free", if you will. )This argument is self-explanatory, I believe. The U. S. A doesn't have the military power to free the whole world at once, and attempting to do so would just ruin America as it is, and leave those countries still standing. This would be counter-productive to freedom.2. America has preferred to allow the people of certain countries make the first move. America has a history of supporting rebellions in countries, not starting them. If America was to force every country to be free, they wouldn't be spreading freedom at all. No. My opponent, while his dreams for world-wide freedom are admirable, and shared by many (including myself), errs in his reasoning when he proposes that America start revolutions and civil wars across the globe. Americans consider citizens of the UK to be "less free" than them. However, the citizens of the UK would be greatly displeased if American soldiers overthrew their government in favor of one more like the U. S. Likewise, America tends to latch onto existing movements and support them, rather than be a big "nanny state" enforcing their views on every country. Lastly, my opponent tried to attack my point about America being supported by free allies. It's true, some countries remain in the U. S. ' good graces for reasons aside from freedom. However, the point was already conceded that world-wide freedom boosts U. S. security. This point is irrelevant. P3: Americans aren't the most deserving of "the Land of Freedom" title, due to stringent laws. Laws are necessary in any society. To imply that Americans are less free, due to the fact that they have more or less laws than some nations, is illogical. We defined freedom earlier this round, and I will refer to it now. Freedom- "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"Whileon the surface, this appears to support my opponent's point. It actually refutes it. Let's think for a moment. America's laws are written, voted on, and passed by who? The representatives. Who chooses the representatives? The people. These laws just ensure safety. Drinking below a certain age was agreed on by the representatives as detrimental to the safety of U. S. citzens. They passed a law, placing a ban on acoholic beverage consumption until a certain age. If the people felt so strongly about changing it, they would elect a representative who would work to repeal the law. In this fashion, America is the most free country in the world, and well desserving of the title "the Land of Freedom". The Constitution provides that no law shall be passed to prohibit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a law is found to be violating one of those standards, it is debated over, argued, tried, and can be repealed. ConclusionAt the end of Round 4, my points still stand. I will reiterate them one more time.1. America is most deserving of the title "the Land of Freedom".2. America's security and world-wide freedom are promoted by each other.3. America's freedom itself is independent of world-wide freedom.4. America's freedom of press stands, no matter how uninformed U. S. citizens choose to be.5. America's laws are from the people.6. America's people are free, therefore making it "the Land of Freedom". Thank you to my opponent, I look forward to seeing what he states in his final arguments.