Instigator / Pro
0
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Topic
#5745
Everyone should have freedom and passion forever
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Thank you for accepting this debate.
Now, I will make 2 points:
1. Freedom and passion are good and desirable
2. Everyone having freedom and passion is good
Lets start with point 1.
Everyone wants to have freedom because freedom lets you do things you want. Everyone wants to do everything he wants to do. This is true by tautology. Thus, freedom is wanted.
This can also lead to conclusion that freedom is good, because it lets person get everything he wants, which is by tautology good if we consider that good and bad are defined by mind's desires.
Passion is good and desirable because it produces happiness, which is desirable.
Lets move to point 2.
If everyone has freedom and passion, then no one would be without freedom and passion.
This is true by tautology, since for example, if everyone is A, then logically no one is non-A.
I hope we have a good debate here now when I have more time for debating.
"Everyone wants to have freedom because freedom lets you do things you want. Everyone wants to do everything he wants to do. "
Please prove this.
"If everyone has freedom and passion, then no one would be without freedom and passion.
This is true by tautology, since for example, if everyone is A, then logically no one is non-A."
This is totally circular or insubstantial. Being with or without something doesn't automatically substantiate good or bad .
Freedom nor passion is inherently good. As the logic shows, as the history of the world shows, these have to be placed in context to determine good or bad quality.
As the history of the universe has shown that this is true. Speaking of the universe, here's an example and also an example to actually prove a point upon making one.
Taking that the big bang happened as I'm dealing with the history of the universe, right, an explosion occurred.
A big powerful explosion which has amounted to life and this is where good definitely is known to exist as we acquired a measurement of what good is or amounts to .
We have a measurable qualifier to that what would be good.
Now a big powerful explosion is not inherently good. Just because life, something good became of it, no .
Any sharp reader should know where I'm going with this. A big powerful explosion can wipe all life out. It can vaporize all of us .
Context , context, context. Now freedom, socially, as the status quo has the typical perception of being a good thing. Why?
Why is this the initial impression often?
It's usually always in a positive context . So that's how it's often received in association. It's typically associated with such. But typical association is not inherentance.
Just like the expression "we have to come together as a people". "Let us unite ". "We shall unite as one".
As the author of a code book has said multiple times, "come together and do what?"
See, context, context, context. We can get together for some noble just cause which is the often perception. But we can also come together in a criminal organization, gangbang, shakedown.
Then, we can all be together. Yes all be together in prison.
So I'll stop there. Unless the opposing side really puts together some strong points, things that can be proven in reality and not just saying this is that and that is this, back up your case .
Round 2
"Everyone wants to have freedom because freedom lets you do things you want. Everyone wants to do everything he wants to do. "Please prove this.
I dont need to prove it. Its a tautology. People want to do what they want to do. Its like saying A is equal to A. Its impossible to disprove.
"If everyone has freedom and passion, then no one would be without freedom and passion.This is true by tautology, since for example, if everyone is A, then logically no one is non-A."This is totally circular or insubstantial. Being with or without something doesn't automatically substantiate good or bad .
Circular, yes. However, you missed the obvious point of round 1.
Its like saying A exists, so it is false that A doesnt exist.
1. We have proved that it would be very bad if someone didnt have freedom.
2. We have proved that if everyone had freedom, no one would be without freedom.
Conclusion from 1 and 2 is that very bad situation in 1 is avoided if everyone has freedom.
Thus, everyone should have freedom.
Its like saying:
A = negation of negation of A.
Negation of A is a bad thing.
Negation of negation of A prevents bad thing.
Thus, A prevents bad thing.
Freedom nor passion is inherently good. As the logic shows, as the history of the world shows, these have to be placed in context to determine good or bad quality.
There is no context you can place it in, as resolution doesnt allow situation where freedom doesnt exist. My position defends the position that no one should lack freedom ever again, thus you must defend why someone should lack freedom.
As the history of the universe has shown that this is true. Speaking of the universe, here's an example and also an example to actually prove a point upon making one.Taking that the big bang happened as I'm dealing with the history of the universe, right, an explosion occurred.
I dont see what big bang has to do with the topic.
A big powerful explosion which has amounted to life and this is where good definitely is known to exist as we acquired a measurement of what good is or amounts to .
Your point?
We have a measurable qualifier to that what would be good.
Whats your point?
Now a big powerful explosion is not inherently good. Just because life, something good became of it, no .
Well, I dont remember arguing that big bang is good or bad, but sure, go on.
Any sharp reader should know where I'm going with this. A big powerful explosion can wipe all life out. It can vaporize all of us .
So? This topic deals with what should happen, not with what will happen.
Should is defined as that which is good. That which is good is defined as desirable. People want to have their desires realized forever. If everyone has freedom and passion, then everyone can realize their desires forever. Thus, everyone having freedom and passion forever is most desirable, thus most good, thus topic is clearly proven.
Context , context, context. Now freedom, socially, as the status quo has the typical perception of being a good thing. Why?
This was answered before.
Why is this the initial impression often?
Freedom = be able to get what you want
You want to be able to get what you want = you want freedom
Be able to get what you want = most desirable
Freedom = most desirable
Most desirable = good
Freedom = good
It's usually always in a positive context . So that's how it's often received in association. It's typically associated with such. But typical association is not inherentance.Just like the expression "we have to come together as a people". "Let us unite ". "We shall unite as one".As the author of a code book has said multiple times, "come together and do what?
Whatever each person wants is what is most important to that person.
See, context, context, context. We can get together for some noble just cause which is the often perception. But we can also come together in a criminal organization, gangbang, shakedown.
Actually, my position is equal to saying that no one should be a criminal who violates freedom of others.
It is your position which must defend that people should be criminals who violate other's freedom.
The topic clearly states "everyone should have freedom".
Thus, no one should be without freedom.
If no one is without freedom, then there are no criminals who take away freedom from others.
This is true by tautology, since if everyone has freedom, no one lacks freedom, so criminals who take away freedom dont exist since taking away of freedom doesnt exist. Thus, it is equal to saying that criminals should stop being criminals and respect freedom of others.
Thus, my position is that criminals who violate freedom of others shouldnt exist, but that they should be good citizens instead.
Your position is the only one which must defend that someone shouldnt have freedom or that people should take away freedom from each other.
Again, to make it clear, by tautology:
1. I defend that no one should lack freedom
2. You defend that someone should lack freedom
3. You must prove that forever "Someone lacking freedom" is better than "No one lacking freedom".
Thus, I request that you produce argument as to why is it bad that no one lacks freedom.
Then, we can all be together. Yes all be together in prison.So I'll stop there. Unless the opposing side really puts together some strong points, things that can be proven in reality and not just saying this is that and that is this, back up your case .
Prison isnt freedom. Also, my case isnt that "everyone has freedom", but that everyone should have freedom.
"Should" doesnt mean that something exists or will ever even exist. It just means that something would be good if it existed.
"I dont need to prove it. Its a tautology. People want to do what they want to do. Its like saying A is equal to A. Its impossible to disprove."
Let the record show that the opposing side has not proven that everybody wants freedom. It is an astronomical and impossible burden to meet. However the claim was erroneously made by the opposing side. Now any opposing argument build upon this claim is also unfounded.
If the opposing side continues to refuse to back up this point, any point following is invalid.
"1. We have proved that it would be very bad if someone didnt have freedom."
I'm sorry I missed what the evidence was. What proves that someone that doesn't have freedom to do something is automatically bad?
"2. We have proved that if everyone had freedom, no one would be without freedom.
Thus, everyone should have freedom."
So this would include those that don't have freedom and has had freedom taken away.
"Its like saying:
A = negation of negation of A.
Negation of A is a bad thing.
Negation of negation of A prevents bad thing.
Thus, A prevents bad thing."
I'm looking for clarity so forgetting all this A and B variable equations, are you arguing that all people in all societies as we know them now of them having freedom is good?
"There is no context you can place it in, as resolution doesnt allow situation where freedom doesnt exist. My position defends the position that no one should lack freedom ever again, thus you must defend why someone should lack freedom."
Ok prove there's no context freedom can be placed in. If you can't, recant your statement of "There is no context you can place it in".
Why should someone lack freedom? You're arguing that freedom is good , right. So I would argue, someone should lack the freedom to do what it is that would be not good.
Simple right, did you get it?
"I dont see what big bang has to do with the topic."
You're really this obtuse. No offense.
*Whats your point?"
The point is context , context my obtuse non sharp comrade.
"Should is defined as that which is good. That which is good is defined as desirable. People want to have their desires realized forever. If everyone has freedom and passion, then everyone can realize their desires forever. Thus, everyone having freedom and passion forever is most desirable, thus most good, thus topic is clearly proven."
Speaking of "should" , you should really take debates more seriously. This has got to be the most foolish logic yet.
Do you not realize you're conflating good with bad?
These definitions of yours are too broad and since it appears you don't give credence or merit or acknowledgement to context, you lack context in your position to give these definitions a tight framework.
I take it that you would argue for good being subjective. Once you try to argue or stand for that, it won't hold water. It'll self nullify itself. It's like saying according to one's opinion of what is good. Opinions are subjective and there are no right or wrong opinions. So there is no right or wrong, good or not good.
"Freedom = be able to get what you want
You want to be able to get what you want = you want freedom
Be able to get what you want = most desirable
Freedom = most desirable
Most desirable = good
Freedom = good"
I wasn't asking you. You apparently have no clue. If you've actually read what I post , I explain my own conclusions in my argument as it appears in which you quoted.
Freedom equals neutral.
"Whatever each person wants is what is most important to that person."
This is not a rebuttal to what I said about freedom is usually always in a positive context often received in association with. So I take this as your agreement to my point of how this doesn't make an inheritance but an association to freedom.
"Actually, my position is equal to saying that no one should be a criminal who violates freedom of others."
Ok this contradicts your position.
You said:
"Thus, everyone should have freedom."
Everyone should not have freedom. There are those that should not have the freedom to violate the freedom of others with the exception of non criminality. Therefore, those that do or try must have their freedom violated or removed . Therefore also negated your original premise.
"It is your position which must defend that people should be criminals who violate other's freedom."
No. It is my position that is not everyone having freedom which you just conceded to with the following: "Actually, my position is equal to saying that no one should be a criminal who violates freedom of others."
"The topic clearly states "everyone should have freedom"."
Right and my position is opposed to that or is different from. Meaning I'm not for everyone. It doesn't mean I'm not for any. Just not EVERYONE.
"Thus, no one should be without freedom."
You say no one contradicting your own position again.
"If no one is without freedom, then there are no criminals who take away freedom from others."
You're going to have to prove this. If all people have freedom, criminality would increase. Why's that Mall?
All people would include those in prisons with the freedoms taken away for the very reason in the first place .
"This is true by tautology, since if everyone has freedom, no one lacks freedom, so criminals who take away freedom dont exist since taking away of freedom doesnt exist. Thus, it is equal to saying that criminals should stop being criminals and respect freedom of others."
So all being free have no restrictive laws so criminality would not exist, ok. Would bad or what is not good still exist?
"Thus, I request that you produce argument as to why is it bad that no one lacks freedom."
You release all convicts and see if that's a bad thing. I know you mentioned about criminals not existing or whatever in some wild hypothetical but we're dealing with reality to now dealing with people how they are and what they'd do when left free to do so.
I rest my case. I'm out of time to proofread with four minutes remaining. Pardon any grammatical errors.
Round 3
Let the record show that the opposing side has not proven that everybody wants freedom. It is an astronomical and impossible burden to meet. However the claim was erroneously made by the opposing side. Now any opposing argument build upon this claim is also unfounded.
Tautology is a logic which doesnt require proof. Kinda like axiom, which I demonstrated in simple equation later.
I'm sorry I missed what the evidence was. What proves that someone that doesn't have freedom to do something is automatically bad?
It is bad, since as explained before, what person wants the most is most important to that person. Realizing what person wants the most is good for that person's wants, since it achieves them. Further, no deviation from this logic can be justified.
For example, if you said the opposite, that what person wants the most is not most important to that person, you would be entering a contradiction where you cannot explain what else is more important. No matter which goal you set for other person, it doesnt change that such goal is only wanted by you, not by them. Further, importance of goals can only be valued by wants, thus no deviation from my logic can be justified, as opposite case doesnt even exist. You cannot value goals without wants, thus wants are most important.
So this would include those that don't have freedom and has had freedom taken away.
It includes all people.
I'm looking for clarity so forgetting all this A and B variable equations, are you arguing that all people in all societies as we know them now of them having freedom is good?
Everyone should have freedom indeed means that everyone should have freedom.
Ok prove there's no context freedom can be placed in. If you can't, recant your statement of "There is no context you can place it in".
This is equal to asking me to prove that there is no argument which disproves my position. As interesting as that is, only arguments which you present in debate count. Thus, until you present argument (context) which negates my argument, my argument isnt negated. You must prove that your argument negates my position. I have already proved it doesnt.
Why should someone lack freedom? You're arguing that freedom is good , right. So I would argue, someone should lack the freedom to do what it is that would be not good.Simple right, did you get it?
You are literally just repeating a defeated argument. If everyone has freedom forever, then no one is without freedom, thus bad things dont exist, since lack of freedom doesnt exist.
You're really this obtuse. No offense.
Well, wasting character space on insults instead of explaining your argument is great, I guess.
The point is context , context my obtuse non sharp comrade.
You didnt present any context.
Speaking of "should" , you should really take debates more seriously. This has got to be the most foolish logic yet.
Calling logic foolish doesnt disprove it. Thus, my logic stands undisproved.
Do you not realize you're conflating good with bad?
I am not conflating good with bad.
These definitions of yours are too broad and since it appears you don't give credence or merit or acknowledgement to context, you lack context in your position to give these definitions a tight framework.
"Too broad" isnt really the argument.
And me negating your context doesnt disprove me either. It just disproves you.
I take it that you would argue for good being subjective. Once you try to argue or stand for that, it won't hold water. It'll self nullify itself. It's like saying according to one's opinion of what is good. Opinions are subjective and there are no right or wrong opinions. So there is no right or wrong, good or not good.
Attacking a strawman...
I wasn't asking you. You apparently have no clue. If you've actually read what I post , I explain my own conclusions in my argument as it appears in which you quoted.
This is nonsense.
Freedom equals neutral.
Impossible, as explained before.
This is not a rebuttal to what I said about freedom is usually always in a positive context often received in association with. So I take this as your agreement to my point of how this doesn't make an inheritance but an association to freedom.
More nonsense rambling.
Ok this contradicts your position.You said:"Thus, everyone should have freedom."
Thats the topic. The topic doesnt contradict topic.
Everyone should not have freedom. There are those that should not have the freedom to violate the freedom of others with the exception of non criminality.
This doesnt negate my position. If everyone has freedom, then no one is violating freedom of others, as no one lacks freedom. I dont see what is so hard to understand about literal simple tautology.
Everyone has freedom = No one lacks freedom
No one lacks freedom = No one is taking away freedom from others
Everyone has freedom = No one is taking away freedom from others
There is no way to deny this simple equation, thus my opponent can only argue for opposite situation, that "someone lacking freedom" is better than "no one lacking freedom, that "someone taking away freedom from others" is better than "No one taking away freedom from others".
Thus, my opponent must argue that people should be criminals, where the topic says by equation that no one should be criminal.
No. It is my position that is not everyone having freedom which you just conceded to with the following: "Actually, my position is equal to saying that no one should be a criminal who violates freedom of others."
As much as I like when people deny reality, it was already proven by equation that topic is "No one should violate freedom of others" with you as Con.
Right and my position is opposed to that or is different from. Meaning I'm not for everyone. It doesn't mean I'm not for any. Just not EVERYONE.
So you think people should violate freedom of others. Yet you didnt present any argument as to why is "No one violating freedom of others" worse than your position of "someone violating freedom of others". If violating freedom is bad, then no one violating freedom of others is not bad.
"Thus, no one should be without freedom."You say no one contradicting your own position again.
Its literally the topic.
You're going to have to prove this. If all people have freedom, criminality would increase. Why's that Mall?
Yes, Mall, why would criminality increase?
All people would include those in prisons with the freedoms taken away for the very reason in the first place .
If those people in prison and everyone else have freedom forever, then those in prison would stop being criminals, thus they should have freedom. If person stops being a criminal forever, then prisons become unnecesary.
Let me repeat the topic again:
Everyone should have freedom and passion forever.
Thus, at no point in future would anyone's freedom be violated by anyone.
So can you finally give argument to support your position which defends that people shouldnt stop being criminals?
So all being free have no restrictive laws so criminality would not exist, ok.
Strawman.
Would bad or what is not good still exist?
Bad wouldnt exist, because everyone would get what he wants, and no one would be denied of freedom.
The word "should" means it would be good to. Obviously, it would be good if everyone had their desires realized and if no one violated desires of others.
Thus, we are not discussing about what will exist or what can exist, but what it would be good to exist if it existed.
You release all convicts and see if that's a bad thing. I know you mentioned about criminals not existing or whatever in some wild hypothetical but we're dealing with reality to now dealing with people how they are and what they'd do when left free to do so.
We are not dealing with "reality" or "now", because the topic is not "everyone has freedom now". The topic is also not "Everyone should have freedom now".
The topic is, I must repeat again: "Everyone should have freedom and passion forever".
Notice the word forever. Thus, I am arguing that at no point in the future should anyone lack freedom. Thus, "criminals" would not be able to violate anyone's freedom, because my position is that they shouldnt be able to violate anyone's freedom. Your position must defend the opposite tho.
By simple equation:
Everyone has freedom forever = No one can lose freedom while forever lasts
No one can lose freedom while forever lasts = No one is able to violate anyone's freedom while forever lasts
Forever lasts forever. Thus, no one would ever be able to violate anyone's freedom.
If no one can violate anyone's freedom, then criminals cannot violate anyone's freedom.
This is true by tautology. Every part of this equation is a tautology which cannot be denied. But it negates your argument completely, because it shows that your position is the one which defends that "world where no one ever lacks freedom" is worse than"world where someone lacks freedom". But you didnt really provide any arguments to support your position.
Here is extra 1000 characters. Have fun.
"Tautology is a logic which doesnt require proof. Kinda like axiom, which I demonstrated in simple equation later."
You here to prove your case. Prove it. Saying I don't have to prove anything is a copout.
"No matter which goal you set for other person, it doesnt change that such goal is only wanted by you, not by them. Further, importance of goals can only be valued by wants, thus no deviation from my logic can be justified, as opposite case doesnt even exist. You cannot value goals without wants, thus wants are most important."
A bunch of mumbo jumbo verbosity. Still haven't proven anything.
"Everyone should have freedom indeed means that everyone should have freedom."
This did not answer the question . I asked is it good all for all people to have freedom. Evading out of this one as well.
"This is equal to asking me to prove that there is no argument which disproves my position. As interesting as that is, only arguments which you present in debate count. Thus, until you present argument (context) which negates my argument, my argument isnt negated. You must prove that your argument negates my position. I have already proved it doesnt."
Ok so the opposing side can't prove freedom cannot be placed in a context. The opposing side is not here to prove anything. Let alone contradicting the opposing case in several instances.
"You are literally just repeating a defeated argument. If everyone has freedom forever, then no one is without freedom, thus bad things dont exist, since lack of freedom doesnt exist."
What a bunch of nonsense. Not a rebuttal. I think this is the last time with you.
"Well, wasting character space on insults instead of explaining your argument is great, I guess."
It doesn't matter what I say when you're this obtuse. I'm wasting characters themselves trying to use them to communicate my points to you .
"You didnt present any context."
Go ahead and deny it. You're obtuse and a copout.
"Calling logic foolish doesnt disprove it. Thus, my logic stands undisproved."
You're still on this site for fun and games.
"I am not conflating good with bad."
Yes you don't realize it .
""Too broad" isnt really the argument.
And me negating your context doesnt disprove me either. It just disproves you."
Contradiction . You just said :"You didnt present any context."
You're not paying attention. You're not serious. Everyone having freedom is good is foolish because we take freedoms away for the good as well as grant them for the same.
Even simpletons can comprehend this. Your excuse, on here for fun and games.
"Attacking a strawman..."
I said I take it . As in take it as part of your position. Not that I know it is. Obtuse as all get out.
"This is nonsense."
This is a joke. You're on here for jokes, giggles, not seriously reading my points nor making counter logical cogent responses to them.
"Impossible, as explained before."
This is a joke. You're on here for jokes, giggles, not seriously reading my points nor making counter logical cogent responses to them.
"More nonsense rambling."
This is a joke. You're on here for jokes, giggles, not seriously reading my points nor making counter logical cogent responses to them.
"Thats the topic. The topic doesnt contradict topic."
Obtuse.
"This doesnt negate my position. If everyone has freedom, then no one is violating freedom of others, as no one lacks freedom. I dont see what is so hard to understand about literal simple tautology."
Obtuse .
"There is no way to deny this simple equation, thus my opponent can only argue for opposite situation, that "someone lacking freedom" is better than "no one lacking freedom, that "someone taking away freedom from others" is better than "No one taking away freedom from others".
Thus, my opponent must argue that people should be criminals, where the topic says by equation that no one should be criminal."
Now this is an actual strawman . I've already made my points to refute the opposing side. Case closed.
"As much as I like when people deny reality, it was already proven by equation that topic is "No one should violate freedom of others" with you as Con."
Why would you like that?
Also that is not the topic. You're moving the goalpost. You're really a poor debater with all these fallacies .
"So you think people should violate freedom of others. Yet you didnt present any argument as to why is "No one violating freedom of others" worse than your position of "someone violating freedom of others". If violating freedom is bad, then no one violating freedom of others is not bad."
I'll reiterate and this closes the case:
"If all people have freedom, criminality would increase. Why's that Mall?
All people would include those in prisons with the freedoms taken away for the very reason in the first place ."
So is this good or bad?
The opposing side has yet to answer this.
"If those people in prison and everyone else have freedom forever, then those in prison would stop being criminals, thus they should have freedom. If person stops being a criminal forever, then prisons become unnecesary."
It doesn't matter if they're technically criminals or not. See you're playing with the convenience of the technicality knowing you have to face the question, is this good or bad. You're arguing everybody should have freedom as this would be good .
You're argument collapses on this very point.
Your premise :
"1. Freedom and passion are good and desirable
2. Everyone having freedom and passion is good"
You stated so many things that can conflict this but I'll pick one.
"It is bad, since as explained before, what person wants the most is most important to that person."
What a person wants is freedom to live and another wants that person not to have freedom to live. You can say it's bad for the one person to not have the freedom to live but isn't because the other person wants the freedom to take away another's.
This is where you're faulty premise collapses as you refuse to drop the conflation, broad sweeping premise that needs to be contextualized.
"Everyone should have freedom and passion forever.
Thus, at no point in future would anyone's freedom be violated by anyone."
What about those that want the freedom to violate?
This is what you have not addressed because you can't refute it.
"So can you finally give argument to support your position which defends that people shouldnt stop being criminals?"
You gave it for me. When you say EVERYBODY have freedom, that includes criminals to be free to keep in being criminals. That's your logic.
"Strawman."
Ok so criminality would still exist, thanks.
"Bad wouldnt exist, because everyone would get what he wants, and no one would be denied of freedom."
What about those that want the freedom to violate or deny freedoms of others?
This is what you have not addressed because you can't refute it.
"The word "should" means it would be good to. Obviously, it would be good if everyone had their desires realized and if no one violated desires of others."
This is where your argument collapses.
"Thus, we are not discussing about what will exist or what can exist, but what it would be good to exist if it existed."
Hypotheticals won't help you. You have to prove what you say. Reality is backing me up and it's debunking you .
"We are not dealing with "reality" or "now", because the topic is not "everyone has freedom now". The topic is also not "Everyone should have freedom now"."
Then you forfeit because it is only by reality you can prove anything.
"The topic is, I must repeat again: "Everyone should have freedom and passion forever".
Notice the word forever. Thus, I am arguing that at no point in the future should anyone lack freedom. Thus, "criminals" would not be able to violate anyone's freedom, because my position is that they shouldnt be able to violate anyone's freedom. Your position must defend the opposite tho."
What about those that want the freedom to violate or deny freedoms of others?
This is what you have not addressed because you can't refute it.
"By simple equation:
Everyone has freedom forever = No one can lose freedom while forever lasts
No one can lose freedom while forever lasts = No one is able to violate anyone's freedom while forever lasts
Forever lasts forever. Thus, no one would ever be able to violate anyone's freedom.
If no one can violate anyone's freedom, then criminals cannot violate anyone's freedom."
Here's where you equation falls short. What about those who want their freedom gone, violated, removed, whatever?
What about those who want to be slaves?
The debate is over literally and in refutation to your side.
Do not go with the everybody this everybody that. It's fallacious.
"This is true by tautology. Every part of this equation is a tautology which cannot be denied. But it negates your argument completely, because it shows that your position is the one which defends that "world where no one ever lacks freedom" is worse than"world where someone lacks freedom". But you didnt really provide any arguments to support your position.
Here is extra 1000 characters. Have fun."
It's falsity and nonsense.
No time for grammer checks.
Peace, I wish you well.
Did I just make a trap debate? Well, I guess we will see, but I dont usually do that.
Common guys, at least this is an easy topic.