GITP Debating Auditorium

[xanaphia]

ONLY POST HERE IF YOU ARE A DEBATER

Good evening ladies, gentlemen, and debators. My name is Xanaphia and I am your host for this debate, the first in our GITP Debating competition series.

Tonight's topic is that freedom is essential to happiness. The topic was suggested by DamnedIrishman. Thanks to him. :round of applause:

Our teams are as follows.

Affirmative Team:
1st: GAThraawn
2nd: Llama231
3rd: Dirk Kris

Negative Team:
1st: Yarram
2nd: Verruck
3rd: Black_Pants_Guy

I'd like to give a special thanks to GAThraawn, who has written his debate with about one day's notice, because one Amesouers backed out. :Boo:

The debaters will post one after the other. When they are done, we will discuss the results in the discussion thread. Then the adjudicators will make a decision. Here's to it being a hard one!

I'd like to remind our audience to stay entirely silent throughout the debate, as in no posting. Please don't think of rebuttal for the teams, that takes away the fun. So without further ado,

I would like to call on GAThraawn, the first speaker of the affirmative team!

[GAThraawn]

Greetings fellow debaters, ladies, gentlemen and giants of the playground.
The topic that stands before us is certainly a large one, although not insurmountable, and I wish to stress that much of the importance here rests on the definitions of the terms used. So, let me begin with the concept of ``Happiness``.
``What is happiness?`` is a question that has plagued humanity since before we have had the language to describe it, and I am not immodest enough to imagine that I can resolve such a question right here. However, for the purpose of this debate, I propose that ``Happiness`` be defined as ``The fulfilment or satisfaction gained from pursuing and completing personal interests and goals.``.
It would be a grievous error to confuse happiness with simple physical pleasure, just as it would be a mistake to assume that there is one, all-uniting form of ``happiness`` that appeals equally to everyone.
An addict of any number of substances may struggle to break themselves free in pursuit of greater happiness, while still in the grips of the immediate pleasure that makes quitting so difficult. And while one man may call himself happy only when at home with his wife and child, another might describe his own happiest moments as those spent in quiet solitude up a mountaintop, or witnessing the success of a business into which he put everything.
What makes someone happy is a very personal thing.


This brings us to the definition of ``Freedom``, which remains the other cornerstone of this debate. Freedom, like happiness, is a very variable and personal concept, as in almost any system of government or anarchy there are people who live happily amidst the liberties and restrictions of the system, and others who chafe and rebel. There is, then, no single, absolute definition of “Freedom”.
Most people agree on slavery as a complete revocation of any form of freedom, and many have described the lack of freedom in the many oppressive dictatorships that have existed through history. In a modern society such as exists in the West today, however, people get far more embroiled in the minutia of the definition. Some clamour for more religious freedom, or artistic freedom, or freedom of expression.
But in almost every case where someone’s definition of their freedoms clashes with another’s, they are attempting to be allowed to do or involve themselves in something important to them. What an individual cherishes may vary wildly, but for everyone their freedom is the ability to pursue the interests and goals they seek to accomplish.
In order for one to be free, one must have: “The legal and social ability to pursue one’s own interests and perform actions to further one’s own goals.”, and therein lies my definition of the second term.


It should be stressed that this differs from the physical ability to perform actions of one’s choosing, for in any circumstance short of literal restraint a person has the ability to perform actions as they see fit. A slave back in America’s south could have opted to take the day off because he felt a little tired, or a Russian peasant could have struck up an animated conversation with her neighbour about the current atrocities of Stalin’s rule; nothing could have physically stopped them.
But to do so would have been in violation of the laws both of the government and society in which they found themselves, and the punishments they faced would be severe. A staunch supporter of Stalin’s, however, in exactly the same situation, would find themselves able to laud their leader, champion the regime and feel pride and satisfaction in supporting their country and an ideology in which they believed.
So too, Freedom and Happiness are not absolute terms to either be found, or not, in any given scenario, but rather aspects of a situation that may or may not be present for each individual. To be certain, though, one is always dependant on the other, for no situation in which a person’s freedom may be denied will allow them to acquire happiness.
How then should this best be proved? By giving an account of everyone know who enjoys freedom, and how they are happy? Not so, for I do not propose that happiness is certain to accompany freedom, only that it depends on it. Consider the inmate, chafing under the prison system, or the minimum-wage drudge who devotes his every hour slaving away at a fast food joint in order to make enough money to claw his way through night school in the hopes of having a brighter future, without a minute to himself.
Imagine even the number of popular artists, singers and actors and more, who have abandoned their popularity and immensely well-paid jobs and expensive lifestyles because they have found themselves to be an image created by someone else, without the freedom to pursue the artistic passions that drew them to their business in the first place, and unhappy enough to walk away from it all in the hopes of getting to fulfill their own goals once more.


In conclusion, the ability to follow whatever it is that makes a person happy is fundamental to the concept of freedom, and without that, any individual is guaranteed to be unable to go farther than languishing in their own frustration and impotence. Wants and desires vary from person to person, but whatever it is that offers someone fulfillment, their freedom is essential to their happiness.

[Yarram]

The negative team, is rather confused by the affirmative teams case, as our case seems to be denied. They have argued that "by being happy you are free" rather than "freedom is a requirement of happiness, because if you're able to persue goals that make you happy, you must be free" which rather gives us nothing to argue but the definition it-self.
I must point out, by this defenition, a man in prison is free, which is certainly against the point of putting him in prison in the first place.

The negative team denies the affirmative teams definition, instead we define the topic to mean, "The ability to act without consequence from a governing body, is not essential for humans to be content with life."
The reason we define this topic to mean that happiness is contentedness is to avoid any debate about what happiness is. Thankfully, the affirmative agrees with us, in saying that happiness isn't pleasure, but rather "the attainment of persued goals" Which we then disagree with again, because happiness is satisfaction with life. Achieving goals doesn't assure happiness, as this assumes that failure to achieve, means unhappiness, and the most obvious contradiction to this is sport, where the goal is to win, but it's still possible to enjoy loss.
Freedom again can't be the ability to persue goals that cause happiness, firstly because it denies out case, and secondly because technically, everyone is free to do whatever physically possible, but we don't consider that freedom, because consequence occurs. Therefore freedom must be the ability to act without causing harm or potential harm (Drunk drivers) without negative consequence.

Now on to our case; The country Tibet, can easily be considered one of the least free nations in the world, as it has been taken over by China and all "dissenters" have been sent off to labour camps. Without getting into politics, which is against forum policy (not that we didn't know that), it is easy to see, after one glance that Tibet isn't a free country. On the other side of the coin, we see the Dalai Lama, who is, a happy person. It is arguable that the Dalai Lama isn't affected by his country's oppression as he doesn't currently reside there, but certainly not that he isn't happy. Just look at the tens of books he has written on the subject. Even Google images, only shows him smiling.

The Dalai Lama, is not free to enter his own country however, due to him being a wanted criminal in China, and his supreme goal is to free Tibet. Even by the oppositions definition, that Freedom is pursuit of goals, he is not free, so therefore he mustn't be a happy person, but evidence convicts otherwise. The Dalai Lama however, has suffered negative consequence for perfectly rational, harmless goals.

The Dalai Lama, and in fact his whole culture show that it is possible to enjoy life under oppression. For the affirmative's case to be true, every single slave that has been needlessly oppressed has been unhappy. Note, again we aren't talking about "free" slaves that have every right in the world and are fed, but rather those that are needlessly abused, therefore, happiness is possible despite fierce oppression, and freedom is not required for happiness.

As an after note, we request that no more hypothetical situations be addressed by the affirmative team.
"Imagine even the number of popular artists, singers and actors and more, who have abandoned their popularity and immensely well-paid jobs and expensive lifestyles because they have found themselves to be an image created by someone else, without the freedom to pursue the artistic passions that drew them to their business in the first place."
Was not argued with any examples, so we therefore consider it a moot point.




((Hey. I hope you guys aren't offended by anything I've said, as none of it was personal. This is just how I debate :smallbiggrin:))

[Llama231]

Luckily, this member of the positive team is not befuddled by the negative team's expressions. The first affirmative did not state "by being happy, you are free", but rather stated "by being free, you are happy". For example (specifically the slave and Russian civilian ones), it is stated that someone could do something that they are not allowed to do and be happy, but they would still not be free, as opposed to not being punished for doing something because it makes them happy. In contrast, it appears that the first negative has supported that "by being happy, you are free" in its Dalai Lama example. It claims that while the Dalai Lama is happy while somehow not free. It continues to point out that despite not being able to do what would make him happy, the Dalai Lama is still a "happy person". Ironically, this supports the statement that "by being happy, you are free" more than countering "by being free, you are happy" as the Dalai Lama would be happy despite not being free, and thus free because he is happy.

Still, the question is not "is freedom the cause of happiness", rather it is "is freedom needed for happiness". As the question is stated by the first negative, "Is the ability to act without consequence from a governing body essential for humans to be content with life?" However, this would suggest that for example, a child could steal a cookie and be happy for a short time, but still be punished later. Basically, both of the previous debaters have argued over the act of someone doing something that would make them happy, and then the lack of freedom causing them to not be happy, or to not have an effect. But in the case of the child with the cookie, they would need to be able to reach it. The slave would need to stop anyone from ending his day off. The Dalai Lama would need to be able to think what he wants to think. All of these would still involve the freedom to enact the event, not solely to escape punishment for it.

In Layman's terms, person want, but must be able to get, not person want but must be able to avoid bad stuff afterward.

To toss some more examples into the pool, consider a skateboarder, a lawyer, a person watching a movie, and a hypothetical ruler of everything. And yes, I am "considering" more hypothetical situations, as that is what examples are. Unless, of course, the first negative means that in order for a hypothetical topic to be an example, it would need to be extremely specific. Still, this would be saying that a slave would not be an example, neither, a slave in a specific region, or a slave working for a specific person, it would have to be an exact individual, like Toby on Roots, or a similar instance. The first negative supports this by giving their only example as an exact person, the Dalai lama (while it is not specified which, it is assumed the current). To follow this would to force my examples to be exact people, like Bobby Joe the skateboarder in Chicago, Illinois, or Hank Youngman, the person watching "Up" last Monday at 9 am. This would be going too far, so I will simply use generic people as examples, like a slave, a Russian citizen, a hungry child, or a lawyer.

To begin with, a skateboarder generally likes to skate as it makes them happy. But what if the skateboarder wants to skate in park where it is not allowed, as it would make him happy to do it there? First of all, he will need to find a way, or the "freedom" to get into the park and skate. Then he will get the "happiness" from the skating. But if he is caught, he will be punished with the supposed "lack of freedom". But he has already skated, and was already happy, being punished will not go back in time and make him unhappy while he is skating. So, this would reveal that the point where freedom is important is the whether the skater is able to do something, not whether it is allowed. If he CAN do it, not if he MAY not.

I will make the following examples shorter, as they are just to support the point. A lawyer may not be allowed to lie on a case, but she could still do it to be happy. A person watching a movie may be underage, or payed to enter the theater with fake money, or viewing a pirated copy of the film, but could still be happy while watching the movie, and in order to watch it, the viewer would only need the freedom to watch it, not the permission. Finally, if someone were able to control everything, and it made them happy, the question is only how the got to this point, the freedom needed to achieve this power, not the question as to rather they will be punished for it. It is also worth note that the perpetrator of doing something that makes them happy must also be free from guilt.

While these points may seem to counter the first affirmative excessively, the overarching answer is the same. In order to be happy, you must be able to be happy. You must have the freedom that is required, that is essential, to be content.

Returning once again to the Dalai Lama, the first negative's sole example, the Dalai lama may not be able to do what he wants, yet is still happy. This is because, with all of his "wiseness", or such, he is simply content with being happy because he can be. But is someone were able to stick an implant in his mind, and force him to not be happy, for example, then the freedom that he needs to be happy would be removed. So in order to be happy, he must be able to be happy.

So it is not "by being happy, you are free", but "by being free, you are happy". "By being free to be happy, you CAN be happy."

"The ability to act without consequence from a governing body, is not essential for humans to be content with life" may be true, but the question is not "Is the ability to act without consequence from a governing body essential for humans to be content with life?". The real question is "Is the ability to content with life essential for humans to be content with life?" The answer, like saying 1+0=0+1, is yeas. In order to be able to be happy, for must be free to be ale to be happy.

And thus, freedom is essential to happiness.


This was 1127 words long, a little too long, but still within a sane deviation.


Separate topic: Would the rest of the affirmative team please contact me, so that we may communicate and work together, as opposed to blatantly throwing bits of what the first affirmative has stated "out the window", like I have due to lack of any team agreement.

[Verruckt]

While it is comforting to know that the affirmative team is comprised of competent individuals fully capable of ingesting a cogently thought out argument it seems odd that they would complain that we aimed to befuddle them and then immediately afterward launch into a storm of verbal chaff, self contradictions and tautologies. Once one strips away the veneer, however, the soul of the affirmative standpoint comes to light. That soul is one of definitions that strangle good debate and a conspicuous lack of linkage to any practical real world scenarios.

The affirmative’s definition is tautological, smothering any opportunity for skillful discussion and argument like a vampiric squid. In light of this I am all but forced to rely upon the negative’s definition, as it is the only that has been proposed that remains conducive to debate. To wit: "The ability to act without consequence from a governing body is not essential for humans to be content with life."

Demonstration of the truth of this definition is simplicity itself. While the Affirmative would have you believe that there is no definition for freedom (in which case the topic for debate could just as easily have read ‘slama-lama-ding-dong is essential for happiness’) or worse that the definition of freedom is happiness (which stamps out all possibility for discussion with the subtlety of a hobnailed boot) we would rest on a simple concept. Freedom is the ability to act without consequence from a governing body. This governing body could be construed as everything from something as concrete and unrelenting as a dictatorship to something as ephemeral as the zeitgeist of society fueling social norms. In that line of reasoning the only people who are really, truly free are the ones who are never touched by society or the ones in a position to ignore a society’s rules without consequence. These people do exist, the ungoverned are few, though, and often the cause of governance.

We do not contend that it is impossible for the ungoverned to be happy, but whether or not they find contentment is really irrelevant to this debate. We contend simply that within the strictures of a system of governance one can find contentment. That is to say that, even though an individual is not free, the individual can be happy. This is demonstrably true in our everyday lives. If in fact it were not possible to be happy whilst governed there would be a scarce few individuals enjoying themselves in all the earth.

Under our definitions the only individuals who perhaps find total freedom necessary for their happiness are those who flee society’s bounds altogether. Hermits, explorers and isolationists all find ways to strip themselves of any controlling influences save their own self determination. This, however, is acceptable within the parameters of the topic, as while freedom is a means for happiness to some, it is by no measure the only route to contentment. The affirmative endeavors to show that freedom is essential to happiness, and it most assuredly is not. A suburbanite can find contentment amid the metropolitan sprawl just as ably as an isolationist can in the Alaskan tundra. An office worker can reach happiness and even joy retreading a familiar commute day after day much the same way an explorer might forging ahead along paths untraveled. The people who really need to be ungoverned to find a semblance of satisfaction in their lives are far and away a tiny fraction of the species as a whole. The majority of humanity is perfectly capable of finding pleasure and gratification through other means, music, art, debate and even posting on these boards.

The notion that freedom is a necessary condition for happiness is rendered absurd in the face of such concrete examples to the contrary. The Dalai Lama is forbidden from ever returning to his kingdom, and yet finds joy in being. The argument that he must be “free to be happy” can even be boiled away to nothing. A man kept strapped to a gurney, fed through tubes and pumped full of drugs has literally no ability to determine his own actions, he is as un-free as one can possibly be. Yet, given the right cocktail of drugs in the right dosage he can slip into a chemical euphoria stronger than any we will ever experience, all on the whim of another. This is no hypothetical either, as published documentation of such projects as the CIA’s MKULTRA experimentation with LSD and other hallucinogenics in the 1950s and 60s clearly indicates.

A debate on concepts is fine, but one has yet to occur here. The affirmative’s position can be reduced to little more than a string of baseless assertions with no grounding in reality or even in theory. The negative in the other hand offers clean, solid definitions and examples rooted in common knowledge and common sense. Each of us finds happiness by a variety of means, freedom being but one of many possible paths. Given these plain facts the decision of the judges must fall to the negative argument. Freedom, ultimately, is not essential to happiness.

[Dirk Kris]

This debater chooses to ignore the arguements of the other debaters and stick with the topic at hand. No befuddlement here.

The question has been put forth - is freedom essential for happiness? My answer - a resounding yes. Need proof? Look no further than the millions of Americans incarcerated in our prison systems. Whether serving 30 days, 30 years, or 30 lifetimes, they all yearn for one thing - freedom. And perhaps it is because they know what freedom is, what it can mean. To them, it may be as simple as sleeping in late, wearing whatever clothes they like, or being able to go on a date. Whatever their crimes, whatever the reasons, they all want to be free.

Now, in other parts of the world, freedom is less something taken for granted and more of a privilege. In some places, freedom is but a dream. There are parts of the world where men are still enslaved, beaten or tortured for free-thinking, demoralized and mistreated for no reason at all. To these people, a dream of freedom means a life of happiness. In every culture, in all parts of the world, people from all walks of life agree - freedom means joy.

Maya Angelou wrote a book called "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". And the answer was simple - hope. Hope for freedom keeps us alive.

With that freedom also comes responsibilities, and for some people, that is too much to bear. So for some people, another person holding the reins, calling the shots, leading the way is the best outcome for them - being a follower. And while those people do not relish the responsibilities of being a free-thinker, they still enjoy the feeling of being free. Take the most calm, tame house pet you have ever met. Now corner it - when it perceives that its freedom is gone, instinct kicks in. And instinct says "Be free, or die."

...and who are we to dispute that?