John West wrote:

I realize that a lot of people are coming from pop apologetics where the aim is often to “win” debates by swaying hearts (and, ultimately, votes).

That seems like a voluntarist effort rather than an intellectualist effort, doesn't it? After all, why bother to strive toward the truth if the only thing that matters is what your heart says is right? Winning hearts and votes seems like a voluntarist tactic. An intellectualist would do as you are doing, which is to succor others toward finding the truth.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Due,I am not a libertarian or classical liberal, but the OP really needs to go into more detail, as well as apply the principle of charity. The kind of classical liberal the OP is describing sees individual autonomy as paramount. They elevate something like Mill's Harm Principle - that the state and anyone else has no business interfering in a citizen's life unless that citizen is directly harming others through force or fraud - into a basic principle of morality and politics. You need to address this moral philosophy.

The problem is that "elevating Mill's Harm Principle into a basic principle of morality and politics" = "elevating Mill's Harm Principle to the exclusion of any other principle for morality and politics" = "ignoring all externalities."

Let's suppose that Companies A, B, C, ..., X, Y, Z are trading with Country Δ causing the rust belt of Country Σ to devolve into ghettos, meth labs, and unemployment. This causes the people of sigma to react.

Citizens of Σ: Your free trade is causing our youth to die of meth explosions and heroin overdose! You have broken Mill's Harm Principle and are harming us by your free trade!

Companies A-Z: Huh? No we haven't. We didn't put a gun against Country Δ's, and Country Δ didn't put a gun against our heads. So no transgression of Mill's Harm Principle occurred.

Citizens of Σ: But if you didn't engage in that free trade we would have prospered and thrived! Therefore your free trade caused (by counterfactual definiteness) our youth and livelihood to be destroyed!

Companies A-Z: So what? Counterfactuals are external to our business transactions, so they don't count as transgressions against Mill's Harm Principle.

Citizens of Σ: But that's not fair! The externalities caused by your free trade do harm us!

Companies A-Z: The only way to eliminate these externalities is if Country Σ puts a gun against our head preventing us from trading. That would be restrict

"When people talk about traveling to the past, they worry about radically changing the present by doing something small, but barely anyone in the present really thinks that they can radically change the future by doing something small." ~ Anonymous

* If everyone on planet Earth all asked God to stop a quarter from falling, it seems absurd to believe that he would answer that prayer just because so many people asked. In fact, no religious person I know would believe that God would answer that prayer.

* Medical trials show that intercessory prayer is no better than placebo.

In light of these evidences, is it intellectually honest to believe that prayer has a chance of being answered?

@DanielCC unfortunately that thread doesn't give a definition of what freedom is. Is it "the ability to pursue multiple options and not be punished for taking advantage of this ability" or is it "being unlimited"?