There is no general financial freedom.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
******The first round will be an expanded version of the debate description. Much information has to be explained more in detail than what the description field will allow.******
This notion of economic freedom/financial freedom is phony.
A previous debate I was in gave me an idea for this topic. I think the person was attempting to demonstrate their "slave free" life while being incognizant of their bondage to monetary currency.
Yes we are in a currency prison system folks. It is made up of what you can call monetary supremacy. It is the supreme ruler of the world and we are subjected to it.
To be continued................
For questions and clarity, please comment, send a message.
Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited multiple rounds. S/G tied because grammar did not divert from arguments. Sources tied because both sides used reasonable sources to support their arguments. Arguments to Pro because Con never refuted them due to the forfeit and as a result Pro extended them.
Majority forfeits by Con.
This was, unfortunately, a flawed debate by Con by full forfeiture after the 2nd round. Had Con continued the argument rounds my estimation was that Con would have taken the argument points for a more sound argument of potential attainment of financial freedom in that, although a financially free individual still has financial obligations, even if only monthly utilities, mortgage, etc, the available finances on hand are more than capable of covering those revolving debts. Financial freedom is not freedom from debt, Con successfully argued, but freedom to cover them with funds left over. Pro tried constantly to equate slavery or penal system imprisonment as comparable to lack of financial freedom, but in Pro's model, no one is truly outside the slavery/imprisonment model when, clearly there are people who are not so "enslaved." So, by demand of forfeiture, the best Con can achieve is a tie in argument.
I'll pass on Sourcing as a true vote, although as a voter, I have no choice to pass. A tie is the best that can be achieved since Pro had no sourcing whatsoever, but wins the debate by default of forfeiture by Con.
Also by forfeiture, however, Pro wins both Legibility and Conduct.
One of mall’s best debates. He shows people are shackled to money one way or another (Though more clarification in the description would certainly help). The opponent forfeited half the rounds do conduct to mall.