There is no general financial freedom.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
I will be arguing that there is a such thing as financial freedom and that it is possible to be financially free. Firstly, the definition of Financial Freedom as per the Economic Times of India is "To have money in the bank to allocate as one desires, and to make all the decisions associated with that earning is a financial freedom to savour."(https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/plan/what-is-financial-freedom-it-means-different-things-for-different-people/articleshow/79095130.cms)
Financial freedom as defined above is clearly achievable and many people do feel as if they are financially free. In fact in 2019 CNBC found that 29% of Americans reported to be financially healthy. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/29-percent-of-americans-are-financially-healthy.html) Although it is indeed a small percentage of the American population, it does show that it is not impossible to be financially free.
Furthermore, Pro has argued that we are somehow bound to currency and that it is impossible to achieve financial freedom even with prolific amounts of money. However what they fail to realize is that although we are indeed bound to currency that does not mean that we cannot achieve financial freedom.
To provide an example, we are humans who have the freedom to express religious thought. However we are bound within the constraints of the law within which we can express our religious beliefs. For example, one cannot express their so-called religious freedom by committing an act of terror. So, in conclusion, although we have the freedom to express our religious ideas we cannot go beyond the limits of the law.
So, to put this in the context of this topic, we can achieve financial freedom but also at the same time be bound to paying off loans, taxes, essential goods, etc.
Pro's entire argument as to why there is no such thing as financial freedom rests upon the false premise that if we are bound to something we cannot, at the same time, be free. However, as I have explained above that is just not true.
In conclusion, financial freedom is possible through limited spending and smart saving. Thus if financial freedom can be achieved then it must exist as an existing entity.
Whether you realize it or not, this speaks to the illustration of the "big bosses" as prisoners of the penal prison system.Buy the way I want you to think about some words you used , "paying off". It's like saying you're finally free, no more debt, no more obligation. As long as you live on this planet, you'll be in somebody's debt obligation. Why? You're still integrated into a currency system. In order to buy, you have to trade services. You're obligated to participate somehow in this so called monopoly.
Paying things off as you say doesn't cancel paying bills. It just frees up a reserve of funds that was going towards one bill but now goes towards another.
We're all at different levels like a prison system. Each one of us has a different level because we're not exactly free from the system , free from finances. This is why the phrase "economically free" , "financially free" is questionable.
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.
Finally Mall is expanding a whole lot from the description. A great improvement indeed.
Perhaps not all as I discuss what you can call exceptions to the rule in the extended breakdown.
so you're saying we're all bound to money? An interesting idea.
Very tempting, too bad my hands are full