Instigator / Pro
1
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#3443

No such thing as general financial freedom

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
2

After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

I was away at a three-day music festival in NYC, so could not vote. Congrats on your victory.

Another debate with no true opposing sides.

-->
@oromagi

thank you for your vote, it seems you saw what I did in Round 3.

-->
@SirAnonymous

the more effort you put in vs Mall the more he latches onto and gish gallops. Really I am fed up of debating him

Yeah, this one was close. RM put in the absolute bare minimum.

Mall may have won this debate. As this is my new account I do not yet have voting permissions, but I can evaluate that Rational Madman's output was much too low here.

From experience they take a good 12 hours to approve you even after hitting 100 posts. I will try. I know I will get the 5 posts in today

-->
@RationalMadman

I am not qualified to vote yet. I need 100 posts

-->
@RationalMadman

That might be fair, but this is just where different paradigms come in. The definition may very well hold if money is necessary, but in my view if you do not respond adequately in round I am going to award the point to the other side. Tech > Truth.

-->
@Kritikal

It didnt matter to respond to, if money is necessary and my definition holds.

-->
@RationalMadman

If you can show me where (after R2) you give a direct response to Pro's argument that: The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness, and where you explicitly address neg's theory that you should not debate around definitions, I will delete my vote.

-->
@RationalMadman

Your definition is obviously right, and pro's is obviously wrong. The problem isn't the merit of your definition, it is that you never answer the arguments put forth in R3 by pro (however wrong they may be in reality).

-->
@Kritikal

You have no idea how definitions in a debate work if you think Pro out-defined me in the debate and I have very little respect or concern for you as a voter. What you said is basically that my definition is wrong despite being backed by sources and making sense, while Pro's is correct even though he never properly deterred or handled mine.

-->
@RationalMadman

Everything flows through on Pro after R3, including his definition.

For clarification here is the flow as I see it interms of the defention:

You give a defenition in R1,

In R2 pro says "The copout response is to just say "no, there is financial freedom, there is a such thing based on this or these particular definitions". We're not arguing definitions. It's about what's logical, what makes sense, hence the truth.

What is the truth? Unless you've found a way to actually be free from money or finances, you're not FREE from it. Having a large amount of money means more freedom but not free from it. Like a prisoner that has a bigger cell with more knick knacks is a person with a bigger house and all like that. "

In R2 you say: "Financial freedom is about using the money one has in a way that is as free as one can be in said economy. This is why the debate's title says 'general financial freedom' and not 'absolute' :)"

Up to this point you are winning on the definition.

Then in R3 Pro says: "No this is not the reason. The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness. Those that have constructed cabins, hunt for food and survived forest environmental elements. But the general person you meet will be indebted and obligated financially as in not being free of it or from it.

You've stated things that support the debate title. These things are just being stated differently not under realization. Perhaps due to this topic never being thought of before holistically. The facts are what they are about the monetary system. You and others just may view and express them in varying fashions."

In R3 you say: "Money is necessary."
This does not respond to Pros analysis (albeit clearly B.S. analysis) of the resolution saying that it is not absolute. This is where you drop the entire case. Tech > Truth. Pro wins.

-->
@oromagi
@Nyxified
@PREZ-HILTON

please vote here, 1 day left but easy read

-->
@Kritikal

I never dropped the case at all, I gave a definition in Round 1

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

I would appreciate a vote here.

-->
@Mall

Good to see you back here!

-->
@Mall

Welcome back