No such thing as general financial freedom
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Financial freedom usually means having enough savings, financial investments, and cash on hand to afford the kind of life we desire for ourselves and our families.It means growing savings that enable us to retire or pursue the career we want without being driven by earning a set salary each year. Financial freedom means our money is working for us rather than the other way around.
How do you become financially free?
To become financially free, you must pay off your consumer debts, build a safety net of savings funds, and create enough passive income through investing or business ownership to pay for your current and expected future living expenses.
We are burdened with increasing debt, monetary emergencies, excessive consumer spending, and other problems that keep us from reaching our most meaningful financial objectives.Such challenges confront everybody, but the following twelve habits can put you on the ideal path to financial wellness.
- sufficient/enough savings
- financial investments
- cash on hand
afford the kind of life we (or you) desire for ourselves and our families.
You know you're not free from finances and paying bills.
Financial freedom usually means having enough savings, financial investments, and cash on hand to afford the kind of life we desire for ourselves and our families.It means growing savings that enable us to retire or pursue the career we want without being driven by earning a set salary each year. Financial freedom means our money is working for us rather than the other way around.How do you become financially free?To become financially free, you must pay off your consumer debts, build a safety net of savings funds, and create enough passive income through investing or business ownership to pay for your current and expected future living expenses.We are burdened with increasing debt, monetary emergencies, excessive consumer spending, and other problems that keep us from reaching our most meaningful financial objectives.Such challenges confront everybody, but the following twelve habits can put you on the ideal path to financial wellness.We/You are able to have:
- sufficient/enough savings
- financial investments
- cash on hand
in order to:afford the kind of life we (or you) desire for ourselves and our families.Therefore, there is such a thing as general financial freedom.
NO SUCH THING as GENERAL FINANCIAL FREEDOM
PRO makes a big bold statement without bothering to define terms or really explain his thesis. What does PRO mean when he says GENERAL FINANCIAL FREEDOM?
BoP is on PRO. As far as I can tell, PRO means money generally. But there is such a thing as freedom from money- children, Bushmen of the Kalahari, prisoners, slaves, a few other off-the-grid self sustainers. Generally, history and I agree that money is a positive innovation, allowing for a practical medium of exchange, a standard by which to value labor, a method for deferring transfers of wealth and means of storing value. Yes, there would be some freeing aspects to a return to barter but all humanity would be far less wealthy and efficient for it. PRO could argue that there's no such thing as freedom from electricity for most of humanity and that's true but I dare so most humans prefer it that way. Certainly, PRO's case fails to persuade me to feel concern for a life well improved.
CON defines FINANCIAL FREEDOM first and so wins the debate.
PRO essentially concedes in R3. CON says ",to have financial freedom is to have paid them off and have money to spare" and PRO agrees several times and unconditionally, affirming that there is such a thing as financial freedom according to CON's definition and that freedom is achievable for some, at least. Hard to discern PRO's intent in this debate.
Certainly, PRO failed to show there is no such thing as financial freedom.
BOP: This was not discussed in the debate. However, since Pro is making the claim, I will regard him as having the main BOP.
Arguments: Pro argues that, becuase we are all stuck in a currency system, we are all bound to it, and are thus not financially free. Furthermore, he argues that even people who can pay their bills are still obliged to pay them.
Con counters that the definition of financial freedom is "having enough savings, financial investments, and cash on hand to afford the kind of life we desire for ourselves and our families." Thus, none of Pro's arguments apply to financial freedom.
Pro counters that we are still not free from finances and bills. He states, "We're not arguing definitions." This is quite wrong, as definitions make a huge difference in this debate.
Con replies that financial freedom is to have bills paid off with money to spare. Thus, although we are not free from paying bills, we can still have freedom with the money we have left.
Pro's counter boils down to this statement: "Correct, within the prison walls."
The rest of the debate is mostly reiteration.
This debate comes down to definitions. If Pro is correct that financial freedom means freedom from finances, he wins. If Con is correct that finanical freedom refers to having money left over after paying bills, thereby granting people a measure of freedom, then he wins.
Pro argues a lot about how we aren't free from the financial system. However, he doesn't do much to argue that that is what the phrase "financial freedom" refers to. In common usage, it does not refer to freedom from the finances. Pro also fails to present any sources to back his preferred definion. On the other hand, Con provides a source to back up his definition.
Overall, I thought Con's approach to this debate was rather lazy, given how little he posted. However, I just don't think that Pro met his burden of proof. Arguing that a common phrase should mean something other than what it normally means requires much more than what he provides. Therefore, I am giving the win to Con.
This round quite simply comes down to the meaning of Financial freedom. If financial freedom means having enough money to do as you desire then Neg will obviously win because that is possible as neg points out, and therefore there is financial freedom. On the other hand, if financial freedom means being free from money then Pro will win because you can never really be free from money.
Neg disputes this fact saying “Pro denies that if you no longer have to pay a bill, you are free of it. In fact, even if you have to pay off a loan.” The reason this response falls short for me is that it in no way proves the entire premise that you will always be financially bound to something wrong, and instead gives specific examples. As Pro points out, even if you are living on private or public land out in the woods, you are still dependent on money to at least some extent, which is just one example.
Neg provides this definition of ‘afford the kind of life we (or you) desire for ourselves and our families’ for what it means to be financially free, but then In R2 Pro said not to debate the definitions, and gives a warrant on logic and truth.
Here the response from Neg seems to be lacking. In R2 he restates that financial freedom is just being free from debt — but there is no substantive warrant with this. Then Con brings up the word general to say that the resolution is absolute, but Pro responds saying that it means not to consider rare exceptions. Neg could have definitely won here, but unfortunately his R3 does not extend this, and simply consists of ‘Money is necessary’. This means I have to flow through Pros rebuttal. So ultimately I think I have to accept the fact that it is more important to debate Pros' version of what it means to be financially free.
This means that going into R4 Pro has access to their definition, and because Negs entire argument is dependent on that definition he has access to nothing.
The final argument by Neg talks about how financial freedom is the money you have left over, and then restates the definition. It would have been very easy to win on this had Neg said anything in r3 responding to Pros point that general does not create an absolute resolution, or even just why we need to use an actual definition in the first place to have a good debate over Pros point that definitions are harmful.
Pro proves throughout the debate that you can never really be free of currency, and that this is what financial freedom means (this was up in the air until R3 when Neg drops case). This is the reason that I vote for pro, on top of the fact that I do not really see any other area that I can vote Neg on as the definition was lost.
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.
thank you for your vote, it seems you saw what I did in Round 3.
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
I am not qualified to vote yet. I need 100 posts
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.
It didnt matter to respond to, if money is necessary and my definition holds.
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.
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).
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.
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.
please vote here, 1 day left but easy read
I never dropped the case at all, I gave a definition in Round 1
I would appreciate a vote here.
Good to see you back here!
Welcome back