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
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.