Instigator / Pro
0
1496
rating
159
debates
26.73%
won
Topic

As long as the system of currency exists, there is no such thing as debt free .

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
25,000
Contender / Con
1
1908
rating
76
debates
94.74%
won
Description
~ 723 / 5,000

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.

I'll expound on the debt I'm talking about so those that elect to enter this exchange, enter at their own peril. You enter this thing finding out you actually agree, there goes the debate.

Questions on the topic, send a message, leave a comment, good day.

Round 1
Pro
In talking about debt, I'm referring to all financial obligation. Keyword ALL, ALL financial obligation matters is a debt. 

The debt is something obligated to be paid in order to satisfy a charge for something in the world of commerce. 

We have a currency system in order to buy goods and services that are for sale.

The cost or price of something is what you can say is the condition, prerequisite to meet in order to acquire (buy) the product/commodity.

Now people look at debt as a credit card balance which is an obligation. Any type of loan, car loan, mortgage, student loan, these are all sorts of debts.

But they're not all the kinds that only exist due to the currency system that keeps us owing somebody because we're always in need of exchanging in the commerce world.
Con
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
I rest my case.
Con
Definitions
  • Debt: a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: a state of owing

Overview
  • The proposition pro needs to defend is that "[a]s long as the system of currency exists, there is no such thing as debt free." Because this is a universal claim (in the sense that it is impossible for someone to be debt free under this system, pro needs to show the contradiction in someone not being in a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: a state of owing under a system that holds a currency. We can express this as such: 
P1) If a claim is made for all of x, that x cannot be debt free under a given system and set of conditions, the claim must demonstrate the contradiction in the existence of its negation (x can be debt free under a given system) (A→B) 
P2) Pro made a claim that for all of x, x cannot be debt free under a given system and set of conditions (B) 
C) Pro must demonstrate the contradiction in the existence of its negation (∴A) 


  • Further, given that pro offered no definitions or arguments in the first round, we can offer "rebuttals," to the vague notions of propositions expressed by pro who holds the burden of proof. 
The cost or price of something is what you can say is the condition, prerequisite to meet in order to acquire (buy) the product/commodity.
  • I can agree with this proposition if it is as trivial as saying the cost of an item, is what you need to pay in order to obtain it, however, this does not mean someone is in debt for purchasing a such item as long as he does not owe money to anyone prior to the transaction. 
 ...we're always in need of exchanging in the commerce world'
  • There is no entailment here that one is in "a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: or, a state of owing. 
Round 3
Pro
"The cost or price of something is what you can say is the condition, prerequisite to meet in order to acquire (buy) the product/commodity."

"I can agree with this proposition if it is as trivial as saying the cost of an item, is what you need to pay in order to obtain it"

It's not really what you call a proposition. It's just the truth. Not even something to look at for a chance to be contestable.
You have not much choice else where but to agree with the truth.

Often times, you guys rarely recognize truth when you read it and want to fight with it .

I never said I propose this. Where do you get this from? None other than ideas in your own head .

"however, this does not mean someone is in debt for purchasing a such item as long as he does not owe money to anyone prior to the transaction. "

I want you to pay close attention to what I'm saying. Make an effort to understand, don't gloss over anything.

The person as long as they're in the system of currency, living by participating in the world of commerce always owing somebody in the present and future, it will be that .

Before we go too far because you're going to just get confused after this point, do you understand this part?

"There is no entailment here that one is in "a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: or, a state of owing. "

I'll ask this to get a straight answer. Do you believe that in this system we live by exchanging currency back and forth, that there are cases of payment obligation directly or indirectly that don't exist?

Are you saying there are instances where no payment to somebody somewhere is required in exchange for something?

This goes back to the ever existing prison of finances.

Like I said when I'm talking about debt, I have a well rounded scope.

I'm not just talking a credit card balance. After an item is in your possession, depending on the terms, you're still paying on it .

As you continue to thirst for water, someone else has a price, prerequisite, obligation, condition for you to meet to receive the water.

The reality is, it's a never ending process of a cycle. That is the nature of debt or being indebted.


Con
  • My showing that there are around 25% of people who are debt free was dropped. This in of itself disproves the resolution.
  • Extend all arguments as Mall has not shown the contradiction: (as reminder) 
The proposition pro needs to defend is that "[a]s long as the system of currency exists, there is no such thing as debt free." Because this is a universal claim (in the sense that it is impossible for someone to be debt free under this system, pro needs to show the contradiction in someone not being in a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: a state of owing under a system that holds a currency.   

  • Needing to pay for something does not mean you are in debt. Debt: a state of being under obligation to pay or repay someone or something in return for something received: a state of owing. Back to Mall. 

Round 4
Pro
"My showing that there are around 25% of people who are debt free was dropped. This in of itself disproves the resolution."

My apologies, it's not my intent to ignore you.

So you're saying there are people that are " debt free". Ok , are you dropping what debt is as I communicate it?

You say I'm ignoring you but in actuality, you're neglecting what I say when I use terms .

When you communicate with people, understanding their position, you are to understand what their position is and if it is valid based on their position standards, not yours . Why?

It's because it's THEIR position. Plain and simple.

I'm going to give an example because I want all of you to get this.

I say that I'm an atheist for instance because I don't believe that God exists.

Atheists like myself have no beliefs.
That's what it means in my position to be an atheist and those alike.

Someone else that believes different says atheists believe there is no God .

That person says "So you're not an atheist". Not only is that person out of place telling me what my own position is that is subject to none else but myself, they're disregarding my position as it is constituted.

When someone tells you what it means to them, you can only contest the validity within the subjective stance.

So in that example, an atheist is someone who disbelieves. How can that outsider refute it as an actual stance based on it ?

The outsider has to find something inconsistent, invalid, something in error from a conflict or contradiction within the stance to negate the stance altogether as being true.

So if it is learned that the standard to disbelief is about personal feelings, not liking the idea of God, it wouldn't hold up.

Thus therefore debunking the stance altogether based on "its logic".

So this is called arguing my position, not what you want it to be and refute that.

Now kindly argue mine.

"Needing to pay for something does not mean you are in debt. Debt: a state of being under obligation to pay "

You just contradicted your point.

Again, I don't think you answered my question. Are there instances while being in existence of this system at the same time that a payment is not obligated for something directly or indirectly?

You say debt is not needed which is not required which is not mandated or obligated to pay , then state a definition that says just that .

If I'm obligated, I need to , I have to.

Now you or someone might say "state of". This is what a lot of you are missing.

Under what instance are we not under that state directly or indirectly?

As long as this system exists, it's a repetitive cycle of commerce, exchanging goods and currency, so when are we not under that?

It's a system, understand, a system. It's not stop and go, on and off. It's a non-stop system.





Con
x. Debt
So you're saying there are people that are " debt free". Ok , are you dropping what debt is as I communicate it?

a. Lack of contradiction
  • Pro is claiming that an entity can't be free from debt under a society with currency, so we need the contradiction in the existence of someone who is debt free within this set of conditions. Otherwise, the proposition is false. The argument:
P1) If a claim is made for all of x, that x cannot be debt free under a given system and set of conditions, the claim must demonstrate the contradiction in the existence of its negation (x can be debt free under a given system) (A→B) 
P2) Pro made a claim that for all of x, x cannot be debt free under a given system and set of conditions (B) 
C) Pro must demonstrate the contradiction in the existence of its negation (∴A) 

Other
You just contradicted your point.
  • What set of propositions form the contradiction? If these are not provided we should see a concession on this point. 
Are there instances while being in existence of this system at the same time that a payment is not obligated for something directly or indirectly?
Round 5
Pro
"Yeah, I don't really care what definitions you make up if they are not stipulated in the debate rules."

Well then we have nothing further. If you don't care to debate my position but to straw man it, you're blatantly ignoring what I'm saying and then claim you're refuting my position.

How can you refute my position as is if you are going to construct to refute that which isn't even mine?

We're not talking about rules. When someone has their own position, you have to debate them on it when you elect to participate.

Did you read all of the first round or skipped some or most of the information?

I made it very clear what my position is. I told you what I mean , what I'm talking about, how did you miss that?

This is nothing but a copout move making an excuse to avoid refutation on your part .

You don't care what I have to say pretty much by your statement. What's the matter with you guys?
Why are you so callous?

Do you have to take that much of a cheap move to be careless to the details of a person's stance?

You're looking for the "do's " and "don'ts" to this thing overlooking the fabric of facets of a person's position.

How can you refute somebody not knowing where and how they stand?

Duh, that's how the cheating strategy works. 

I mean you can only make a statement such as you did by ignoring the very first statement I made.
Either that or you have poor reading comprehension.

The first statement in round one here.

"In talking about debt, I'm referring to all financial obligation. Keyword ALL, ALL financial obligation matters is a debt. "

Keyword there is ALL so everything that has to do with being obligated to finance or pay for something is debt.

Did you not read that or did you not care to read it?

If you don't care what somebody has to say, why debate them?

Seriously, what is the matter with you?

"Now people look at debt as a credit card balance which is an obligation. Any type of loan, car loan, mortgage, student loan, these are all sorts of debts."

I've made it very clear from what others mean by debt.

"But they're not all the kinds that only exist due to the currency system that keeps us owing somebody because we're always in need of exchanging in the commerce world."

Maybe you were looking for the term "debt" and then a hyphen followed by a series of terms.

But things are not always subjected to you. Especially other people's positions. It's their viewpoints at where they stand.

We're in open communication, I'm clearly telling you what I'm talking about. You have to be deliberately glossing over things, intellectually dishonest or slow to comprehend.

We're always in need of a exchanging currency for a product fulfilling a condition, satisfying that obligation.

Can you at least have some credibility and acknowledge based on how I view it, with this set of criteria, looking at debt as an ever going cycling system, we're not out of it because it's EVER GOING?

Can you be honest about that?

You and your voters I'm talking to.

I understand that from my stance you can't refute it. That's evident because you have not done so. You've pieced together your own position for me which you have no right, then refute that.

That's just playing with your own self. Like in chess, just playing yourself. Your opponent is just a figment of your imagined constructed strategy.

A bunch of sorry copout movers over here.

Can't even be honest that you actually have a profile that constantly was preoccupied by repeatedly occupying a certain debate topic.

Go to the lengths of denying a profile exists where we witness the activity of that profile doing what it does, making responses, making arguments, accepting challenges.

I can go on and on but I have faith, one day there'll be full maturation.

Call the truth I'm speaking a ramble. You can't refute it, so then name call it. Amusing, how I got you figured out.

I don't think I ever decided to ignore what a person's position was. I'm debating that person on it, logically I have to pay attention to it .

Oh golly, if all this was live, whoa .

Ending it on this note. No refutation was made against MY position period. Ok, no, absolutely none was made, not a lick of an effort. The victor is him that those whom have learned and been edified by his points , those being the world at large .

Con
Forfeited