The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should money be free

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheOneAndOnly_Syd has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 114986
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I think it should be free. I saw a Ferrari today but I couldn't afford it. With free money, I would have a Ferrari.


Honestly, that is a rhetorical question . Money shouldn't be free. If money was free, what would we use as currency? Everything in the world would basically be free and money would lose its meaning. This should be pretty obvious if you look at from a different view.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Very few things can be described accurately as free. To be free an object must lack self-value and cost. The addition of either self-value, or cost negate the state of free. Economically the point of impartial money is so the receipt can be used as a point of natural self-value.

We understand you would like a Ferrari. However Ferrari may not want you as a customer so it may use the impartiality of the receipt of money as a way to meet that goal. This could be something as rhetorical as setting a personal drive goal outside of operating a machine.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.