Which would you rather do?
Live poor on the streets
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Live rich in a mansion
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
around 744,000 people were living homeless in America at 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564208/ this is not the COMMON man, so your point is mute really. Side: Live rich in a mansion
Living poor on the streets does not directly imply being homeless. The term "on the streets" may refer to homeless ness, but it also may mean living in an impoverished section of town. I spoke of the lower-middle class and below. These classes intermingle, and thereby are inclusive when considering the nature of the latter rendering of "on the streets". Side: Live poor on the streets
1
point
2
points
Assets are liabilities, to have nothing is freedom. A poor man is not bound by possessions and can pack up and go anywhere. Responsibility goes hand in hand with materialism. There is up keep on that mansion. A staff must be maintained. Property taxes must be paid. A guard must be hired, trespasser what a piece. Records have to be kept. By now you ought to get the point. Side: Live poor on the streets
1
point
|
2
points
1
point
I don't see anything to gain from choosing the other option over this. A rich person can do everything a poor person can do except for be a poor person. Sure, being rich effects who you are, but so does being poor and really anyone with a level head should be able to be rich without becoming arrogant and condescending. Side: Live rich in a mansion
1
point
|
