Money cant buy happiness
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
one cannot buy inner peace or love with material stuff
there are lots of poor people that are happy there are many rich people that are suicidal the happiest nations are not necessarily the richest ones i take that as proof or my point
Our past successes have become a stumbling block to our happiness level.
As a people we generally believe we deserve more, should have more, and want to have more. https://www.quora.com/How-happy-are-Singaporeans
I will begin rebutting your points.
“people starving n concentration camps in ww2 were pretty miserable i will grant you, and many poor people who come to the USA and make their fortunes are very happy, i accept this people on the extremes of poverty obviously a not happy”
“for example At 29 hours, the Netherlands has the shortest work week in the world and a national employment average of 76%, according to an OECD study. ... With 29-hour work weeks, the Netherlands has the world's shortest week for business professionals, according to an OECD study.Oct 26, 2018”
“Netherlands gni per capita for 2018 was $51,280, a 9.32% increase from 2017. Netherlands gni per capita for 2017 was $46,910, a 0.02% increase from 2016. Netherlands gni per capita for 2016 was $46,900, a 5.84% decline from 2015.
Netherlands GNI Per Capita 1962-2019 | MacroTrends”
“https://www.macrotrends.net › countries › NLD › netherlands › gni-per-capita we ee that although the dutch are singificantly less rich than say people in Singapore a nation with a much higher standard of living they are much much happier money can not buy hapiness in the case of the dutch they prefer free toime to be with their families and friends to wealth
MOM found that Singaporeans worked about 44.9 paid hours a week in 2018. For a typical five-day work week, this equates to almost nine hours of work a day. Still, this figure was 1.4 hours fewer than the average of 46.3 hours of paid work per week in 2008 – which was the highest figure for the decade.Dec 17, 2018
MOM found that Singaporeans worked about 44.9 paid hours a week in 2018. For a typical five-day work week, this equates to almost nine hours of work a day. Still, this figure was 1.4 hours fewer than the average of 46.3 hours of paid work per week in 2008 – which was the highest figure for the decade.Dec 17, 2018Singapore/GNI per capita90,570 PPP dollars (2017)
Singapore/GNI per capita90,570 PPP dollars (2017) It’s hard to define, measure and compare happiness level.
Suffice to say, Singaporeans are not the most contented people.
Our past successes have become a stumbling block to our happiness level.
As a people we generally believe we deserve more, should have more, and want to have more. https://www.quora.com/How-happy-are-Singaporeans”
I was just told by a voting moderator that voting for pro conceding that money often buys happiness (which con identified multiple times), plus a survey of the main opposing argument that money is all about buying happiness (a short statement which encompasses the heart of his argument lines and sources to support), was not enough. So with the contextual content of the debate insufficient even when longer than one side's arguments, I am going to just take the obvious shortcut on from now on regarding this caliber of debate.
Plagiarism. Pro's third paragraph in R2 onward was stolen material he did not write but claimed to have. Which again, is something con identified as part of his arguments against pro. And no, providing links to where you're stealing from, does not magically add quotation marks or other indicators of giving credit where credit is due, or add analysis to actually make it part of an argument for or against any resolution.
One purchases with currency, currency can't purchase. This was a trap debate that the trapper didn't pull off well, but which the Ramshutu+Ragnar school of voter would vote Con anyway for the trap.
Con fails to define the word 'buy' in the definitions. I know why this was avoided. Con's case is flawed because Currency cannot purchase, it's the means of purchasing. The entire case is about that money can BRING happiness VIA its use, not purchase happiness. I knew this trap would backfire on me if I accepted it, I've annihilated semantic traps before and been voted against for doing so, even when I was the one to reverse the trap on the other side (the one that wrote the resolution). Thus, I personally have no sympathy for Con here. Pro's case is that happiness is not directly proportional to happiness whatsoever (not sure if he was trying to prove a negative proportionality, but Kritiking the positive correlation was certainly the crux.
For me, the debate is won because while Con asserts that money CAN be associated with the alleviation of agony of some, it ignores entire slums that have a happy community and much else but Pro keeps 'barely alluding' to everything that does contradict Con, but doesn't DIRECT this back to the resolution.
The problem here, for me, is that it's very easy to say 'well duh buy means to purchase' but you cannot purchase 'the act of being happy' even with money. This is what Pro does successfully, but passively. Pro explains that the correlation between money and happiness is not only very scattered, but there is not even a clear cut way to 'buy happiness' in the first place. Alleviation of pain and suffering is not the same thing as the definition that Con provides, which is 'the act of being happy'. There is a whole abyss, involving masochism or 'getting used to suffering and being happy anyway.' that plays into being poor and happy. This is talked strongly about by Pro in the final Round:
"My sole point is there are nations full of people who have very little in the way of material goods but lead casual happy lives and then there are people in places like say singapore that are very rich where the people are so unhappy because all they do is work"
To which Con replies that there is a link between not being a capitalist shithole that doesn't care for its poor and having happy citizens (which Pro supported, throughout). Sorry but just because Pro was a poor debater doesn't mean he lost the debate. Just because he copy and pasted doesn't mean that Con gave a better argument. There is genuinely no grounds on which Con won the debate in my eyes, this is not about a grudge. I am losing a debate against Bill due to one conduct point vote, due to forfeiting one single Round. I know he is a low Rating debater and this loss will hurt. That is not an excuse to be lazy, most likely Con will win anyway.
Both sides used sources effectively enough.
AD=Avoid death BB=Billbatard
BB's R1 was weak, AD easily refuted his point about poor people being happy and rich people being sad by looking at suicide rates. At the end of round 1 I'm left to believe The rich are happier than the poor after seeing AD's evidence. On top of this, AD logically explains why money makes you happy.
BB points to shorter work weeks, which makes you less money in general being the cause of happiness. But, as AD pointed out, BB completely shot himself in the foot with using the Netherlands because they are incredibly wealthy despite a short work week. BB again makes a mistake by looking at Singapore which BB stated had a very long work week and very wealthy people, but they aren't happy. AD pointed out that Singapore was actually the second happiest Asian country. BB opted to completely neglect AD's logical point.
AD proved money logically will make you happy, and left BB's 2 arguments with no real weight to them seeing how they actually prove AD's point about how money does buy happiness with rich people overall being happier, and the two nations Singapore and the Netherlands being very wealthy and happy. AD wins arguments
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The resolution says can’t, to which pro agrees it sometimes (even if not always) does. Con on the other hand shows that as a trade medium money is all about buying happiness.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. I don't see enough weighing here and I don't see the voter's justification in the debate text.
************************************************************************
vote pls
CVB are not really allowed. If you have a problem with any vote (even mine, as it was very concise; and if anyone has a complaint, I am happy to lengthen it) just report them... You can in addition to reporting, post a message tagging the voter and the vote moderators (Bsh1, Ramshutu, and virtuoso) with a reason why you question the validity of the vote (as I just demonstrated on one of your votes on another debate).
Cvb?
Cvb?
seeeeee
vote, vote, win.
that isnt proof that isnt even good poetry you stooge
Many ask me what proof is there that there is a god. a lot of time the proof is right in front of them you just have to look in a mirror.
Do you feel emotions when you hurt someone. If you say no gods moral system has effected you biologically.
Doing bad thing makes you less likely to feel guilty. This is because god has hardened your heart. And his morals law has effected you biologically
Secondly you did not disprove my happy points. All that video said was getting stuff can make you happy.
They a went around people asking them what made them happy.
They asked them if ten weeks of vacation made them happy they said yes
The asked them if 36 hour work weeks made them happy they said yes.
The young Turk guy in the video even said money can buy happiness. Which disagree with your own debate
i Am sure atheist country's do fair better Satan rules the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvsrJ1QF60 happy has to do with security and free time not necessarily lots of stuff
the less relgious a nation is the more succeful it is relgion is uselss and false https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/atheists-countries-list-six-world-most-convinced-a6946291.html
None of the factors you point to as prove of god are anything of the sort , there are plenty of logical alternatives to an invisible boogey man
it works both ways. proving that god moral system exist proves god exist. in this case morality.
Lets say someone is nice person but poor. But the person is happy. But lets say he decides to betray his friends and he becomes mean and earns millions. He becomes restless as a result of him being mean. so he ask himself i have all of this but i feel empty. he does not know why he is less happy then when he was poor.But it is because he was nice to people when he was poor. he is mean now and gods morals effect us biologically
So this person restlessness and depression was caused by him being a mean person.His previous happiness was caused by him being a good person. He was happy when he was nice to everyone even though he was poor. But when he betrayed his friends for money he became restless. It was him being mean that caused his sadness. So God made it so his morality effects us biologically. If we are a bad person we become restless and unhappy. But if we are good people we are at peace.
come on wussies fight me!
before you can atribute feelings to god will you have to prove god exists and you cant you pretend to but you dont
Eh I am 50/50 to this. You cannot buy your way out of sadness, but being broke isn't exactly favorable either.
If I name my dog "happiness" and sell it, someone bought happiness with money.
The reason why mean people don't feel happy Even though they have billions of dollars. Is because Gods morale system effects us biologically and it will make you restless even if you have lots of money. Gods morale system effects mean people biologically
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1319/god-created-morality
Giving to other can help with many chronic diseases. This is because gods moral system effects us biologically.
If you are mean to others your life is shortened and you become depressed.Because gods moral system effects us biologically. If i recall right Solomon described a depression like thing he developed when he got greedy and had 6000 wife's Then god took everything away and punished him. But When he obeyed god he did not have it. So this depression was caused by Solomon being a bad person. He said when he obeyed god he was at peace when he disobeyed he was restless depresses.
Solomon was all happy when he ruled and obeyed god he was at peace. But when he decided to have 6000 wife's and lost his kingdom because god took it away. He was depressed and restless. Gods morale system effects us biologically
I don't remember it has been a while since i read the bible. It took me a year to go through the thing