Instigator
Points: 14

Money cant buy happiness

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
AvoidDeath
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 18
Description
one cannot buy inner peace or love with material stuff
Round 1
Published:
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  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzPZSzGVWSE
Published:
thanks billbatard, I am pretty time constrained, so sorry for the short arguments.

0.1-Defintions
Happiness- the act of being happy
Money-Currency

0.2 Burden of Proof.
It's on you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I. Real World Scenarios-

Let's say your homeless. Your grandpa is about to die. Your grandma is dead. Your parents are rich, but they refuse to give you any money. You are about to kill yourself because you are depressed. Then, cousin Popo found a million dollars on the ground. He gives it to you. According to the logic "Money Can't Buy Happiness". You would say something on the lines of "Fuck it, I'm still sad." then shoot yourself. But, in reality, you would be so happy. This is one case where money makes people happy.

II. Logic.
I will ask PRO, and voters, what was the original point of money? It was to trade goods in a more efficient way. And why would people want to trade goods in a more efficient way? To make them happy. Money=happiness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBUTTALS
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
I suppose that even if there are "lots of poor people that are happy", the suicide rate for poor people is higher than for rich people. The happiest nation, Finland (https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/worlds-happiest-countries-united-nations-2019/index.html), has a population that an average individual makes 3300 euros a month. That's about 39600 euros or 43481 USD per year. According to https://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx, Finland has a higher median household and per-capita income. Finland is happy and rich, therefore disproving your statement.
-------------------------
Back to bill...
Round 2
Published:
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

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

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
Infographic: This country has the world's shortest work week ...

https://www.techrepublic.com › article › infographic-this-country-has-the-w...  The Netherlands is once again in the top 10 happiest countries in the world. According to the UN World Happiness Report 2018, the Netherlands is the 6th happiest country in the world. The Netherlands also managed to rank in this position last year.Mar 16, 2018
The Netherlands is once again in the top 10 happiest countries

https://www.iamexpat.nl › expat-info › dutch-expat-news › netherlands-once...$51,280

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, 2018

Singapore/GNI per capita

90,570 PPP dollars (2017)
Singapore/GNI per capita

90,570 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 present this as evidence that there are people with relatively less that are much happier, without more money, what makes them happy is free time and their families this is one example i can find more

Published:
Thanks billbatard,
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”

Concession. “Poor people who come to the USA and make their fortunes are very happy.” It’s a cause and effect. The poor people made money so they are happy. You have conceded.

“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”

Copied and pasted from your source. The Netherlands has one of the highest GDP per capitas and GNI household incomes in the world. This is also true according to one of the sources you stated.

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”

That means the Netherlands is very rich and very happy. That also means you once again conceded.

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, 2018

Singapore/GNI per capita

90,570 PPP dollars (2017)
Singapore/GNI per capita

90,570 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
Copied and pasted, then edited ever so slightly, directly from your source.
Singaporeans are still extremely happy. They are not just a regular nation, but the second most happiest nation in all of Asia (https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-ranked-2nd-happiest-asian-nation-world-happiness-report-023124001.html). Taiwan is the first, and Taiwanese people make a whole lot of money, therefore proving that money buys happiness. 

Thank you voters and PRO for this amazing debate.



Added:
--> @Ragnar
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
#20
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
vote pls
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @AvoidDeath
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).
#18
Added:
Cvb?
Contender
#17
Added:
Cvb?
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @Speedrace, @PressF4Respect, @NotClub
seeeeee
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @bsh1, @Ragnar, @Ramshutu
vote, vote, win.
Contender
#14
Added:
--> @crossed
that isnt proof that isnt even good poetry you stooge
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @billbatard
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
#12
Added:
--> @billbatard
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
#11
Added:
--> @billbatard
i Am sure atheist country's do fair better Satan rules the world
#10
Added:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvsrJ1QF60 happy has to do with security and free time not necessarily lots of stuff
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @crossed
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
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @crossed
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
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @billbatard
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.
#6
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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