Instigator / Pro
14
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1480

Money cant buy happiness

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

AvoidDeath
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
18
1528
rating
11
debates
59.09%
won
Description

one cannot buy inner peace or love with material stuff

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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