Instigator / Pro



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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Yep, it is what it is. Ask for anything through messages or comments. I will respond with the best of my abilities.

Round 1
The debating topic is: Money can bring happiness

Pro is User_2006(Money can bring happiness)
Con is Fauxlaw(Money cannot bring happiness...?)

Pro decides to imitate Con's usual style of debating by using marks such as I.a, I.b, II.c, etc, in an unironic and non-malevolent manner. 

I Argument: Financial freedom

I.a Taken from Wikipedia, the biggest hub of knowledge with moderation required(so the information inside it is as real as it could get), Money is a medium of exchange used in the society, or, more elaborately(Citing WIKIPEDIA without violating any rules), "Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular country or socio-economic context."[1] In its definition, Money does not get the value intrinsically, but through an exchange. In reality, a 5$ bill may not cost a whole lot more than a 100$ bill, but the latter worths 95$ more because its social recognition gains its value. 

I.b The paragraph above mentions paying taxes and other repayments of debts of any kind with money. It turns out when in debt, people would want money as that money is one step to financial solvency, a state that is the foundation of wealth and financial freedom.

I.c Financial freedom is, of course, what people want, because this is what people want if they want to do whatever they want. It may seem like what the person does when he/she/they reach financial freedom is what they really want, but nay. Financial freedom is the foundation of what he can do later in life, and any person who wants all-that-they-would-want assets would also want money, and Wanting something would mean that acquiring that thing would make them happy, simply. And, without a doubt, most people would need money itself to fulfill the need for what they want, and the base for that is financial freedom, which is what they wanted. 

I.d I, of course, understand, that not all people would want to be financially free, such as someone wanting to own a house no matter what, regardless of what they have currently. However, there are multiple cases that one would want to be financially free[2], such as reducing the burden and fulfill their want for products(That could be traded with Money). In fact, because source 2 did not specify the people as examples but put it as so further prove my claim that a large number of persons would want to be financially free. Money can make money[3] so money can, indeed, make people financially free.

I.e Con has stumbled across this debate bearing the burden to prove that Money CANNOT bring happiness, so the Pro side only needs to prove one example of money bringing happiness, but Con has to negate all examples, whether it is one, two or many. 

I.f So, the conclusion here is:
  • Money would bring financial freedom.
  • People Want to be financially free, and being financially free would bring happiness. 
  • Thus, at least one individual(That powers source 3) would want money to be financially free, consider it is possible. 
  • Thus, that individual(s) would want money to be financially free, and money would make them happy. 
II Argument: Money as a product

II.a We all know that money is in exchange for products, and people have passions for all kinds of products. Take this for example[4]. A stamp that was once worth one single cent in the good old days can now cost tens of thousands of Euros because of stamp collectors. Money can inflate and rare cases of money printing or making could make them while useful for normal trade and exchange for other products, also useful BEING one because of its rarity. 

II.b Take this 1 dollar bill as an example[5]. This dollar bill made well over a century ago was worth millions of its written value because of its rarity. Car collections exist as opposed to everyday transit. It certainly makes sense that one would want a rare thing(Hence why the coin collectors exist[6]). If a rare piece of money can bring happiness just by pure ownership(I have this rare bill, You don't, this makes me happy.), then money, in this case, can bring happiness. 

II.c So, the conclusion here is:
  • People have a passion for products.
  • Money, which can be used as a product, could bring happiness to people.

I Rebuttal: Pro’s Financial Independence
I.a Financial independence [Pro calls it freedom] is certainly an admirable place to be, and, for one, I know it because I am F.I., as one Pro source calls it. However, doing a review of Pro’s sources, I found none mention that a benefit of F.I. is happiness. That it is a benefit is my opinion, and, apparently, Pro shares it, but it is his BoP that it brings happiness by more than mere opinion, and Pro did not bring it in r1.
I.b Pro concludes money can bring F.I., but does not prove it by a scholastic source.
I.c Pro concludes people want F.I. and that it would make them happy, but does not prove it by a scholastic source. Pro states that one person, [source [3], wants to be F.I., and lists seven ways to invest $1,000, but not once does this source mention happiness, or that F.I. will bring happiness. Thus, Pro’s conclusions are unsupported, and fail to meet the BoP.
II Rebuttal: Money can bring happiness as a product?
II.a Money, as one of several commodities of value, which Pro alleges by his argument II of r1 mentions product; value in its representation as something in which we hold value. All other commodities have intrinsic value, but even they, as relative objects of desire, and not desirable at all to some, fluctuate in value according to the money required to obtain those objects in quantity. Further, the value established for any commodity is not identical worldwide. My home, a physical structure made of a collection of commodities, is not worth the same everywhere in the world; only where it is located can I demonstrate its worth. In any other place, its value is speculative. Or, my home’s value, in cash, may or may not be purchased for its equivalent elsewhere. On the other hand, and I think we have run out of them, if I did not care about its location, its environment, I could purchase my home for far less than it was purchased where I have chosen to live. How does such confusion possibly bring happiness?
II.b Pro mentions two sources [4-5] and [6], examples of stamp and coin collection. Nice examples of money-as-product, but neither source mentions a word about either collectable bringing happiness as a desired result. BoP failure.
II.c To demonstrate how frivolous “having” money can be, I was once in an upscale kitchen implements store, one of my favorite kinds of retailing, and saw a 235ml bottle of balsamic vinegar [about 8 oz]. This store had several samples of various brands of balsamic for tasting, but no sample of this one; it was $80 in 1979 [add about $200 in today’s money value]. I had just purchased my first home, and money was tight. Eighty dollars was a relative fortune, but I so wondered how delightful eighty dollars of vinegar could be. Ten years later, I had the money, increased to $140; I purchased a bottle. I’ve had better at ten-times less the cost. I’ve since found better still at $24 per 500ml. I’m happy, but not because I could then afford the $140, but because I was more satisfied with the $24 product. Lesson: a fool and his money are never happy, regardless of the money’s value, and a fool’s ability to fail prevention of their parting is legendary.[1]
III Argument: What is money?
III.a Money in and of itself can do little. It requires active use. Money is a commodity; one either has it, or does not, and what it can purchase is variable, as noted above, argument II. And “having it” is had in so many iterations of quantity so as to render any descriptive result as entirely dependent on circumstance. Conversely, not “having it” is also many iterations of quantity to render any descriptive result as circumstantial. Therefore, the ubiquitous value of money is immaterial to happiness, or any other emotion for that matter. "The real measure of your wealth is how much you would be worth if you lost all your wealth."[2]
III. a.1 Personally, I have, to some, a lot of money. Without going into detail, knowing my habitual spending in quantity by historic perspective, I have enough to continue money’s value in trade for other commodities for the balance of my expected lifespan. My children will inherit, regardless of potential decline in the economy. 
III.a.2 On the other hand, some may think my stash is a pittance. Thus, “having it” is relative, and everyone’s case differs with few exceptions. That is, effectively, my primary argument: Having money is relative: How much money? In what kinds of commodities [not all “had” money is in currency]? Is the money convertible to liquid if need be? None of the answers to these questions [and, there are more] will satisfy the demand of being happy because of money. We equate money with happiness, even though a lot of famous and wealthy public figures are experiencing relational and well-being crisis events that we used to associate with people who made up the lower stratus in the earnings category.”[3]
IV Argument: What is “can?”
IV.a “Can” implies that one is able and allowed to… plug in any object to that incomplete phrase, such as being happy. However, it is the converse of “can” that is my BoP. I will demonstrate by concentration on the qualifiers of “can:” able and allowed. 
IV.a.1 Able is a qualifier of personal ability. It implies a knowledge that can be practically applied. Either one has done a thing before, and, therefore has knowledge plus experience, or has untested knowledge, in which case a first trial will demonstrate the effectiveness and/or truth of the experiment.
IV.a.2 Allowed is a qualifier of legal perspective. I am permitted to have money by law, however, how I personally acquire money may be illegal, by which I suffer consequences if arrested for breaking into a bank for the purpose of unauthorized withdrawal.
IV.a.3 Therefore, if the goal is to create wealth, and I have knowledge and/or experience in acquiring money illegally, I “can” acquire it by being able, but my method is not allowed, and those consequences will not make my happy, even though I “can” make the acquisition.
V Argument: What is “bring?”
V.a According to Oxford English Dictionary, bring,v.  1. To cause to come along with, to fetch, to lead [as in French, amener ], or to carry [as in French apporter ].
V.a.1 These variations in meaning suggest that the self and whatever is being carried according to whichever definition as noted above suits, implies that one is not the thing being carried and, therefore, it, the thing being carried, cannot be internalized in the manner of any emotion, such as happiness. Both the external influence of any commodity, and its physical reality, cannot be the essence of an emotion such as happiness. “Once upon a time, a high income carried a lot of power along with it—back before the economic world shifted and production of luxury goods became such a booming industry that encouraged higher debt loads in order to acquire the symbols of status that we felt we deserved, but were not quite flush enough yet to purchase outright.”[4]  The problem with such a crowd of luxury-lovers is that they are not my crowd. I drive a 2001 Dodge Ram. My wife; a 1994 Toyota Camry. Both are worth nothing to anybody else. Others may be happy with theirs; I know I am happy with mine.
V.a.2 The answers to questions such as those identified in III.a.2, above, are the motivators of happiness, whereas, clearly, in some people, the mere possession of money may only be motivating to obtain more. Greed is the emotion being fed, not happiness.[5] Happiness is an arrival emotion. It is the goal to achieve, not the journey getting there, as in “bring.” 
V.a.3 Understanding the point made in my argument III of this round is essential. In robbing a bank, I achieve the goal of having money, and I will likely be pleased with myself for the success, although illegal, but that pleasure will not endure if I am arrested for burglary. Happiness is a lasting emotion, not a brief thrill.  “It’s not so much the level of income that directly determines your level of happiness, but rather the ways in which you are able to direct your income to purposes that are likely to bring you happiness and satisfaction.”[6]  
IV.a.4 It is why Thomas Jefferson was convinced to change his original draft of the Declaration of Independence  from “Life, Liberty, and Property,” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 
V.a.4.A Or, did he? Seems that his change of heart is a tall tale. “Jefferson’s intellectual heroes were Newton, Bacon, and Locke, and it was actually in John Locke that he must have found the phrase, ‘pursuit of happiness.’ It appears… in the 1690 essay Concerning Human Understanding. There, in a long and thorny passage, Locke wrote: ‘The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty.’  As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty.”[7]  So Jefferson did not have his mind changed; he started with happiness, not property, or “money,” if you will; property being just one of money’s alternative disguises.

Round 2
I appreciate that CON has made a constructive response competing against mine. However, I do not consider CON's response actually sufficient against mine. 

I Rebuttal: Money sure brings happiness

I.a I would supply my argument with sources labeled [1] Below. the source goes right to the point, having quotes like "Science Says Money Does Buy Happiness If You Spend It the Right Way" and "The reason that money demonstratively increases happiness levels up until a point is that it takes a certain salary to feel financially secure. Having enough money means no anxiety when shopping at the grocery store, going out to eat, or paying your rent. This type of security is overlooked when you are used to it." 

I.b The source would suggest that although conditional, it is certainly possible to let money bring you happiness. Bolded phrases would make voters understand better.

I.c CON did not make an effort to prove that money doesn't bring happiness, instead, he focuses on the sources and the semantics. Unless CON proves that money DOES NOT bring happiness in any condition, PRO wins. CON has made minimal effort proving that. 

II Rebuttal: Money as a product still CAN bring happiness

II.a CON's first paragraph on Section II is just an example of money NOT bring happiness, and the third demonstrates the same problem too. However, CON did not use any reliable sources to prove that money only can not bring happiness, it CANNOT bring happiness. The only source used in this section is an idiom which does not make his case clearer. 

II.b CON also failed to disprove my sources [4-6]. What is true is that Rare money is rare and people want it. Wanting it would mean desire, and fulfilling a desire brings at least some amount of happiness according to this source[2]. Happiness is happiness, regardless of how much there is.

III Argument: Drawing the line

III.a Money never equates to happiness. I agree with CON on this case, however, his argument regarding that claim holds no value as the topic of the debate is clearly that Money CAN bring happiness, not Money MUST bring happiness. 

III.b Refuting CON's section IV, No matter how legal or illegal the method I used to acquire money is currently, It will always bring me at least a little dose of happiness if I wanted money, even if my sadness prevails after the cops put me behind bars. If I wanted money, I would get at least a little bit of happiness, and you wouldn't say 0.1 is equivalent to zero. 

III.c Refuting CON's section V, Money is the cause of happiness in PRO's BoP, and CON has made no effort refuting this argument head-on. Unless CON can prove that in none of the cases whatsoever, Money causes happiness, I win. 

IV Argument: Artificial Happiness

IV.a Merriam Webster Dictionary, one of the most reliable online dictionaries currently, states, "Definition of happiness 1a: a state of well-being and contentment: JOY b: a pleasurable or satisfying experience"[3]

IV.b It is proven that certain chemicals produce happiness.[4]

IV.c It is clearly possible for me to use the money to purchase medicine or drugs that can make me produce those chemicals(It is theoretically possible, although practically not recommended), and in the result make me happy. The trade of money, or the money itself, clearly causes or brings happiness. Hedonistically and materialistically, anything that can be purchased would bring pleasure, fulfillment, or happiness. 

I rest my case.

I Rebuttal: “Money, so they say…”
I.a Pink Floyd’s famous tune, “Money,”[1] in its third verse advises: “Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a rise, it’s no surprise they’re giving none away.” Therein is the downside of money, because it has been called the root of all evil, not just today [Dark Side of the Moon is an early 70s-era production] but the sentiment is biblical in context with a twist: “The love of money is the root of all evil.”[2]  Money, itself, is not the evil, but, as noted in my round 1 argument, V.a.2, the greed for money, on its own merit, is the evil. Love of money, so Timothy says in his epistle, is greed, and should be replaced by love of God, first, which is actually a good money management beginning step: Charity. Evil deeds are supposed to be inexpensive, thus their allure. Pink Floyd’s lyric, then, is a paradox because, when it comes to money, few obtain it by it being given away. 
I.b No, that’s not quite it. Of those who obtain money by it’s generous giving, few can hold onto it, as the idiom of fools is discussed in my round 1. Lottery winners, for example, are notorious for losing it all.[3] What happiness did that experience generate? The referenced [3] article lists 12 reasons why the loss is prevalent, but most of them settle into one major category: instant money winning does not come with a user’s manual on how best to manage it, few would read the manual, anyway, and managing money is not intuitive.[4] The reference offers four basic habits to adopt [“adopt” meaning that they are not intuitive]: 
            1. Spend less than earned
            2. Invest the balance
            3. Re-invest the dividends
            4. Repeat 1, 2, 3 until financially independent [see my r1, rebuttal I]
I.c Donald Trump advises in his book, The Art of the Deal,that making money is not his goal; that it is merely a by-product. The goal is making the deal; that is where he derives his happiness, not by the money.[5]
II Rebuttal: Money, so science says…
II.a “Money sure brings happiness,” Pro begins the r2 first rebuttal. So “sure,” that the source for his claim,, says Many studies have shown that happiness levels increase with income up to roughly $75,000 in annual salary. After that, there tends to be little correlation between income and happiness.”  I point directly to the second sentence, “After that…”which seems to agree with my argument more than Pro’s. Pro does not qualify his claim that “Money can bring happiness.” 
II.b Pro makes the rebuttal [ Pro r2, II.b] that, “CON did not make an effort to prove that money doesn't bring happiness, instead, he focuses on the sources and the semantics. Unless CON proves that money DOES NOT bring happiness in any condition, PRO wins. CON has made minimal effort proving that.” 
II.b.1 Refer to my r1 argument I.a that Pro did not support by sourced evidence that financial independence makes people happy, and I concluded, therefore, with my r1, I.b and I.c rebuttals, that, therefore, it does not. Googling, “What makes people happy” returned the following result: an article stating: “The once-fuzzy picture of what makes people happy is coming into focus as psychologists no longer shun the study of happiness. In the mid-'90s, scientific journals published about 100 studies on sadness for every one study on happiness.”[6] Further, "Materialism is toxic for happiness," says University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener. Even rich materialists aren't as happy as those who care less about getting and spending.”[7]  I will claim that a $75,000 annual salary is not considered “wealthy,” in fact, double that does not make it.[8]
II.c Pro claimed in r2, II.b that I failed to “disprove [his] sources [4-6],” and offers a mention that a = a [“rare money is rare”]. Yes it is, but this proves nothing relative to the debate. My rebuttal was that r1 Pro sources [4-6] failed to mention anything about money bringing happiness, Pro’s BoP. Happiness is missing from his formula. I have a formula, too: z = z, as in zip happiness = zip BoP.
II.c.1 Pro claimed I did not offer a source in r1, II other than an idiom. His claim is false. My source was not the idiom; it was Proverbs 21: 20, from which the idiom is sourced. Says Proverbs, since Pro missed it: “There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up.”  Proverbs calls it treasure, but we can [and have] used money as an alternative, and an alternative for that is property, such as coins and stamps. They are all commodities. Note that Proverbs makes no claims regarding happiness for having the treasure. In fact, no part of Proverbs 20, though speaking much of desiring or having wealth, declares happiness as an expected result.
II.d Pro claims the “can” argument relative to money bringing happiness, but does not bother to rebut my qualifiers of “can” in my r1, argument IV through Iv.a.3, “able,” and “allowed,” both of which must be met to properly define “can.” I argued why both qualifiers are necessary. Pro’s failure to rebut these arguments draws no line, because his argument that he might derive a little happiness, at least, is the consequence of illegal activity which ultimately negates any happiness if caught, except that there never was happiness, because, as I demonstrated by source [6] in r1, argument IV.a.3 [mislabeled as V.a.3], happiness is not brought by money, but by “…the ways in which you are able to direct your income to purposes that are likely to bring you happiness.”  This argument by this source, alone, refutes Pro’s claim in his r2, argument III.c that, “CON has made no effort refuting this argument head-on. Unless CON can prove that in none of the cases whatsoever, Money causes happiness, I win.”  
II.e Pro offers a dictionary definition of “happiness” as his r2, IV.a argument. I’ll agree with the definition. It would be a better definition if it included one of the alleged motivators of the emotion, such as money. As it does not, the motivation to define it is in the wind.
III Rebuttal: Better living through chemistry
III.a A better gift of a parting shot for my r2, I cannot imagine. Pro’s source, titled “4 Brain Chemicals That Make You Happy,” is like manna from heaven [yeah, that was a commodity, too]. Making us happy was certainly a subject of the article, and I will readily admit there are influences in our lives that do bring happiness. The article speaks to doses of Dopamine, oodles of Oxytocin, supplies of Serotonin, and endlesses of Endorphins, but… mounds of Money seems to be missing entirely from this article. Money is the point, yeah? So if Dopamine makes you dopy happy, and Oxytocin makes you… well, you get it… that’s fine for better living through chemistry, but money is not a chemical agent, so, what’s the point? 
I suggest Pro spend a little less time claiming victory, envisioning a win in preliminary rounds, and more time actually rebutting my arguments, and making arguments to the point, the better his performance will be judged. 
IV Argument: “Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit”[9]
IV.a An interesting official video accompanies the Pink Floyd song, “Money.” It begins with visions of Pro’s coin collection, a Dopamine-level high. We see lots of rich people, models, and that level of society. Funny thing, no one is smiling except for the guy holding a tray of drinks [obviously not one of the moneyed set who buy football teams and Lear jets] until later in the video while a tenor sax is grinding like a pole stripper. A sweating fabricator making gold bullion [who isn’t buying anything] takes off his face shield. He’s not smiling because any of the bricks are his; he’s just glad to be off the job for a break. 
IV.b It’s a parody; Pink Floyd’s tune. Most people who don’t have money don’t think people who do need a Lear jet. “Airplane money,” it’s called.  “A young engineer got two job offers. One offered him $15K monthly plus other benefits. Another company offered him $50K monthly with the same benefits. He chose the $15K offer. Then the $50K company called him to ask why he turned down their offer. The engineer thought the $50K offer was a fraud.”[10]  This engineer thought more money would bring more happiness? Nope, it was just a fraud.
Back to the gold bullion guy. His eyes are telling you, “Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit. I’m molding this shit all day long, and I’ve asked for rise, but they’re giving none away.” He pauses. “I don’t know, I was really drunk at the time…”[11]

Round 3
At this point, I believe my point still stands, but I will do a one-on-one rebuttal in paragraphs as units. 

1. Money brings happiness no matter what is being said

1.a Fulfilling a materialistic desire DOES give you happiness, even if it is temporary. CON has never tried to refute that. Instead, he claims that money makes you lose happiness through a song. In fact, CON did not prove that money DOES NOT bring happiness. He made an argument that is non-sequitur. Again, I restate, No matter how little the happiness or how short-lived it is, it is solid happiness, and unless CON proves that the process regarding money bring no happiness, not even temporary or increments, PRO wins the day. 

1.b CON failed to prove why the process of money does not bring any happiness. He merely restates how to thrive in it. This whole argument is, again, useless. 

1.c Making the deal, which constitutes happiness, would also mean that Money brings happiness because Money, which drives the deal, makes the deal happen. Again, CON has made the "Brings" Strictly direct. In fact, money can not only directly bring happiness, but it can also bring indirect happiness. PRO has put no limitations on this term. 

2. Money brings happiness no matter what science says

2.a Regarding the case with Donald Trump, Trump clearly states that money could, indirectly bring happiness. Since TRUMP is an example of money bringing happiness, money clearly can bring happiness. 

2.b Analogy 2: If I get 50$ and spends 250$, does it mean I never got any money? No! I got 50 dollars! Bringing sadness does not make it never bring happiness!

2.c OK, CON needs to prove that Proverbs is a reliable source. Then, I would like to ask, How does that claim signify CON's stand? All it says is basically that money CAN, indeed, bring happiness. People desire for money, and when completed the desire, at least a little amount of happiness is acquired. How do you call that "No happiness"? I have stated this previously and I hate to do it again, but it seems like CON's job here is just to prove that when sadness goes on top of happiness, the happiness no longer even exists. 

2.d If I am able to make money, and the method of acquiring the money is perfectly fine, and it could bring me happiness, what does that say? It turns out, that the title does not mean "Must", it says "Can". I am able and allowed to let money make me happy. CON also contends that strictly indirect methods making money that also makes people happy are not made by money, which makes no sense to me. If I use the money to buy something and then that thing makes me happy, then money, at least indirectly, made me happy. 

2.e No contention.

3. Money, which buys chemicals, could make people happy

3.a Unless PRO can prove that everything, including money, is strictly direct and anything indirect, my claim made stands. 

4. Money does not need to make people happy in all cases.

4.a This is an example that money do not bring happiness, however, CON still didn't prove my r2 sources as money at least brings a little happiness which is happiness. 

4.b Same thing. This is an example that money does not bring happiness. However, this doesn't disprove me either. 

I rest my case. 
I am sorry my opponent has forfeited his third and last round. I’ll carry on with my rebuttal/conclusion.
I Rebuttal/Conclusion: “Money can[not] bring happiness”
I.a In three rounds, pro has failed to offer a single source to justify the simple proposition that money can bring happiness. In rebuttal, I’ve offered several sources that declare money, as a commodity, can do many things, but one of its limitations is the ability or allowance to bring happiness:

1. Brings financial independence, but not happiness[1]
2. Equates to products, like coins and stamps, but not happiness[2]
3. Is a measure of one’s worth when money is lost, but not happiness[3]
4. Brings wealth, but with it, relational and well-being crises, not happiness[4]
5. Encourages higher debt loads, but not happiness[5]
6. Brings property, but not happiness through life and liberty[6]
7. Is not given away with any operator’s manual, and not happiness[7]
8. Will buy a chemical high, but is not a chemical agent[8]
9. Is a by-product, but not a motivator[9]
10. Is materialistic, but toxic for happiness[10]
I.b The list could grow, and I’ve probably missed a citation I have given in the previous two rounds, but ten examples is sufficient to demonstrate that Pro’s proposal does not meet the standard of factual evidence. As I argued in round 2, example by citation in support of a valid argument that is not rebutted successfully is a failed BoP. 

I.b.1 No, money cannot bring happiness, nor can it buy happiness. It will buy just about anything bringing a price, but happiness is beyond price. One might paraphrase Thomas Payne: “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated,”[11] and paraphrase by substituting for freedom “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[12] 

Then, and only then, does one realize that beyond price, and beyond rating is that esteemed condition: happiness.

I rest my case.