fauxlaw lost the argument in his debate MONEY CAN BRING HAPPINESS
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
since your debate had no votes in time, and your opponent is inactive, I'm willing to have another debate about it if you're willing.
I am arguing that you LOST the argument against your opponent. (dropped too many points, didn't have enough of a convincing case, etc.)
the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2130/money-can-bring-happiness
This debate was a little weird because it was more of a continuation of the original debate than it was a debate over whether fauxlaw won the original debate. Since both debaters spent time on both topics, it is a little hard for me to decide what the real topic of this debate is, making any decision a little fuzzy. That being said, I'll endeavor to piece it together.
Pro opens the debate by claiming that money brings happiness because we as humans are conditioned to think that it does, at least indirectly. Pro's second point attacks the quality of fauxlaw's arguments in the original debate. I can't figure out what the first sentence of that paragraph means since no context is provided. The second sentence is clearer. Pro argues that fauxlaw tried to use a music video as evidence, which, according to Pro, proved nothing. His third point says that taking away the money in all the examples used in the original debate takes away the happiness, which caused fauxlaw's argued to collapse (according to Pro).
Con counters Pro's first point by saying that Pro misused the example of Pavlov's dogs. In the original experiment, Pavlov actually brought the food to the dog. In Pro's example, people are being shown the money, not brought it. Con claims that this changes the experiment because people in such a case wouldn't actually be using the money, and thus could not use it to buy anything. Con then turns to his positive argument. Merely possessing money does not make one happy, he claims, citing a an article that says that the level of income does not have as much of an impact on happiness as how the income is used. Con then asks what, if money can bring happiness, is the price of happiness?
Pro starts Round 2 by saying that Con conceded by saying that he lost the original debate. However, since the premise of this debate is that he lost the argument in the debate, this is irrelevant. It is theoretically possible to win the argument and still lose the debate. Pro then defends his second point by saying that if he kept bringing people money, it would eventually bring happiness. He concludes Round 2 with what is easily his best, and also most amusing, argument. In answer to Con's almost rhetorical question about the price of happiness, he points out that for $140, you can buy dopamine, a chemical that makes people feel happy.
Con begins Round 2 by going back to Pro's third point about the music video and explaining why he thought it was a good example of how money doesn't bring happiness. He then distinguishes between happiness and pleasure, citing research indicating that they are different. Since dopamine stimulates pleasure, this effectively refutes Pro's best argument, although it fails to lessen the amusement derived from seeing such a clever answer to a rhetorical question.
Pro again repeats his claim that Con conceded. See above where I discuss that. He then points out that the music video only offers ideas, not evidence. Finally, he points to an article saying that pleasure can cause people to experience a bit of happiness.
Con opens his final round by pointing out that voters may only consider the content of this debate and not the original debate. He then returns to the idea that money can indirectly bring happiness by what it can buy. He states that indirectly bringing is not the same as bringing; it is the wrong causal relationship. Con then attempts to explain how the music video did present an argument. He then turns Pro's source back upon him, pointing out that the article that said that pleasure can cause people to experience happiness is actually devoted to explaining how pleasure is different than happiness. Having distinguished between happiness and pleasure, he says that money cannot buy happiness, although it can buy pleasure.
Overall, I think Con got the upper hand in arguments. Pro just didn't spend enough time formulating, explaining, and fleshing out arguments. That being said, he was able to score some points with what little he did write. Although Pro put only a little effort into attacking the music video argument, Con's arguments that it was evidence, however well-written, fall flat. Con really wins with his evidence that pleasure is separate from happiness. This logically circumvents most of the debate because it gives him a solid basis to claim that money can only bring pleasure, not happiness. Pro's counter that pleasure can give feelings of happiness is decent, but only succeeds in giving Con the perfect chance to hammer his point home. Pro, rather foolishly, picked a quote that supported his point out of an article that, for the most part, undermined his point. Con took this chance to use Pro's source against him, and did it very convincingly. Thus, Con wins on sources as well.
Conduct and S&G were tied.
You're welcome.
thank you for voting
bump
Yes, that's what I mean.
I understand your motive, just remember that if it can be taken the wrong way, it probably will. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow if they were called out. Fauxlaw is just a very good sport. Basically just tread carefully and make sure you don't cross that personal attack line and you'll be a-okay.
Do you mean outside material as anything referenced that does not have its origin within the original debate in question? Technical voters would almost definitely exclude it during their judgement, so you are right to warn PRO of it.
Anyway, I'm glad you and seldiora had a good debate. I just caution seldiora against making debates such as these in the future. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow in your place, so I commend your conduct. I may leave a vote so that there is some closure on the matter
Chris, I didn't see your post #3 until I completed and posted my last round, sending the debate to voting. I cautioned Seldiora by PM before our debate began about referencing outside material in our debate, not that we cannot [because sources are outside material] but that it is a problem for voters who consider that outside material in their deliberation. You'll note in reading the debate [I hope you do], that I had to mention this again, so I hope your note will have effect in the future. That said, fun debate. I wish I'd thought of some things I raised this time; it may have made a difference in outcome last time.
Seldiora, that was a fun debate. Thanks for the invitation.
o, I just wanted to resolve the tie on his other debate since it had no votes
Hi! You're not in trouble, as fauxlaw seems to have no qualms about it, but I just wanted to inform you that call-out debates like this are generally discouraged as they teeter very close to the line of personal attack. (In fact, if fauxlaw took this in ill taste and wanted to have this removed we probably would.)
Here is an excerpt from the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
Please remember this when making debates in the future to avoid moderation conflict. Thank you!
This is turning into "Money indeed brings happiness".
https://youtu.be/2ZIpFytCSVc