The Instigator
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Happiness is a right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 567 times Debate No: 77244
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by thetheir Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Defro

Con

The pursuit of happiness is certainly not a right.
Hitler pursued happiness by killing millions of Jews. It made him happy to kill Jews.
Pro stated that life and liberty are undeniable rights. In his pursuit of happiness, millions of Jews had those rights taken away from them. If happiness is a right, did HItler have the right to kill and imprison millions of people, thus taking away their rights?

The thing about pursuing happiness, is that it is selfish, and often times can affect others negatively. In pursuit of happiness, robbers steal, murderers kill, and rapists rape. Happiness is certainly NOT a right.
Debate Round No. 1
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

You are wrong. The founding fathers would disagree with you. That quote was not my own, but that of the founding fathers. Congratulations of using the Godwin's law fallacy.
Defro

Con

Pro fails to refute my argument. Pro merely dismisses my argument by claiming that people would disagree with me. This is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum", in which one argues against a point by saying other people disagree. [1]

Pro also claims that I have committed the "Godwin's law fallacy." Goldwin's law is an Internet adage asserting that if an Internet discussion goes long enough, sooner or later, Hitler will be mentioned.
[2] I refute this by claiming that the Godwin's law is not a fallacy if used appropriately, like how I used it in a proper analogy.

Furthermore, I don't even have to use Hitler. I can give you names of random murderers and rapists who murdered and raped for their own happiness, and it would still effectively prove my point.

Pro has not made any arguments, so I'll choose to not make any arguments and extend my previous arguments.


Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law



Debate Round No. 2
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

My quote from the founding fathers of America is proof. I will say it again: We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equak and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Defro

Con

So are you saying that murder, rape, and theft are undeniable rights as long as it is done in pursuit of one's happiness?
If that is true, you would also be taking away the right to life and liberty of other people (ie. the people being murdered and raped). Would this mean that the act of taking away other people's rights can be an undeniable right? But that would mean that the right to life and liberty are actually deniable rights! Therefore, if the pursuit of happiness is an undeniable right, pro concedes that the right to life and liberty would not be undeniable rights.

Pro is using a quote to support itself. What makes the founding fathers of America right? Also, notice that these are only the founding fathers of America, and thus shouldn't account for other countries.
Debate Round No. 3
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

Strawman fallacy. I never said that rape and murder are rights. You are so dishonest. I just said that people have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone.
Defro

Con

You are the dishonest one. No where in your previous rounds have you said that people have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone. You simply said that people have the right to be happy. And I am refuting that by saying that many people hurt others in their pursuit of happiness.

Pro is simply discrediting my arguments by claiming fallacies I supposedly made. This is fallacious in itself, and doesn't make my argument wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod

Pro

YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod forfeited this round.
Defro

Con

To some up the debate:

1. Pro claimed happiness is a right.
2. I explained that happiness is not a right, and I provided an explanation with anecdotes.
3. Pro says I am wrong because certain people disagree with me.
4. I explain that just because certain people disagree with me, that doesn't make me wrong.
5. Pro kept saying I committed fallacies, when I didn't, and in fact he was the one committing fallacies.
6. Pro claimed I was dishonest, when I wasn't, in fact he was the dishonest one by trying to change his resolution in round 4.
7. Pro forfeits a round.

Other than his claim that the founding fathers would disagree with me, which I refuted, Pro hasn't made a single argument in this debate.

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Philosophy101 1 year ago
Philosophy101
If I could vote I would vote Defro, nowhere did yeshualstheonetruegod make any arguments; and though I disagree with Defro, he is the only one who offered any argument whatsoever
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 1 year ago
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
You have the right to your opinion. You need to prove that you are right. You are not right.
Posted by dv0rak 1 year ago
dv0rak
Yes, you can also try to escape the reality by using the "you have the right to your opinion [...] therefore, I will remain right and you will continue to think in your own ways" trump card. *sigh*

It is the very reason that I have read your impregnable "quote" that I wished you have seen how idiotic you have just made it to be.

I believe you like simplicity? Let's try this: in what way did you believe that your "Founding Fathers" quote could ubiquitously, and unerringly, hinge on "happiness is a right"? Now remember, I am not arguing that we do not deserve happiness (that is the Contender's objective). I am, however, making a position that you should not statically stand on your pride.
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 1 year ago
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
You have the right to your opinion. Did you even read my quote?
Posted by dv0rak 1 year ago
dv0rak
Unless... you suppose the following logic?

Because the Founding Fathers of the United States (Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, to be precise) had inscribed "pursuit of happiness," you believe the global implication of "happiness is a right" should be "true?"

The burden of proof in this debate seems, mistakenly, have been on the Contender. However, please remember that the BoP is on you, the Instigator.
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 1 year ago
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
My quote from the founding fathers is proof that happinbess is a right.
Posted by dv0rak 1 year ago
dv0rak
@YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod: I cannot feel a hair bit of seriousness in your response. Instead of Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V your previous remarks, do you even care to elaborate?

In your "My quote from the founding fathers is proof that I am right" point, could you please elaborate in what logical sense that you are "right"?
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 1 year ago
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
fallacy fdallacy. Disagreement does not equal a fallacy.
Posted by YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod 1 year ago
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod
My quote from the founding fathers is proof that I am right.
Posted by dv0rak 1 year ago
dv0rak
I stand with the Contenders argument. The Instigator maintains his position on the following point:

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by thetheir [sic] Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Founding Fathers).

Of which, the Instigator makes two illogical assumptions:

1) "The founding fathers would disagree with you." (Round 2, opening)
2) "My quote from the founding fathers of America is proof." (Round 3, opening)

This debate, as of this comment, has not yet provided a constructive argument. Rather, it seems to head towards a generalized debacle, rather than reason.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGodDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Con. Con provided real life examples, such as Hitler etc. Whereas Pro simply said "I quoted the founding fathers so you are wrong," and then proceeded to accuse Con of some new logical fallacy every new round without explanation. Since none of Con's arguments were refuted, and Pro's only argument was a quote from some people that lived a long time ago, arguments to Con. Sources were only used by Con.