Happiness is a right.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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. 
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.  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.
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.
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.
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.