The Instigator
Skept
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We live for happiness

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 105767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Skept

Pro

We live for happiness because happiness is our ultimate goal.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Explain your argument to me, please.
Than I'll post my argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Skept

Pro

If you repeatedly question about the intention of living being's action, you will find the last goal is happiness. Following is an example.

A bachelor stands up. Why he stands up; to buy some bread. Why; he is hungry. Why; brain reminds him the hunger. Why; to make him survive. Why; we have evolved like that. Why; in general for the living beings, life is happier than death.

If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Thank you for providing just irrelevant examples. It's irrelevant when your example doesn't explain what you're trying to prove.

Without further ado, here are my first rebuttals.

1. "A bachelor stands up. Why he stands up; to buy some bread. Why; he is hungry. Why; brain reminds him the hunger. Why; to make him survive. Why; we have evolved like that. Why; in general for the living beings, life is happier than death." You didn't even mention what point you were trying to argue, if you were even arguing at all.

2. "If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose." Still, once again, you didn't explain your example (stating what the whole point of each "example" you gave was). Also, this makes no sense, if we live for happiness, why would we think that death is happier than life or breeding, explain why your examples are completely irrelevant and prove no point.

Your next argument, Skept.
Debate Round No. 2
Skept

Pro

Refutation to paragraph 1: You had to understand the example before you require the explanation I already wrote.

3: I mentioned the point in the first phrase. We follow the option that secures happiness as I showed, in other words, we act for happiness.

4: (Still, once again, you didn't explain your example (stating what the whole point of each "example" you gave was))
I supplemented the example by introducing the counterexample for the particular idea; i.e., I stated 'what the point of the example is.' You admitted that although I explained the example, you did not understand by saying like above.

(Also, this makes no sense, if we live for happiness, why would we think that death is happier than life or breeding, explain why your examples are completely irrelevant and prove no point.)
In any case, someone can think death is happier than life or breeding, which is common sense. The proposition we die for happiness is compatible with the proposition we live for happiness because some people depart for happiness even though most people live for happiness, and we can die for happiness even though we have lived for happiness. Similarly, we eat for happiness but also do not eat for happiness. Consider if we are on a diet or fast.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

"I supplemented the example by introducing the counterexample for the particular idea; i.e., I stated 'what the point of the example is.' You admitted that although I explained the example, you did not understand by saying like above." No you didn't, you just made an irrelevant example, you made irrelevant examples to prove nothing. Of course you supplemented an example, but you did not make a point to get across.

"In any case, someone can think death is happier than life or breeding, which is common sense. The proposition we die for happiness is compatible with the proposition we live for happiness because some people depart for happiness even though most people live for happiness, and we can die for happiness even though we have lived for happiness. Similarly, we eat for happiness but also do not eat for happiness. Consider if we are on a diet or fast." Death is depressing, not for happiness. We lived to have a life, not happiness, if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane. Also, you never defined happiness, you could've done that. We've gone to funerals before, is that happiness?
No, it's sadness, not happiness.

"You had to understand the example before you require the explanation I already wrote." No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.
Debate Round No. 3
Skept

Pro

You agreed that I supplemented and stated 'what the whole point of each example.' Who can state the whole point and supplement an example without making a point to get across? Making a point to get across is sufficient condition for stating the whole point and supplementing. You committed a formal fallacy.

Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier.

Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness. Why do we want to have the life? because 'in general for the living beings life is happier than death.' 'some people depart for happiness,' but 'no people live for unhappiness,' so 'happiness is our ultimate goal.' I already said these. You continuously show you do not understand my arguments.

(if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane)
Is there an example?

You also used 'happiness' before defining. I could also say 'you could've done that.'

We are talking about the purpose of actions, not actions themselves. You have to reread the second paragraph shifting words from 'death' to 'funerals' before I say four times. Think about why do people commit suicide and go to funerals even though these themselves are mostly unhappy.

(No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.)
It's easy for everyone to say like this without effort to understand. Your saying is true if you did not overlook and refuted my statements. However, many pieces of evidence were explaining you miss my assertions as well as you ignored my paragraph two in the third round.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

First off, let's define Formal Fallacy.

Formal Fallacy: "In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called deductive fallacy) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic." [1]

I didn't make the formal fallacy, you did, you made randomly irrelevant examples without explaining the whole point of these examples. Let's prove that you have the formal fallacy. "Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. You committed a formal fallacy." You have no proof that I've committed "formal fallacy." Again, you reinstated irrelevant examples, and again, you proven no point.

"Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness." Yes it does prove that we did not live to have the "happiness" because we're not suicidal, you blindly believe that all people are suicidal, and again, you still haven't proven your point.

Let's read the rest of your argument. "Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness. Why do we want to have the life? because 'in general for the living beings life is happier than death.' 'some people depart for happiness,' but 'no people live for unhappiness,' so 'happiness is our ultimate goal.' I already said these. You continuously show you do not understand my arguments.

(if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane)
Is there an example?

You also used 'happiness' before defining. I could also say 'you could've done that.'

We are talking about the purpose of actions, not actions themselves. You have to reread the second paragraph shifting words from 'death' to 'funerals' before I say four times. Think about why do people commit suicide and go to funerals even though these themselves are mostly unhappy.

(No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.)
It's easy for everyone to say like this without effort to understand. Your saying is true if you did not overlook and refuted my statements. However, many pieces of evidence were explaining you miss my assertions as well as you ignored my paragraph two in the third round."

Yes, you made assertions, but you did not state the point that proves all of these random irrelevant examples. Just because I refuted and overlooked your statement, doesn't mean that you criticise me for doing so, it's just a thing to do when you're the one that made all these irrelevant examples, but has proven nothing. You have no evidence to prove that I missed any points at all, since you made that statement, now you have the burden of proof. Why should I have to re-read anything from any of your arguments when I read them through all the time. Also, answer this question. Why should people have to die or kill themselves at all?

Source:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Skept

Pro

(I didn't make the formal fallacy, you did, you made randomly irrelevant examples without explaining the whole point of these examples. Let's prove that you have the formal fallacy. "Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. You committed a formal fallacy." You have no proof that I've committed "formal fallacy." Again, you reinstated irrelevant examples, and again, you proven no point.)
-You moved 'You committed a formal fallacy' from my first paragraph to the second paragraph and ignored first paragraph relating irrelative paragraph. You committed strawman fallacy.

(Yes it does prove that we did not live to have the "happiness" because we're not suicidal)
-How 'we lived to have a life' and 'we are not suicidal' prove 'we did not live to have the happiness'? Some people are suicidal and 'we lived to have a life' is compatible with 'we lived to have the happiness.'

(you blindly believe that all people are suicidal, and again, you still haven't proven your point.)
-I have not believed 'all people are suicidal.' You once again committed strawman fallacy. I proved, but you did not understand.

(Yes, you made assertions, but you did not state the point that proves all of these random irrelevant examples.)
-I stated the point. Refer to the first paragraph of the fourth round you ignored.

(Just because I refuted and overlooked your statement, doesn't mean that you criticise me for doing so, it's just a thing to do when you're the one that made all these irrelevant examples, but has proven nothing.)
-You have to read by 'if you did not overlook and if you refuted my statements' because you have repeated illogical and already refuted arguments. Keep in mind that voters will judge whether I do not explain or you do not understand.

(You have no evidence to prove that I missed any points at all)
-There are many pieces of evidence as I show you in the fourth and this round.

(since you made that statement. now you have the burden of proof. Why should I have to re-read anything from any of your arguments when I read them through all the time.)
-Because you dig your own grave by showing you do not understand.

(Also, answer this question. Why should people have to die or kill themselves at all?)
-Some people kill themselves, which is so moldy to repeat. I did not say 'people should have to die or kill themselves at all.'
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Again, let's define Formal Fallacy.

Formal Fallacy: "In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called deductive fallacy) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic." [1]

I didn't make the formal fallacy, you did, you made randomly irrelevant examples without explaining the whole point of these examples. Let's prove that you have the formal fallacy. "Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. You committed a formal fallacy." You have no proof that I've committed "formal fallacy." Again, you reinstated irrelevant examples, and again, you proven no point.

Without further ado, here are my final rebuttals.

1. "You moved 'You committed a formal fallacy' from my first paragraph to the second paragraph and ignored first paragraph relating irrelative paragraph. You committed strawman fallacy." First off, you never defined to me what a "straw man fallacy" is, secondly, you made a spelling error, and lastly, let's define the "straw man fallacy."

Straw Man Fallacy:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man" [2]

Clearly, no one is committing a straw man fallacy, not even me. There is nothing for you to complain about, I'm simply refuting your arguments because they're both irrelevant and unexplained. While, you tried to prove your argument in an extremely defensive way and accusing me of committing a straw man fallacy, and it fell flat. Here is one of my claims that I made counterclaiming your argument. "Death is depressing, not for happiness. We lived to have a life, not happiness, if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane. Also, you never defined happiness, you could've done that. We've gone to funerals before, is that happiness? No, it's sadness, not happiness."

2. "How 'we lived to have a life' and 'we are not suicidal' prove 'we did not live to have the happiness'? Some people are suicidal and 'we lived to have a life' is compatible with 'we lived to have the happiness."

You are seriously refuting yourself, here is proof. "prove 'we did not live to have the happiness'?" First off, instead of countering my statement, you pretend you asked me a question without ever countering my statement.

3. "(you blindly believe that all people are suicidal, and again, you still haven't proven your point.)
-I have not believed 'all people are suicidal.' You once again committed strawman fallacy. I proved, but you did not understand."
Again, I already defined a straw man fallacy. Nobody committed a straw man fallacy. You committed a burden of proof, and you did blindly believe that all people are suicidal because you said that death and funerals are happy and that everyone died for happiness, you're saying "everyone." Point proven. It's more like you don't understand, not me.

4. (Yes, you made assertions, but you did not state the point that proves all of these random irrelevant examples.)
-I stated the point. Refer to the first paragraph of the fourth round you ignored.

You did not quote the fourth round, you only quoted me, but only doing that won't help you at all if you're not willing to fill your commitment to quote the paragraph, instead of quoting me. Also, with all these things I'm quoting from you, start using quotation marks, not parentheses. Also, you stated nothing.

5.(Just because I refuted and overlooked your statement, doesn't mean that you criticise me for doing so, it's just a thing to do when you're the one that made all these irrelevant examples, but has proven nothing.)
-You have to read by 'if you did not overlook and if you refuted my statements' because you have repeated illogical and already refuted arguments. Keep in mind that voters will judge whether I do not explain or you do not understand.

Also, voters have the right to judge you by your irrelevancy, your burden of proof, your using of parentheses instead of quotation marks, and stop refuting yourself. Here are your irrelevant quotes without proof. "A bachelor stands up. Why he stands up; to buy some bread. Why; he is hungry. Why; brain reminds him the hunger. Why; to make him survive. Why; we have evolved like that. Why; in general for the living beings, life is happier than death.

If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose." There, I quoted the irrelevant examples you made, carrying on.

6. "(You have no evidence to prove that I missed any points at all)
-There are many pieces of evidence as I show you in the fourth and this round."
You didn't show me any evidence that I missed any points at all, again, I was right.

7. "(since you made that statement. now you have the burden of proof. Why should I have to re-read anything from any of your arguments when I read them through all the time.)
-Because you dig your own grave by showing you do not understand."

You didn't explain why I necessarily "dig my own grave" by showing a lack of understanding, Also, you never explained what that meant. I was right, you were wrong.

8. "(Also, answer this question. Why should people have to die or kill themselves at all?)
-Some people kill themselves, which is so moldy to repeat. I did not say 'people should have to die or kill themselves at all."

Again, yes you did, here is one of your quotes for evidence. "If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose." Enough said.

Here are my final conclusions.

1. We do not live for happiness, we live for life.
2. We do not refute ourselves and blame others for a straw man fallacy.
3. We do not make claims with proof, explanation, or evidence.
4. We do not condone suicide or believe that suicide is good. It is bad.
5. We do not use terms and words without definition or explaining of it.
6. Finally, have the best of luck in your future arguments.

Final message: It has been a long time since this debate started, and it has been a good long time debating with you, I hope you have the best of luck in future debates and wish you a Happy New Year! It will be a long time since I will start a new debate topic, because I have to do other, more important things in life, such as YouTube, gaming, and music. This was one of the longest arguments I ever made so far, this argument and rebuttals round took me hours to type it all out. So, have the best of luck in future debates.

Here are all the sources I cited in this debate:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://www.google.com...

And finally, my last conclusion is, we do not live for happiness, we live for life, and we need to live our lives well.

The choice is clear, Vote for Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
There is no Christmas!!!
Woo hoo!
Yeah!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I had a good one!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Here goes my 4th round argument.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
OK, I just made my first rebuttals.
Posted by What50 7 months ago
What50
Our most important goal is to breed and pass on our genes.
Posted by canis 7 months ago
canis
No the most important goal in life is to stay alive.
Posted by cloebowie 7 months ago
cloebowie
I have high expectations for this debate.

Let the games begin.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 7 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Specify your argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.