The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

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 6 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,728 times Debate No: 39526
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (67)
Votes (6)

 

rross

Pro

The US Declaration of Independence famously states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". So it seems to me that they just put it in because it sounds more sweeping and noble than "Life and Liberty" would on its own.

Yet it does seem to be present in American culture. A writer for Time magazine described it as "a central mandate of the national character" (2)

This has puzzled me for a while, actually, so I'm hoping someone will explain it all in the debate.

(1) http://www.archives.gov...
(2) http://content.time.com...
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [US Declaration of Independence]

Life: A principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings[1].

Liberty: The power to do or choose your actions[2].


RESPONSE

Pro explains, "I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". So it seems to me that they just put it in because it sounds more sweeping and noble than "Life and Liberty" would on its own."

Response: The general argument here is an argument from ignorance or lack of understanding that can be summarized as:

S1- I don't understand the meaning the phrase adds. [Ignorance - lack of understanding]

S2- The phrase is there to make the sentence sound "sweeping and noble" to me. [Subjective interpretation from personal experience- not a convincing reason]

Conclusion: The phrase seems more decorative than meaningful. [Very weak induction]

---

There is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used. All I could offer is a more reasonable argument than the one Pro presented, arguing that the phrase is more meaningful than decorative.


S1-
"Pursuit of happiness" is meaningful and conveys an important meaning.

If a father told his daughter I endow you with money, freedom and the pursuit of good investments. Was the last bit meaningless? Absolutely not. It represents the path he wants his daughter to undertake and so he mentions it for emphasis purposes. "Liberty" does encompass the "pursuit of good investments" along with the ability to spend all your money on poker, but the word "liberty" alone doesn't at all emphasize the path that should be undertaken after receiving such endowments. Hence, the addition is meaningful. It's like saying I give you all this with the third being my underlying purpose. This is certainly a meaningful addition as it conveys a meaning of high importance.

Another example would be Airmax messaging a debater and telling her that she now has the right to vote, decide and choose the better debater. Was the last part meaningless? Not at all. The underlying purpose of giving such rights is allowing the voter to fulfill such a purpose. The same applies to our dispute in this debate.

How do we know that the author of that article had the purpose of seeking happiness?

P1- The article was written by one of the founders.

P2- All the founders were human.

P3- Most humans have the "pursuit of happiness" as a purpose to resume living.

Conclusion: The article was written by someone who most likely has the "pursuit of happiness" as a purpose.

Hence, we can conclude that a reasonable scenario would be that "pursuit of happiness" was a very meaningful phrase, as it most likely reflected the underlying life purposes of one or more of the founders.

--

In summary, Pro's opening statement was an utter failure that ended with a a very weak induction. As I've shown in this round, my position is supported with more substantial and reasonable arguments. Here is my stronger induction:


S-1.1- "Pursuit of happiness" is meaningful and conveys an important meaning.

S-1.2 "Pursuit of happiness" is most likely a purpose in the founders' belief system.

S-1.3 Lack of convincing reasons from Pro on how "Pursuit of happiness" is solely decorative.

Induction: The phrase seems more meaningful than decorative. [Stronger induction than Pro's]

In conclusion, there is no conclusive explanation in this debate/discussion. My opponent can concede or argue against such reasons to officially begin a competitive debate. She has the right of participation, liberty and honorable defeat. It's up to her to choose even with my emphasis.

[1]
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
[2] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

In the introduction to this debate, I invited my opponent to explain the meaning of the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness".

To win this debate, Con needs to explain two things:

1. What "pursuit of Happiness" contributes to the Declaration that is not already covered by "Life" and "Liberty".

2. What meaning "pursuit of Happiness" has for present day America, in particular to what extent it is a central mandate of the national character over and above the concepts of "Life" and "Liberty" etc.

debate structure

Con has chosen to skip an acceptance round and argue first. Therefore, in order for both sides to have an equal space of argument, he should refrain from arguing in round 4.

definitions


Because this debate is about the meaning of words and phrases, discussion of definitions should remain open. Although I do not disagree with Con's dictionary definitions as such, I accept them only as contributing to the discussion of the words' meaning rather than as absolutely definitive.

"The pursuit of Happiness" resonates

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous texts in the world. Even people outside the United States, with no interest in history and politics have heard of it. It is concise, moving, and its aims - equality and liberty - are entirely admirable.

"The pursuit of Happiness" sounds marvellous. Without it, "life and liberty" would be a bit prosaic. Indeed, it could be the very ambiguity of the phrase that adds such poetry to the Declaration.

But what does it mean exactly?

Con argues that the phrase probably does have a meaning. He guesses that it "is most likely a purpose in the founders belief system". But he does not attempt to explain what that purpose might be. I invite him to make that attempt in the next round.

Why was the phrase used?

Con concedes that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase used."

However, he suggests that despite this, the phrase has meaning, and puts forward two analogies to support this argument. Firstly, he compares the Declaration to a father endowing his daughter with "the pursuit of good investments". I'm afraid that this makes no sense to me at all. How can you endow someone with the pursuit of good investments?

endow (verb): give or bequeath an income or property to (a person or institution) (1)

Perhaps he means he endowed her with money, freedom to spend it, and wished good investments upon her. Yes, in that example, his blessing of good fortune is indeed additional to him endowing her with money. I can't see how this sheds any light on the "pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration, however. The Declaration speaks of the pursuit of Happiness as an unalienable Right. Not as a blessing.

In his second example, he compares Life and Liberty to the right to vote and decide on DDO, and the pursuit of Happiness to the right to choose the better debater. Again, this is a false analogy. We have a restricted right to vote on DDO, yes, but we are obliged to choose the better debater in the context of the particular debate. This is part of the rules of voting on this site. So Con is comparing the pursuit of Happiness with a rule (rather than an unalienable Right) and, indeed, a restriction on Liberty.

Opposites

The opposite of Life is death; the opposite of Liberty is slavery. The opposite of the pursuit of Happiness is a disinclination to do so.

Con argues that "most humans have the "pursuit of happiness" as a purpose to resume living".

I will assume that "resume" is a typo. But even so, his meaning escapes me. Perhaps he means that pursuing happiness is a natural human behavior, like seeking shelter in a storm. In which case, it is redundant in the Declaration, because people will want or pursue happiness whether or not they are formally given such rights.

Summary

This debate was set up to examine the meaning of "the pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Con's refusal to do so has been disappointing.


(1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

This debate has gone beyond absurd.

Rross abandoned the original debate by creating a new one with different terms and conditions. I clicked "I accept" based on the opening statement and the topic, and so I vehemently refuse to accept any additions/distortions.

This alone means she gets a seven-point loss as she violated the initial conditions and format of this debate.

Pro claims there was an acceptance round.

Rebuttal: Unless I'm hallucinating, the opening statement said nothing about a first round for acceptance.

Pro claims I'm not allowed to have a final round.

Rebuttal: I was not told in the OpS that the first round is for acceptance, so I'm having a final round whether she likes it it not.

Pro argued that it is necessary to explain the national character in an American context.

Rebuttal: This was not stated as an obligatory condition before Round 2, so no, I actually don't. This is a side-discussion. The phrase can be meaningful and yet not be a national character.

Pro tried shifting the burden of proof.

Rebuttal: Nowhere in the OpS is it obligatory for me to explain the explanations Rross described as mandatory in Round 2. Hence, centering the debate on the explanations is a sleazy attempt to shift the burden of proof when it is actually shared. Other debaters might have said that the BoP is solely on Pro as it is not defined in the OpS, but I took the charitable position and considered it shared as "decorative" and "meaningful" are not opposites according to the Aristotelian Law of Identity.

Pro clearly changed the initial conditions, so the penalty is a seven-point loss as she violated DDO standards and the initial conditions of this debate.

REBUTTAL

The winner of the debate was supposed to be the person who makes a more reasonable argument for his position(more meaningful or more decorative).

Pro's central argument can be summarized as "I don't understand... It feels like... and hey it resonates to me, ... so it seems so decorative" While my argument has been supported with reasons Pro agreed with.

I was about to further elaborate my explanation of the phrase because my opponent did her best to misunderstand it by twisting my words, before I realized that Pro's new argument has defeated her own position.

Pro argues, "It is redundant in the Declaration, because people will want or pursue happiness whether or not they are formally given such rights."

Rebuttal

P1- Americans had a declaration not because they were seeking rights but because they were seeking their validation.

*It's not like Franklin told Paine, "Look dude. Nobody is asking for the fundamental right of life. Let us write it down, bro." They wrote rights people were seeking.

P2- Rross' new argument states that it is redundant and meaningless to write rights that people already seek.

P3- By P1 and P2, it is deduced that the whole rights on the deceleration are redundant and meaningless.

P4- Rross' position is that only the "pursue of happiness" is.

Conclusion: Rross' argument proves that her position is self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Pro then claims I used false analogies

Rebuttal: All analogies can be falsified if the criteria of comparison is twisted. Mine was linguistic emphasis so it doesn't really matter if it is a "rule" or "right" as both can emphasized in the English language, unless Pro can prove otherwise.

Pro then argues that the phrase resonates to her and doesn't sound prosaic.

Rebuttal: Yet another subjective and baseless interpretation as in Round 1 without any linguistic evidence. What part of that doesn't rross understand?

[I shall use the next rounds to refute all the other fabrications Pro introduced to this debate.]

SUMMARY


Rross has already caused herself a seven-point loss by pulling an apeiron and trying to change the initial rules, and then she refuted her own position giving me the 3 points for Arguments like Halloween candy.

Pro has the choice of consenting this debate or losing it dishonorably. It's up to her, really.
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

"The pursuit of Happiness" is beautiful

Professor Lucas, in his article The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence, writes:

"[T]he preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style...Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble...

“Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse... [H]e consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence.” (1)

Even today, the words of the preamble are used in everyday art and poetry (2). For example, one blogger calls it "poetic brilliance", singling out the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" as especially resonant (3).

Jefferson was chosen to draft the Declaration on account of his writing skills. John Adams recalled that "Writings of [Jefferson's] were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression." and that when Jefferson asked why he should draft the Declaration, Adams said, "You can write ten times better than I can." (4)

A common rhetorical device in speeches is the tricolon, or hendriatis, where three words or phrases are used together. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is often held up as a classic example of this sort of figure of speech (5,6). "Life and Liberty" would not have had nearly as much aesthetic impact on its own.

The Burden of Proof

The rhetorical power of "the pursuit of Happiness" is obvious. However, Con has not explained what it means. In fact, he has conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used." He argues that he does need to provide a meaning. However, when the phrase is obviously decorative, and no meaning is provided, then the resolution stands: it is more decorative than meaningful.

Redundant rights

Con said that "most humans have the 'pursuit of happiness' as a purpose to resume living". He argues that Paine (does he mean Jefferson?) simply wrote down a right that people were seeking at the time.

The Declaration was adopted when the American colonies were at war with Great Britain. The Americans were defending their rights to Life and Liberty in the face of death and coercion. They were not defending things that could not be taken away from them. For instance, they were not defending a right to be affected by the Earth's gravity, because that is something that cannot be removed. And they were not defending a right to want to be, or try to be happy. Because no foreign nation can affect such things. Defending such rights really would be meaningless.

Rules vs rights

Con argues that there is no difference between rules and rights, but there obviously is. Compare the US right to bear arms (Amendment II, US Constitution), with a rule that obliged people to bear arms, which would be a gross imposition.

the US national character

The resolution is written in the present tense ("is"), because meanings can change over time. In the introduction, I elaborated on this idea, referring both to the meaning that was originally intended, as well as the way it's understood in the modern US. Con argues that these explanations are not "obligatory". However, as I have already pointed out, the decorative nature of the phrase - both now and when it was written - has been established. Its meaning has not.

The resolution stands. "The pursuit of Happiness" is more decorative than meaningful.

(1) http://www.archives.gov...;

(2) http://prezi.com...

(3) http://lexfridman.com...

(4) http://www-tc.pbs.org...

(5) http://grammar.about.com...

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...

NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

To win this debate, Pro has to offer substantial arguments to prove that the phrase is more decorative than meaningful. She has not done this so far.

It goes without saying that Pro didn't apologize for her previous violation of the initial rules, which means that the seven-point loss penalty still stands unless Pro clearly denounces most of what she stated in Round 2, of course.

REBUTTAL

An appeal to authority is justified if an only if (1) the cited is an actual authority and (2) if and only if the citation itself has a consensus from other experts. "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism[1]".

Pro claims, 'one blogger calls it "poetic brilliance", singling out the phrase "the pursuit of Happiness" as especially resonant.'

Rebuttal: (1) Fabrication on Pro's behalf. Citation doesn't say the second part of her claim(http://lexfridman.com...). (2) Even if it did, appeal to authority not shown to satisfy the two conditions.

Pro appeals to the authority of Professor Lucas.

Rebuttal: Such an appeal has not been shown to be justified according to the two necessary conditions.

Pro appeals to Adams' opinion on Jefferson's writings.

Rebuttal: Another unjustified appeal to authority.

Pro argues, 'A common rhetorical device in speeches is the tricolon, or hendriatis, where three words or phrases are used together... "Life and Liberty" would not have had nearly as much aesthetic impact on its own.'

Rebuttal: I expected a peer-reviewed, linguistic study after such a strong assertion, but it seems my opponent expected us to take it for granted. Fox News is doing fine with "Fair and balanced." Unless Pro can show us beyond reasonable doubt that Fox's motto would be more aesthetic if it was "Fair, balanced and X" where X is any other adjective added for decorative purposes, I see no reason to accept such a linguistic hypothesis.

Pro claims that the right of liberty could be taken away, but definitely not the right to pursue happiness.

Rebuttal: She herself earlier argued that the right of liberty encompasses the right to pursue happiness. Hence, if the right of liberty could be taken away so does the right to pursue happiness. My opponent once again manages to refute her own position awarding me Arguments(3 points).

Pro remarks, "Con argues that there is no difference between rules and rights."

Rebuttal: I said no such thing. I ask the readers to penalize Pro for such poor sportsmanship and intentional lies.

Pro remarks, "The rhetorical power of "the pursuit of Happiness" is obvious."

Rebuttal: If it was obvious, we wouldn't be having a debate.


MY EXPLANATION

The purpose of mentioning the "pursue of happiness" is to emphasize a main purpose behind having such rights. In my explanation, liberty is the road and happiness is what we attain, and hence liberty is a medium to reach our happiness. This pursuit for happiness is already found in the American dream. I did my best as a Middle Eastern to study that phrase without such context and yet I was astonished by how meaningful it is to mention one's heuristic and main goal in a pattern that goes from the fundamental right of life and then touches upon its corollaries which are separately mentioned as their emphasis is needed to add meaning. Liberty alone is not enough as it does not emphasize what one should do with liberty, and so the phrase is needed for the statement to be really meaningful and deep. This debate has made me understand the depth of the term "pursuit of happiness" so I have to thank Pro for initiating it.

SOURCES

[1] Found in http://en.wikipedia.org..., citation from Gensler, Harry J. (2003). Introduction to Logic. New York, NY: Routedge. pp. 333–4.


Debate Round No. 3
rross

Pro

The phrase veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) is so stylish it is repeated now, more than 2000 years later, by those who know nothing about Julius Caesar's campaigns. Style matters because it engages directly with the emotions and the memory. If JC had written "I came, I conquered", it would still have informed the Senate of the outcome. Adding "I saw" changed the meaning only slightly, but added greatly to the aesthetics.
"I saw" is more decorative than meaningful.

Similarly, "the pursuit of Happiness" ends the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in a strong and stylish fashion. It does not add much meaning, though. It is more decorative than meaningful too.

evidence of style

In Round 1, Con argued without a scrap of evidence that '"Pursuit of happiness" is most likely a purpose in the founders' belief system. However, last round, I quoted one of the founders - John Adams - as saying that he asked Jefferson to draft the resolution on account of his expressive writing skills. This is evidence that the style of the Declaration was a primary consideration when it was written. Con has refused to respond to this evidence. Instead, he argues that quoting John Adams, the founder of the Declaration, is "unjustified appeal to authority". Con's objection is ridiculous.

Last round I provided some examples of people who had written about the beauty of the preamble and particularly "the pursuit of Happiness". People are authorities on their own aesthetic response to something. To say (as Con does) that they need to provide, within their material, evidence of agreement from other "experts" is just silly.

Con called a quote from an academic paper by S. Lucas, Professor of Communicative Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an unjustified appeal to authority. But then he complained that the two sources on the use of the tricolon were not "peer-reviewed linguistic studies". Totally contradictory.

no meaning has been presented in this debate

In his first round, Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used". However, last round he argued that the phrase was used "to emphasize a main purpose behind having such rights". That is, Life and Liberty are the unalienable rights, and their purpose is the pursuit of Happiness, according to Con.

Unfortunately, this explanation directly contradicts the Declaration itself, which states that "all men...are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The pursuit of Happiness is an unalienable Right, according to the declaration, not a purpose of other rights. Nor is it a rule or a psychological urge.

Con's suggested explanation is rejected.

No coherent meaning for the phrase has been presented in this debate, but its aesthetic qualities have been established. The resolution holds: "the pursuit of Happiness is more decorative than meaningful".

debate conduct

Con chose to use most of his characters on insults and false accusations. Because I did provide evidence and argue, I only have space left to respond very briefly.

Reprehensibly, Con told readers to award him 7 points because of the way I framed the debate. Such voting would be in violation of the site's rules (1).

Con falsely claimed that I created new terms and conditions in Round 2. I wrote a gentle introduction because I hoped for a constructive, friendly debate. After Con's first round, I rephrased it in stronger language. The terms and conditions did not change.

Con declared he deserves an extra round, because I didn't say that the first round was for acceptance. That both sides get equal space to argue is something I automatically assumed. I left it open for my opponent to argue 1st or 2nd. Con has chosen to violate a basic rule of fairness.

Con accused me of "intentional lies" in representing internal and external sources. This is false at every point.

(1) http://www.debate.org...



NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Francis Hutcheoson(1694 – 1746), the famous European-Enlightenment philosopher, wrote years before the declaration that the "pursuing happiness is the chief drive and purpose human will[Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, page.2]".

Norman Fiering, a specialist historian, has described Hutcheoson in a peer-reviewed work as "probably the most influential and respected moral philosopher in America in the eighteenth century[Fiering, Norman (1981). Moral Philosophy at Seventeenth-Century Harvard: A Discipline in Transition. University of North Carolina Press. p. 199.]."

It is established beyond dispute that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" reflects a philosophy inspired from Hutcheoson himself who was a source of inspiration in the 18th century, and who had works on the pursuit of happiness that preceded the declaration.

The resolution is defeated; The phrase is more meaningful than decorative.

DEBATE(7PTS)

Pro lost the seven points as she forfeited the original debate and started a new one in Round 2.

SOURCES(2PTS)

Pro claims a seven-point loss is against DDO's rules

Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered(http://www.debate.org...) took me to a webpage on debating tips written by Nate Simmons. There no mention of the debating rules or the seven point loss, but the contrary: "Version 3.0 introduced an amazing new voting system and here are some tips to use it more effectively."

Pro claims Professor Lucas wrote an academic paper.

Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered is a broken-link saying "File not found." I checked the website and it is not a website for peer-reviewed journals but archives.org which archives any document.

Pro also lied about the blogger's citation as shown in Round 3.

It is established that Pro used what logicians call the "Tu quoque fallacy." Instead of countering the previous accusations of using fabricated sources, she instead accused the accuser of being "false at every point" without any evidence.

ARGUMENTS(3PTS)

Pro's central argument, "I don't know what it means.... it resonates to me... it seems so."

Rebuttal: This was proven to be an argument from ignorance.

Pro further argues, "I came, I conquered, I saw" is like "Liberty, Life and the pursuit of happiness."

Rebuttal: Pro has already dropped the challenge of showing how Fox's "fair and balanced" would be more aesthetic with an adjective added. In his book, "Believing Bullsh!t," Stephen Law speaks of the "but it fits" fallacy; when a baseless hypothesis would grasp at compatible examples and ignore other contrary/opposing ones. Pro even admits that she has not offered any well-cited, linguistic evidence for her hypothesis, but she insists it is obvious and should be taken for granted.

Pro repeats, "Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used."

Rebuttal: I said no such thing. I said there is no conclusive explanation on why it is "more meaningful" or "more decorative" since inductive reasoning, by definition, is inconclusive.

Pro has only provided weak arguments and failed to satisfy her BoP. While I have offered...

(1) The historic origin of "pursuit of happiness" which proves it is meaningful, and shows Hutcheoson's influence.

(2) An explanation of the phrase's philosophic and important meaning.

(3) The existence of the phrase in the founder's belief system.

(4) Computability of the phrase with the founder's life purpose and the general American dream
.

CONDUCT(1PT)

Pro has called my objections "ridiculous," changed the initial rules of the debate, ignored my explanations and used sleazy tactics(e.g tu quoque tactic)...

...

It seems Pro has no background in rationality(e.g appeals to authority or inductive reasoning) or concerns for intellectual honesty. The lawyering tactics she used forced me to hold Diogenes' lamp when reading her turns to find one honest statement under broad daylight, and yet my search was pointless.

If you agree with the seven-point loss or the DDO's tips on voting,

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
The answer to this debate is in the following book: "Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights," by Takac:

http://www.bookdaily.com...

Life"s Unalienable Rights are an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, life"s Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
@LD. Thanks for you comments, which I think are mostly accurate.

However, I have to agree that for a new user to find this debate and have such a detailed understanding of the voting culture on this site and the motives of voters etc. is fairly incredible.

But yeah. Niqashmotawadi3 was debating on this for revenge, not for any other reason. That's way it went the way it did.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Oh well. I don't want to revisit this nasty debate. NiqashMotawadi3 has confessed publicly that he was motivated by a personal vendetta against me at the time.

I did not misrepresent sources, but Con accused me of doing so. It was easy enough to check and three voters who didn't: Jakeross6 (Con's best friend), Magic8000, and MysticEgg (who had a private agreement with Con in relation to discussing his vote) and still voted sources to Con are pretty obviously corrupt voters, in my opinion.

Wrichcirw explained all his points in an RFD and therefore it's not a votebomb. For what it's worth, i think I deserved a seven point win on this.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@LD, if your only argument against me is from personal intentions and you want to say that "I'm obsessed with winning," then so be it. But don't pretend you have read the debate, as you clearly haven't, since you can't quote one sentence or make one justification for your baseless claims which after two comments, still remain unsupported. This debate was voted on by probably the most reliable voters on this website, except for Wrichriw who is Rross' friend and placed a 7 point votebomb. If you don't like them, then yes, you should leave this website for good. We don't like the stench of "Yahoo Answers" noobs around here.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@LD, Still no shred of evidence that I used "false evidence" or made "arguments out of context" which is something not even one voter said, even the only one who voted or actually votebombed against me.
Since you have not provided any reasonable justification for your false accusations, and because I take my sincerity on DDO seriously, if you have something to say to me, you better have good reasons to do so.

I don't think any website on the Internet is for you. I'm trying to be nice, but you're simply placing a hateful comment without any reasonable justification. Probably, you should try Yahoo Answers. You'll fit in there.
Posted by L.D 3 years ago
L.D
See, there you go again, locking yourself on self-defense mode. I feel sorry for you. You can't even get yourself to believe that I don't even know you, because, of course, "there is nothing wrong with you, so it must be the other people". Moreover, I couldn't care less if I lose on any debates here, as I said, that is not my primary objective. But if you, and most people here, are so obsessed with just winning a debate, then yes, this is not a website for me, so thanks for making that clear.
However, you just proved my point that you are obsessed with winning, regardless of the content and quality of the debate, and what you, as an individual can gain from it.
Have a nice day.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"Niqash strikes me as the kind of person who gets mad when he doesn't win, when people do not vote, and will do anything to try to win, such as false evidence, bribing voters, building his arguments out of context, and so on."

Provide evidence for that. I'm pretty sure you're someone I defeated in a debate before, and you're trying to say sh!t about me on one of my debates with a new account.

Moreover, you didn't provide one argument. You simply talked about "how we strike you as." We don't need more people like you on this website.
Posted by L.D 3 years ago
L.D
Even though this is an old post, here it goes:

I hope both @rross and @Niqash understand that I'm friends with neither of them. However, I feel that this voting has been tilted unfairly in favor of Niqash. It is as if somehow Niqash has bribed the voters to vote for him. This is not the only debate rross and Niqash have had with one another, and I've also read separate debates from each of them and here is what I think. rross strikes me as the kind of person who is respectful towards others, trying to keep a positive spirit, and humble, apologising even when it is not necessary.
Whereas Niqash strikes me as the kind of person who gets mad when he doesn't win, when people do not vote, and will do anything to try to win, such as false evidence, bribing voters, building his arguments out of context, and so on. He is forgetting the most important thing of why he is debating in the first place, the real purpose of the debate is not winning it, but getting something out of it for yourself. Where rross is more self-preserved, Niqash is more rushed. Let me tell you something, you can win 1000 debates but if you lose the true purpose of why you are debating, you will still gain less than the one who lost 1000 debates, but keeps in mind the real purpose of debating. So, rross you have won the greater battle.

@Jakeross6, I am trying to say this in the nicest way I can: You need to be deprived of the rights to vote in these kind of debates. Reason being all accusations rross directed towards you, are to say the least, highly valid and accurate.

This voting system is corrupt.

I am left feeling very disappointed. I created an account today, after discovering this site through absolute coincidence, and I found it wonderful and a great concept. Now I think I will delete my account, as I see no point in spending time here, since what I could have gained from it has been compromised.

A good concept, but human nature, as always, spoils the fun.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
I messes up presenting the RFD, read my first comment.

....call attention to phrase in question. This is going to hurt source points for her. He also claims that no good evidence has been given to support the use of rhetorical tricolons. He points out Pro is contradicting herself, as she did say in round 1 " I've never understood how "the pursuit of Happiness" adds any extra meaning that isn't covered by "Liberty". But now she's stating that you cannot have the right taken away, but you can with liberty. In the last round Pro talks about the old saying Vini Vedi Veci however I don't see the importance. She then argues she has given proper evidence to support her claim, but the link was broken, so the argument remains unjustified and unsourced. Pro then goes on to argue that no meaning has been given. But this leaves a lot of Con's last round uncontested. Such as the clear contradiction and misused blog post. Con comes back and shows that the origins of the term were meaningful and showed how Pro misused sources.

For these reasons, arguments and sources to Con. I'm not sure if a 7 loss is warranted, but Con does deserve the win.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Pro open up with more of a question than an argument. Con comes back saying the pursuit of happiness is meaningful because it conveys the path the founders want the people to take. Like his analogy points out. Pro says Con conceded by saying there is no conclusive explanation , but this looks to me that she is misunderstanding Con"s statement. Con was just admitting that there is no conclusive explanation, not that it had no meaning at all. For example, I can state that there is no conclusive explanation as to why there was low entropy at the Universe"s beginning, but this doesn"t mean I"m conceding that there is no explanation or reason whatsoever. Pro also argues that Con"s analogies are different from rights, but EVERY analogy breaks down SOMEWHERE. It is easy to point out where analogies break down, but that doesn"t mean it"s false. Pro says that if we choose to accept Con"s view, then the term must be redundant. I may be wrong here, but redundant doesn"t seem to equal meaningless to me. Con pointed out that if it"s redundant to write out rights people already seek, then that means all rights pointed out are redundant. Pro gives some arguments against Con's position. She says Jefferson was a great poet and writer, which is why Adams chose him. Also that a blogger claimed it was poetic (which is hardly an authority) and tricolons were common. She claims not all rights are redundant because life and liberty can be taken away, but not the want or effort to be happy. She also carries on claiming Pro conceded with his no conclusive evidence comment. Con shows Pro's blogger source doesn't even claim what Pro said it did. I would also like to note that the blogger never called the phrase "pursuit of happiness" was poetically brilliant, the blogger claimed the entire Declaration of Independence was poetic.
" Between the beer, the food, and the fireworks today, steal a few minutes to read the poetic brilliance of its 1300 words: Declaration of Independence". It doesn't
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. I WILL NOT DEBATE THESE.
Vote Placed by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct vote granted to CON. Pro established a rudimentary argument with source citation in round one and failed to define any additional rules, yet is found seeking to impose penalty on CON for establishing his own round one argument. The Pro could only make a case for breach of conduct agreement if such an agreement existed. Spelling and Grammar was a narrow margin. Spell Check via cut-past into spell check yielded 2 errors to Pro (Marvelous spelled with an extra "l" and hendriatis ought to be "Hendiadys"). Con doubled up on "it" in round two:"..whether she likes it it not." Arguments go to Con. Pro established a single argument to define the burden of defining "decorative" (tricolon argument), the rest are counter-arguments to Con's massive list of arguments in support for "meaning." Since the resolution is semantic and not hard fact, I was left deciding between Pros singular premise and admission to argue from ignorance and Con's four main points and thorough rebuttals.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, while con did have a good point that you cannot change the rules and she did, his demands for an outright 7 point loss was outlandish and he did derail the debate by doing so. S&G I noticed nothing major, args to con; pro has BOP due to it's writings in the DOI and claim to know the founders intentions (it was decoration more than anything) to which she does not show when she admits her curiosity in the first round. Furthermore, her arguments were pretty much just semantic based after con defined his terms in the first (which pro had the opportunity to but didn't thus it goes to con). Pro, next time define in the first round the rules and terms. You actually lost this debate before it was even started. Sorry. Sources? Tie. Nothing special and both used them.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. This is not a vote-bomb.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
rrossNiqashMotawadi3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting motion, but the debate was derailed. I must admit, Con convinced me of the motion almost from the start. Conduct...hmm. While Con didn't randomly incorporate new things and change the debate; he did, repeatedly and forcefully, tell us - the voters - how to vote. That's our job! I cannot give Con conduct for this reason; I felt as if I was being shouted at and commanded. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments: Easily go to Con. Pro continuously implied that for something to be meaningful, it has to have meaning. But this is easily shown to be false when we look at, say, a photograph. Thus, Pro's counters to Con's arguments went unjustified. Arguments to Con. Sources go to Con, too, due to the lack of reliability from Pro's sources.