"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

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 styleIn 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 debateIn 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 conductCon 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...