Materialism is the best way to pursue happiness

Here's my rebuttal to my opponent's arguments. First, my opponent claims that materialism benefits everybody. I counter this with the fact that materialistic people are less happy than non-materialistic individuals, according to San Francisco State. "They found that people who were more materialistic also felt less gratitude which, in turn, was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. Psychologists have consistently shown how important gratitude is for both life satisfaction and happiness." [1]How does it benefit everyone then? These people are scientifically proven to be less happy then their less materialistic peers. So no, it doesn't benefit them, it actually harms them. Yes, we should live our lives to our full potential, but this can lead to unhappiness in these types of people. As most know, unhappiness leads to a multitude of problems. [2] Should they be dissatisfied with their lives? This contradicts the argument we should live our lives to our full potential. Next, my opponent brings up video games. I'd like to point out that these are bare assertions. My opponent provides no sources to prove this argument true with the exception of an article on TED to represent the number of hours spent playing video games. The rest have no evidence. How is this a huge harm to people of the spiritual world? How does materialism represent the common man through video games? How do video games give more benefits to people than spiritualism? These are among some questions I'd like my opponent to answer in his defense. As for the questions my opponent asked me, I'll answer them in my defense, just as my opponent will answer my questions in his defense.Then, my opponent brings up the internet. First, I'd like to point out that Pro's information is wrong. YouTube - My opponent claims that all people combined watch 100,000,000 videos a day through the site. Where does he get this information? Yahoo Answers. It's the third link provided in his arguments, but for the sake of my rebuttal, I'll put a citation. [3] Also, the question was answered seven years ago, so it's definitely outdated, according to statistics. The actual number is 4,950,000,000, as of 2015. [4] While it may be outdated by now, 2015 is closer to today than 2009, as of today. Facebook - Again, the information is outdated. How long ago was it? The article was made uploaded February 1, 2010. [5] As of March 2016, 1.09 billion log into Facebook daily. [6] Instagram - Unlike the other examples, this has no source to point to. Statistics show that about 75 million users log into Instagram daily. [7] Porn - My opponent links two sources actually, but they don't lead to anything. One is just Bing and the other is "How many people watch porn?" typed into Bing's search engine. For proof, here are the sources he linked. [8,9] And no, not everybody watches porn. While I was unable to find the stats on daily viewing of porn, I was able to find that 40 million Americans watch porn regularly. [10] That's pretty far off from the projected 7 billion people on Earth. [11] So this information is almost completely inaccurate. Lastly in the debate for materialism, my opponent argues in the case of money. My opponent claims that most people who practice materialism have the money to support their habits. But my question is what about the lower to middle-class? They don't have the money to support this. This can prove to be harmful to those people if they frequently practice materialism, as they can go into debt faster than those are are upper-class. In a study of the effects of winning the lottery, research found this:"In other words, a certain amount of wealth relieves financial stress and its associated hardship. But the absence of such worries doesn't necessarily bring about happiness. And once you're financially secure, the returns diminish on your extra revenue. As Norton puts it, if you double an income of $10,000, you've got a profound life change. But an extra $10,000 on top of a $1 million salary? The bump is marginal."Consider, too, a principle that happiness researchers call 'hedonic adaptation,' which is to say, you get used to the niceties " a new car and roomier digs " and, as you do, the lift they provide wears off. (Suffering hard blows, sadly, has a more lasting impact, Norton says). In his research with co-author Elizabeth Dunn, a University of British Columbia psychology professor, Norton asked wealthy British investors how much more money they would need for life to be a 'perfect 10.' Despite the range of their earnings, all of them answered they would need to triple their income." [12] This shows that wealth doesn't necessarily offer stability. Also relating back to the lottery, winners are likely to go bankrupt. [13] In fact, a whopping 70% of them file for bankruptcy! [14] Also, the rates of people filing for bankruptcy has gone up quite a lot in all classes. [15] The third most common reason for bankruptcy is excess use of credit. [16] So is materialism really the best way to go to be happy?On the second half of the argument, my opponent points out the Cons of spiritualism. My opponent provides no sources for any of the values he posts. I do agree that materialists can practice novelty and honesty, but I can make a case against humility. Humility - a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness. [17]In my opening statements, I made a whole subpoint of my argument about narcissism and it's relation to materialism. I'll repost the definition of narcissism. Narcissism - extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type. [18]This completely goes against the definition of humility, can't you agree? If you really want to go more in depth in this, I have subpoint C of my statements dedicated to this alone where I connect narcissism to materialism.Then, my opponent says that one can't simply execute the values he provided with the proficiency an Asian Buddhist can and that he'll prove this. He never goes on to prove this. Lastly, he says that humans are naturally selfish and we hold traits of materialism to this day. This is true, but what if you're an extreme materialist? What is defined as extreme? I'd say someone who relies on possessions. They surround themselves in objects because they need them to try to be happy. Is this not unhealthy? Yes, all humans have a degree of selfishness. Science agrees with this. [19]Selfish - (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. [20]Selfishness, like materialism, as quite a few negative effects if it's on an extreme level, including self pity, envy, thoughts of suicide, thoughts of murder, anxiety, insecurity, and jealousy, among others. [21]Thank you. I look forward to your defense against my rebuttal. By the way, I'm sorry for how late this was. I'm uploading it literally 20 minutes before the cut off. And I apologize for the length of the rebuttal. I got a little too sucked into this, as this is easily the best debate I've taken part in for a while. Good bye!Citations[1]http://www.spring.org.uk...[2]http://zenhabits.net...[3]https://answers.yahoo.com...[4]http://www.statisticbrain.com...[5]http://techcrunch.com...[6]https://zephoria.com...[7]http://expandedramblings.com...[8]http://www.bing.com...[9]http://www.bing.com...[10]http://www.webroot.com...[11]http://www.worldometers.info...[12]http://health.usnews.com...[13]http://www.marketwatch.com...[14] https://www.google.com...[15]https://www.debt.org...[16]http://www.investopedia.com...[17]https://www.google.com...[18]https://www.google.com...[19]http://www.express.co.uk...[20]https://www.google.com...[21]http://www.examiner.com...