We live for happiness

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.