"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

DISCLAIMERThis 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.REBUTTALThe 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."RebuttalP1- 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 analogiesRebuttal: 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.]SUMMARYRross 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.