"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

INTRODUCTIONTo 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.REBUTTALAn 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 EXPLANATIONThe 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.