"the pursuit of happiness" is more decorative than meaningful

Francis Hutcheoson(1694 – 1746), the famous European-Enlightenment philosopher, wrote years before the declaration that the "pursuing happiness is the chief drive and purpose human will[Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, page.2]". Norman Fiering, a specialist historian, has described Hutcheoson in a peer-reviewed work as "probably the most influential and respected moral philosopher in America in the eighteenth century[Fiering, Norman (1981). Moral Philosophy at Seventeenth-Century Harvard: A Discipline in Transition. University of North Carolina Press. p. 199. ]. "It is established beyond dispute that the phrase "pursuit of happiness" reflects a philosophy inspired from Hutcheoson himself who was a source of inspiration in the 18th century, and who had works on the pursuit of happiness that preceded the declaration. The resolution is defeated; The phrase is more meaningful than decorative. DEBATE(7PTS)Pro lost the seven points as she forfeited the original debate and started a new one in Round 2. SOURCES(2PTS)Pro claims a seven-point loss is against DDO's rulesRebuttal: The citation that Pro offered(. http://www.debate.org...) took me to a webpage on debating tips written by Nate Simmons. There no mention of the debating rules or the seven point loss, but the contrary: "Version 3.0 introduced an amazing new voting system and here are some tips to use it more effectively. "Pro claims Professor Lucas wrote an academic paper. Rebuttal: The citation that Pro offered is a broken-link saying "File not found. " I checked the website and it is not a website for peer-reviewed journals but archives. org which archives any document. Pro also lied about the blogger's citation as shown in Round 3. It is established that Pro used what logicians call the "Tu quoque fallacy. " Instead of countering the previous accusations of using fabricated sources, she instead accused the accuser of being "false at every point" without any evidence. ARGUMENTS(3PTS)Pro's central argument, "I don't know what it means. .. . it resonates to me. .. it seems so. "Rebuttal: This was proven to be an argument from ignorance. Pro further argues, "I came, I conquered, I saw" is like "Liberty, Life and the pursuit of happiness. "Rebuttal: Pro has already dropped the challenge of showing how Fox's "fair and balanced" would be more aesthetic with an adjective added. In his book, "Believing Bullsh! t," Stephen Law speaks of the "but it fits" fallacy; when a baseless hypothesis would grasp at compatible examples and ignore other contrary/opposing ones. Pro even admits that she has not offered any well-cited, linguistic evidence for her hypothesis, but she insists it is obvious and should be taken for granted. Pro repeats, "Con conceded that "there is no conclusive explanation to why the phrase was used. "Rebuttal: I said no such thing. I said there is no conclusive explanation on why it is "more meaningful" or "more decorative" since inductive reasoning, by definition, is inconclusive. Pro has only provided weak arguments and failed to satisfy her BoP. While I have offered. .. (1) The historic origin of "pursuit of happiness" which proves it is meaningful, and shows Hutcheoson's influence. (2) An explanation of the phrase's philosophic and important meaning. (3) The existence of the phrase in the founder's belief system. (4) Computability of the phrase with the founder's life purpose and the general American dream. CONDUCT(1PT)Pro has called my objections "ridiculous," changed the initial rules of the debate, ignored my explanations and used sleazy tactics(e. g tu quoque tactic). .. .. .It seems Pro has no background in rationality(e. g appeals to authority or inductive reasoning) or concerns for intellectual honesty. The lawyering tactics she used forced me to hold Diogenes' lamp when reading her turns to find one honest statement under broad daylight, and yet my search was pointless.