Instigator / Pro
14
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1367

Standard of living and quality of life are different things

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

billbatard
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Description

Standard of living deals with the amount of money one has, quality of life is how well you can live and enjoy what you have, it can be a lot less but if you do more with it, money doesn't really matter

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Both Con and Pro identify as male in their profile.

Con's only use of a source was one he didn't even link to, just mentioned the company/publisher as Britannica and the actual quoted stuff all either contradicted his case, or was irrelevant to the debate. On the other hand, Pro used sources to back up what he was saying and each use supported his case that standard of living and quality of life were different things. Con's maximal use of source was solely in showing that both had comfort involved but that was not at all how to win the debate and the very quotes showed differences in and of themselves between the two.

Both sides were extremely lazy, thus conduct is tied. Con tried to lazily make Pro lose due to Pro not having shown them to be entirely different, with zero similarities, and Pro tried to do the 'exact same' to Con by saying that Con had failed to show how they were completely the same, with zero differences.

Con couldn't have won this debate even if he tried but if he had tried to perhaps define this as an 'on balance' debate, he had to surely show far more than just one factor (comfort) as the unifying trait/s to conclude that SL and QL are the same. Pro wins by presenting the case that Canada, for instance, has a higher avergae quality of life for its citizens than the US despite the US having greater standard of living (on paper) for its citizens.

To combat this, Con almost concedes the entire debate by stating the following:

"I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living, but the problem is, we are not arguing about that, WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT OR NOT. "

The entire lowercase part of the quote contradicts the uppercase part of the quote, in terms of Con's side of things. You wouldn't be able to have a bad QL with good SL if they weren't different.

Pro point this out in the next Round, making it the rebuttal that single-handedly won the debate even without Pro having made a single argument before or afterwards (not that they didn't play into my vote, as I explained).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

To improve formatting (thus win a lot more debates): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

So I'm pretty sure con was just trolling this. Conceding the resolution ("I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living"), but insisting he won the debate in a weird type of lawyering Kritik.

It's clear they are related things, but pro succeeded in showing the measurements differ (USA has a higher GDP per capita, but ranks much lower in quality of life). A con case could have been made focusing on inequality in wealth distribution accounting for that (pun intended), but such was not done (instead he argued both terms contain some of the same letters).

At the end of the day, the evidence offered makes them seem correlated but different.