Standard of living and quality of life are different things
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
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).
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.
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_what_the_social_progress_index_can_reveal_about_your_country
I agree with you. A lot of rich people are absolutely miserable. But i believe there misery comes from ungodliness.some people People are restless not happy 99 percent of the time. They mistake it for depression. Why are they unhappy they have everything. They are unhappy because they have stomped over a ton of people to get that wealth or they are a mean person. And because doing bad things effect us biologically because gods morale system is in place.Doing bad things and being wicked makes you feel restless and depressed and not happy.While Doing good makes you feel good . Ever hear about how great it feels to give. Someone donates stuff to a homeless person and they feel really happy afterwards. That is because gods morale system effects us biologically. God makes those who do good feel good. Doing bad makes you depressed and restless. Because Gods morale system effects us biologically.
in john 4 Jesus meets a Samorian woman who had lusted after thing her whole life. She had 5 husbands. The Passion would only last a couple minutes. It was never enough She was restless it did not last. Jesus said to her if you drink from me you will never thirst again. What he is saying if you believe in him you will be at peace you won't be thirsty. But If you keep doing what your doing you will be restless and depressed you will be thirsty
john 4
13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,
but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.
18 The fact is, you have had five husbands,
https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/4.html
well can we do it with me ?
I just had a discussion on this very topic with dustryder on the forum not too long ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1272/post_links/107592
isn't this truism?
lol