Start here

This is a game of debate. Your aim is to prove your opponent either has a logical fallacy he didn't notice in one of his arguements, or contradicting himself, or that he simply has no idea what he's talking about. Demagogy is banned, and I promise you your opponent will never use it :)

In this game, it starts with an expostion and a setting that I pulled out of my a*s.

Then your opponent will state something related to happiness, and you will have several options to choose as to how to respond to him. Choose the option you think is the optimal response, and go to the part of the text for the option you choose.

Each option you choose has a chapter of it's own. Each time you decide what to answer, go to the chapter for the answer you'v choosen(you'll know which is it by the title). Once you'll answer again you'll see that the next chapter has all the answers you answered.

So if you answered the third(C.) option, go to chapter 'C', and if there's another question in that chapter, then if you choose, say, the second answer(B.), go to chapter with the title: 'C -> B'.

Before you start, this list of logical fallacies should help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Now let's start:

While I'm sitting with the rest of us, someone else arrives..

"Who are you? You're the only one I never heard of!", I asked.

"I am the one who knows the right answers to the discussion you've started here. Lets do a debate, just you and me. I'll say what I think and are welcome to ask me questions and try to prove me wrong", he said while looking at me as if all the other people in the room don't exist.

"Ok, what's your basic arguement about happiness?", I asked.

"To be happy you need to understand the deepest staff about this reality."

What to answer?

a. How did you conclude that happiness is acheiveable?

b. Why understanding?

c. What does it mean "to it's deepest level"?

d. How do you define happiness?