The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 35967
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

shakuntala

Pro

Here is a new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

http://www.scribd.com...

quote
the world has grown itself a straightjacket. It has become enslaved to notions of corectness. The mediocre abide by notions of correctness .... The avant-garde the starters of revolutions the nonmediocre break with notions of correctness, We must throw off these straight jackets of conformity. we must embrace independent thought. we must in effect rebel against notions of correctness. We must push forward the accepted boundaries and disregard the preaconceptions of corectness. We must look out side our taken for granted systems of correctness. We must let our thinking run free. we must let our full potentials be reached without being castrated by notions of correctness. Break the contraceptive of correctness by a vigorous intercourse between incorrectness creativity and thinking. Conjoin creativity with thinking with the conjunctive incorrectness in an act of inspired copulation. let the creative saps rise fertilize our minds with alternative ways of doing thinking. Give birth to new creations new ideas. Abort notions of correctness, Gestate and grow, Blossom forth in the fertile soil of incorrectness. Rise up turgid, Swollen with the surging freedom of incorrectness. Ejaculate forth "down with correctness" in the paroxysm of inspiration. Spurt forth new creations. Consummate the conjoined by the article of copulation in a conjunctive frenzy of creative fecundity
Duncan

Con

I originally thought you to be some form of troll debater, but now I see you can't keep up to standard with others.

Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct. Hundreds of years of discovery and experience has created a standard for everything that defines quality and perfection. What is the topic of this debate? Is it, The Aesthetics of Incorrectness is good? Because that would defeat the purpose of it. Is being wrong right? is what you're saying. If being wrong is right, then you're not wrong, and if you're not wrong, you're not right. And if you're not riht, you must be wrong, so you are actually right, but if you're right, then you're-brrrghhhgggrrhghrgjrhghrr IT NEVER ENDS!

But besides the logical side of this, the source seems to attack the way people are limited, but it is damn stupid. Here's some examples;

"Could a scientist argue that science was a form of magic, or witchcraft, or getting further from a correct view of reality? Could a Catholic priest argue that Arius, and Docetic, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites were correct, or the filoque incorrect? Could a philosopher argue that philosophy was foolish and philosophers fools? Could a feminist argue that Freud was right and women are driven by penis envy? Could an American president argue that capitalism was wrong? Could a psychologist argue that the illogical thinking of children and psychotics be the normal and the idealized logical thinking of adults and the psychologist be in fact abnormal?"

Yes, but you'd look like a damn fool since you had no proof.

"So why should we listen to academics , like the ancients listened to their oracles.?"

Well, we should listen to academics because they've studies for years on a subject and have gained an authority on the subject from their experience. It seems you believe that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Incorrect. The man with a degree in dentistry does not argue with a fool who removes his own teeth with string and a door. You have a habit of slapping the word tyranny on something as evidence that it's bad. Here's how that sounds;

Correctness is detrimental to society because... because thin of the word detrimental; it means not good. You are all mouth and no brain here, but I learned that already, didn't I. And my facts here are backed up by either evidence or logic. Even the part about your inability to master the idea of using evidence and just spewing out words like they were going out of style. Want to know how I know that? Because I research everything when I accept a debate. And I know that 92.86% of your debates have resulted in a loss, because you were asked to supply evidence and you never did. If this is too personal, by all means, tell me and I'll formally apologize. But this debate isn't reasoning or logical for you; it feels more like resentment, hatred. You defend obscure poems and poets, with no evidence, but defend them nevertheless. I guess one could consider that noble in some regard, but you can't play Tyler Durden and Robin Hood at the same time.

That's enough until you reply for now, so I'll be waiting, Shakuntala.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct."

they said the same thing to Galileo
they said the same thing to the impressionists
they said the same to atonal musics

if people did not have the courage to be incorect
you and the rest of you would still be worshiping the phallus-you would still be in a cave
Duncan

Con

Ok, first up. There's this thing called logic. Logic can be as good as evidence sometimes. Logic is objective and unbiased, and focuses on reasoning. Galileo used logic and science to establish fact. The church does not. This is a case hundreds of years in the past, and is of little relevance.

Secondly, the church at the time was a dictatorship which led inquisitions and massacres. Don't say scientists dismissing and laughing at your incorrectness as "tyranny" The catholic church was a tyranny because it tortured and killed people. Stop trying to compare yourself to old masters, thinking that you are innovative and revolutionary. You and your idea are just playing minority to pretend that you're being oppressed. You call me insulting your poor poetry and writing skills tyranny? Then you make comparisons to Galileo? Don't make me laugh. You did this in the last debate too. You think you can compare yourself and your theories to the works of the old masters?
The old masters of art, in both paint and poetry all had to fight the oppression of the systems they endured. But your "struggle" doesn't compare. You can't say anyone has put you on a torture rack and screamed; "say that the Aesthetics of Incorrectness is stupid! Say it!" and threatened you with eternal damnation. No crowds of art connoseurs have attended this debate to laugh at you like they did with the Salon rejects like the Impressionists. If you think this i out of place, then I use the source of your debate history, each anti conformist poet and style you've supported. Incorrect Aesthetics, like Anti Poetry and your erotic poetry, is a foppish and self absorbed Aesthetic. Oh, and Shakuntala, set your account to receiving messages, I'd like to propose a challenge to you, but I don't think there's any need to feel pressured by voters on it.

Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con sys
"con says
"Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct."

con says
Galileo used logic and science to establish fact. The church does not.

"fact is
they said the same thing to about their view of the earth to oppose Galileo
ie
"we call it correctness because... it's correct"

fact is
they said the same thing to the impressionist painters
they said the same to atonal musics musicians

if people did not have the courage to be incorect
you and the rest of you would still be worshiping the phallus-you would still be in a cave

i have given example of my pint
all con has said is
"Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct."
as I said to that
they said the same thing to Galileo

thus con has not refuted my point
Duncan

Con

You're only using half my point here; you forgot the other half; you're not Galileo!

He was a genius in his time and created a milestone in science and astrology. You didn't do jack. The difference between you and Galileo in terms of situation and skill is just massive. Now, in the 21st Century, we accept that which can present a reason other than because. If as your source said, if a scientist were to argue for the existence of magic, he would be ridiculed. True, because there is no evidence to prove magic. If he were to show valid proof, then people would be more inclined. This aesthetic has no reasoning as to why it is suitable for our society other than because, and then begins shouting tyranny and enslavement to sound revolutionary. You list exceptional people in the past who have suffered because they challenged the current way of life, but you fail to draw the line between you and those individuals, making you seem self absorbed than rebellious.

I apologize if my points sound insulting or hurtful to you, but they are part of an argument that is formed by our recent string of debates which lets me determine what kind of debater you are, which helps me understand your point of view. I will most likely see you in another debate soon, as I rarely create my own debates, and there are so few appealing challenges online right now.

Until then, I'll be waiting,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
Poetaster
I understand, Mr. Dean.
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
you say
"Is it meant to be ironic that "incorrectness" is spelt, well, autologically?"

why spoil it
I will let you make up your mind
either the author is clever
or just cant spell

either way I dont think the author could careless
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
Poetaster
Is it meant to be ironic that "incorrectness" is spelt, well, autologically?
No votes have been placed for this debate.