Aviators is the Best Artist (Please be kind and thoughtful!)
Debate Rounds (5)
Please, anyone accept this debate EXCEPT Blade-Of-Truth. Please. I've had enough with that guy (after just one debate, SHEESH!). If he should somehow accept this debate anyway, or stumble upon it, tell him to PLEEEEEASE be considerate of my feelings and beliefs and what I really love. Thanks!
If you're not interested in this debate, feel free to check out Aviators anyway:
I accept and look forward to a good debate.
First, let me point out to all viewers who don't know who Aviators is who he is. And I am getting all this from quite reliable sources, and at the same time putting it in my own words! I know, talent.
Aviators (b. Tyler Shaw, VT) is an independent alternative electronica musician who does the indie sort of thing, like score indie games or movies, dabbling in just about EVERY single genre in existence, and growing experience in production, songwriting, sound design, drum & bass programming, and thematic composition. He has currently recorded 5 studio albums, 4 remix albums, approximately 6 EPs, and is currently working on a 6th album with two singles released so far.
He creates music from the soul, using his mind and imagination to form sounds that take the mind to a place that nothing else can. That's a direct quote, exactly what he said. And I can most definitely see why, because for a long time his music has captivated me and put me in a place that even I never thought existed, as well as many others I'm sure.
Oh yes, by the way, this is not like any regular debate. Arguments on if he is the best artist cannot be based on just only facts and media recognizance and popularity and all that. As the owner of this debate, I proclaim that it's what's INSIDE that really affects the debate. Meaning, what's inside the music of the so-called "best artist" that I'm talking about.
The reason I claim Aviators to be that "best artist" is not because of popularity, or length of discography, or even the fact that almost 99% of his fans are Bronies (which is REALLY not a bad thing at all!), but because of what's INSIDE, meaning the talent, work, and messages that he has put into his music. Yes, sure I can mean "best artist" in many ways, such as "most talented" or "hardest worker" or probably "musician with best messages", but NO! I don't mean any of those things individually, because Aviators is none of those things -- completely, anyway. He claims himself to not be the most talented, he has gotten a whole EP done in four days -- which shouldn't have been TOO much work, actually a fun experiment for him -- AND not every single bit of his music has the best messages, which is TOTALLY fine, I still like the music of those bits.
So if he's not completely any of those "best artist" criteria, then why, you might ask, would I claim him to be the absolute best artist? Well, let's see. It's kinda complicated if you're not a fast understander. But I'll try to break it into pieces like this;
I discovered him a while ago, attempting to listen to some subtle Brony music, as I had just recently become a Brony and wanted to start walking slowly. When I first heard some of his Brony work, it caught my ear so hard I just wanted to listen to more of his music and see what interested me, so I did, and now I can safely say that discovering him was the absolute best thing that's happened to me in a REALLY long time. In 2012, he started walking slowly as a full-on Brony artist, and that's where his popularity reigned. But then as 2013 rolled around he quit Brony music full-time and moved on to many other types of music, while still keeping his Brony streak of two or three songs each album. Now, you may say that because of this, he has kinda officially dumped on the whole "pony artist" title, but it doesn't. I have emailed him time and time again with questions and advice I wanted, and he once told me that he was going to continue making good pony music for years and years to come, no matter how much.
So where exactly does this all lead to my point exactly? Well, in my opinion, pony artists are the best kind of artist there is, because the messages of their music are different, different from all the sorts of stereotype and plain horrible messages in some modern regular music, and all the SIMPLICITY! I mean, people like Aviators put a lot of work into their music and revise it if they think it needs so, but all these modern pop artists put a lot LESS work into so (I'm not going to say NO work, because everyone works to make music, good OR bad).
So my point is that in some cases, the more experience, talent, and work that Aviators has put into his music and the mixed assortment of good and mildly bad but not too horrible messages that it gives makes him the absolute best artist there is. What am I saying? I said "some" cases, but really it's most cases, and also the type of music that you do definitely affects that title, which the type he does is awesome (wait a minute, he does almost all genres! That's right!) and beautifully written and most of the messages are quite powerful and EXACTLY what the world needs.
Confused? Well, there is one more thing that I forgot to mention: the fans and listeners who made it all possible! Each and every song he makes builds up the fanbase he has today, making it bigger and stronger. I don't know why, but there's just SOMETHING else about his music that just attracts more and more people to it and makes people believe that he is the best of the best (which isn't really bad at all!...for several reasons previously explained). Now, you might say that I am no different from those people and don't have the right to try to make that claim true to the world, but let me explain something more before I wrap up. Aviators is not one of those artists that you just listen to and feel pity for because they don't have much to live for except making not-too-good music. No, he is EXTREMELY inspiring and almost all of his fans like him and his music for what it is, AND his music has become a huge part of many people's lives, including mine; it has helped so many people to do what they need to do in life (including me) and it still does.
Now, if no one were smarter or less blind of what the actual importance of some things are, that alone would have made him the best artist, but there is more to that than meets the eye. I myself may not have the best insight, but I have very good understanding of what people are trying to be and what they really are. And after non
I guess it's time for me to wrap up now. So here's me recapping everything I just said in this argument. The criteria for being the best artist is not what you think it is. You don't have to be the most talented or the hardest worker or the most popular to be the best of the best. It's what's INSIDE that really counts. And I know that many things that I have stated in this argument may be a matter of opinion, but right now, I am quite distracted by things I can't primarily stand, but I am pulling trough the best I can. So don't expect my best work of writing from me just yet. It may or may not get better as the time gets better.
Right, well, I guess that's it. I hope I leave all the viewers thinking about what I have said and tell me what you think in the comments about my arguments. Thanks.
I'd like to take the first part of my argument to object loudly and enthusiastically to something my opponent says in his argument--
"Oh yes, by the way, this is not like any regular debate. Arguments on if he is the best artist cannot be based on just only facts and media recognizance and popularity and all that. As the owner of this debate, I proclaim that it's what's INSIDE that really affects the debate. Meaning, what's inside the music of the so-called "best artist" that I'm talking about."
One side cannot simply "proclaim" what the criteria for best artist are in the second round of the debate. No specific terms were defined in the comments, the subject, or in round 1. My opponent may argue that it is what is inside is what makes an artist good, but he cannot "proclaim" that this is the criteria for the debate in the second round. Any argument which proves or disproves that Aviators is the best can be used, no preference should be given to inside or outside. Now that I've said that, I will make the case that Aviators are not the best artist. I could argue that my opponent never said they were the best musical artist and that, as a result, he has stated that Aviators are better than all artists in history, Leonardo and Michelangelo among them, but I will refrain from petty semantics.
Let's start by defining best as an adjective.
Best-1) better than all others in quality or value
2) most skillful, talented, or successful
3) most appropriate, useful, or helpful
As a superlative of good, best means
4) excelling all others
5) most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction
Definition 3 kind of doesn't really apply to music and since my opponent doesn't make that case that Avaitors fits this definition I will ignore it.
(NOTE: I typed out a full 8000 character argument and saved it pending review, and when I came back all I had was this. I am slightly discouraged so I will make a much weaker case this round but I have 5 so I'll make up for it I'm sure)
My opponent has admitted that Tyler shaw is not the most talented artist, so we can infer he is also not the highest skill.
"Yes, sure I can mean "best artist" in many ways, such as "most talented" or "hardest worker" or probably "musician with best messages", but NO! I don't mean any of those things individually, because Aviators is none of those things -- completely, anyway."
We can observe other stats that show he is not the most successful. Currently the Beatles hold that record.
Clearly Avaitors does not fit definition 2, or 4, and since Avaitors is not the most talented, successful, skillful, and does not excell all others we can see that he does not make the highest quality art. Since the highest quality (how good or bad something is) would be the most successful, talented, or skillful, and therefore the best. My opponent concedes right off the bat that he is not the best by these definitions. And evidence in these categories shows Avaitors isn't the best as well; Avaitors does not sell many records and does not have many fans, many artists have more fans and are more successful. I do not think I need to post links but I will anyway.
So we can all agree that by the numbers Avaitors is not the best. The only objective point my opponent brings up is fan base size. Ostensibly every time Avaitors makes an album he gains fans. I don't really know how to measure fans because Avaitors is actually such a small musician he does not have any typical pages or records anywhere besides his own pages. The only place I could find a number is youtube. Avaitors has 50000 subscribers, which may not be totally accurate (it probably is because bronies is an internet thing, so most listeners would be on youtube/the internet). Justin Beiber's channal has 2.6 million subscibers, so that is a definitive measurement that Avaitors isn't the best.
My opponent also says that Avaitors puts the most work into his art. My opponent also pointed out that he once made a EP in 4 days. I think it is safe to say that other artists put more work into their albums than Avaitors, or they put in the same amount of work. It is hard to measure objectively, unless you look at the time it takes to make an album, and if you do look at that than Brian Wilson wins with Smile, which took 40 years to make (1966-2004). In any case, 4 days is not the most work you can put into anything, so saying he puts the most work in and is therefore the best cannot be proven really and if it could be it would be wrong. The amount of work Pop musicians put in is irrelevant, because there are lots of other forms of music that put far more work in than pop musicians (and who is to say pop musicians don't put in work?).
The main point for Avaitors being the best is that my opponent really, really likes them, and they've affected his life and touched the lives of the fans and so on, he is inspiring, he makes people "believe he is the best of the best" because of "something in his music". It is impossible to prove that he is the best because people, my opponent included, think he is the best. It is a logical fallacy. You cannot test or prove that hypothesis. Simply believing something is the best doesn't make it so. By the logic that my opponent uses, my favorite band is the best. If my favorite band was At The Gate (regarded as the pinnacle melo-death and the inspiration of metalcore), all I would have to say is "At the Gates is the best because of what is INSIDE the music". Following the logic of my opponents argument I would arrive at the same conclusion. It is the best because I think it is the best. That is circular and it is an opinion. It is impossible to prove that. It is the problem people have proving anything with no evidence. You can't prove God by belief, you can't prove ghosts exist by belief, you can't prove Avaitors by belief.
My opponent also asserts that pony artists are the best. That is as fallical as he point that Avaitors are the best. It is an opinion. He offers no proof. It is not so simply because he says so. He says that it is simple, there is simpler music, so if that is the reason than pony music is not the best.
Basically, since my opponent cannot argue anything objective and only defends avaitors with his and the other fans opinion that Avaitors is the best for many subjective reasons, it is impossible to really prove Avaitors is the best therefore pro should lose. I look forward to his rebuttal.
Now, if I could just urge all the viewers to just TRY to do what I'm attempting to proclaim...listen to Aviators if you haven't yet, and if you have, one more time. Only this time, try to FEEL it in all your hearts if he even DESERVES a chance to become the greatest artist this world has ever known. Because I admit that I may be a little bit wrong about him CURRENTLY being the best, BUT I won't be afraid to claim that he has more than enough of the right POTENTIAL to become so. And I sincerely apologize for not providing any links; I wanted to wait for the right time. And I guess it's now or never:
Now while you're at it, let's review what my opponent has argued. If you really want facts, well, I'll give you them.
My opponent has pointed out that Aviators on YouTube only has around 50,000 subscribers, as opposed to Justin Bieber, who has 2.6 million. Let me ask you viewers a few questions concerning Aviators being better than Justin Bieber:
1. Who doesn't just stick to one pop genre, and actually experiments a little with his music?
2. Who is older, and therefore has more experience in the music production business?
3. And finally, WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD?! WHO HASN'T BEEN ARRESTED, FOR CELESTIA'S SAKE??!!
It really wouldn't take a genius to figure out my point, which is that the best artist qualities are affected by the type of person you are, and how much good or bad stuff you've done in life, and of course, how much time you've spent.
Let me make myself more clear: Aviators has been playing the violin for 8 years ever since he was four, and doing so taught him the value of music theory and importance and how to read music himself without him even realizing it until later. Then he picked up the guitar, and instead of doing all those regular lesson things, he fiddled around with it himself and taught himself to play music by the ear. Is any of that history in Justin Bieber? I don't think so. Hits on YouTube are nothing compared to THAT.
My opponent has also pointed out that Brian Wilson has been working on Smile for 40 years. Well, let me ask you another question or two: Exactly how big is that album/song? And how GOOD is it?
That's right, viewers. It would only seem that my opponent has left out one KEY point in my argument that is so stupidly obvious, SO incredibly dumb, no-brainer important, he thought that if he didn't bring it up in his argument, I might forget it. But I DIDN'T. I kept it burned into my mind from the very start, and now I will remind the viewers.
When I say that what's inside the music determines the best artist, think about what that would possibly mean. Take a minute...
That's right, the MESSAGES of the music. And if you compare the messages of Bieber's music to those of Aviators, please, it's no competition. When I said before that some of Aviators's music doesn't quite have the best messages, that was before I discovered the true EMOTION in my reaction to those particular songs. My point is, his music contains a mix of messages, and I can now guarantee that NONE of his music contains a bad message as of the release of the two "Ghosts in the Code" singles (full album coming this summer!).
Oh...I guess I just pointed out that my point there isn't quite confirmed and won't be confirmed until the release of Ghosts in the Code. That's all right, I will be back with another debate once that happens.
Anyhoo, the reason I claim that pony artists are of the better kind is because Bronies see the world in a way that no one else could ever see it, and therefore their music is unique and different, but why should that mean they are better? It's just plain simple, sometimes different can be better, and sometimes the best.
And who says you can't prove anything by belief? Do I really need to go into this? Maybe. Let's see...from the time that ponies have caught my eye and drew me to it like a moth to light, I've been forced into believing that Equestria exists and that there's something out there waiting for me. Now, I can't quite prove to you that it does exist QUITE YET, but I am absolutely sure that I will get my chance to in the future. And Aviators embraces his Bronism like no other, except probably me, which is why I believe that he is the best. You may not see or hear it in every single bit of his music, but once in the herd, always a Brony.
The reason I bring up these important and possibly annoying points is because my opponent is simply one of the many, MANY people who don't fully understand us Bronies, and therefore the evidence he provides is irrelevant compared to what us Bronies have in store for ourselves. I'm sure I've made it QUITE obvious that if I were debating against a Brony, arguments would be a LOT more relevant, and interesting, too.
Let me bring back up one other key point in my argument: "Aviators creates music from the soul, using his imagination and emotions to form sounds that take the mind (and body, if you dare) to a whole new place that nothing else can." Now, as far as I know, that's completely true. And as I said before, this is NOT a regular debate. This is simply meant to be a way that I can bring back the stupidly simple logic and love and peace that this Internet once had. A little enlightenment...
I also believe that because of my autism, my beliefs are a sort of insight into what's really true. And who knows? Interesting things are being discovered all the time. Maybe sometime we might discover something so shocking, so completely unbelievable, so miraculous that will very well confirm my beliefs. If you want to study autism again, watch the movie "Temple Grandin" again, because I'm busy here.
Okay. I guess I made a little mistake here. I had originally meant this debate to determine whether or not Aviators IS CURRENTLY the best artist, but now I can see that I'm trying to beg the viewers to see a change in the point of this debate. I now change my claim that Aviators WILL BE in the future the best artist, because hey, no one's getting anywhere in this time period, however, I guarantee you things WILL change with time. I can claim something true right now: Aviators's music is unique, just plain him, and this right here is something that is bound to stop anyone opposing dead in their tracks.
(Wait a minute, I'm not revealing my surprise, I'll save it for last. Sneaky, but not enough for ME!)
Anyhoo, it seems I've said too much already in this argument, so I'll wait for a little while to regain my knowledge composure. So here's me concluding this argument with a thanks.
I will again attempt to make as clear as humanely possible my objection to what my opponent is saying.
"Okay, then. It seems as though my opponent completely missed the whole point of this debate already. As I said before, this debate is not and will not from this point on be all about facts and visible proof and these so-called "numbers" and, of course, my natural enemy, logic and reason. The whole reason I even set up this debate in the first place is so that everyone viewing it could try using the less complicated, more conventional, and the personally BETTER way of seeing the world: "Don't you even think, just use your heart," a direct quote from one of Aviators's most deep, passionate love songs."
I never agreed to this. If my opponent had stated a condition upon acceptance that I could not use "numbers" "logic and reason", I would not have accepted the debate because the rest is completely subjective, opinion which is impossible to impossible to prove. For the purposes of this debate all logical, reasonable numbers and facts that are relevant to the application of the term "best artist" should be permitted.
My opponent has misinterpreted my point about Justin Beiber and greatly exaggerated my intent in doing so. I was merely pointing out that Aviators had a smaller fan base than other youtube artists such as Justin Beiber. I wasn't saying Justin Beiber was the best artist in anyway, I was just trying to counter my opponent's point that Aviators had a big fan base that was growing, therefore he is the best artist. That is the only reason I brought up Justin Beiber. He also missed the point about Smile by Brian Wilson; it wasn't that it's good or bad, it's that he put 40 years into it. My opponent made the point that Aviators put a lot of work into his music. Other people have put more work into theirs. If amount of work is the measurement, Aviators isn't best.
I think my opponent has conceded the debate.
"Because I admit that I may be a little bit wrong about him CURRENTLY being the best, BUT I won't be afraid to claim that he has more than enough of the right POTENTIAL to become so."
"Okay. I guess I made a little mistake here. I had originally meant this debate to determine whether or not Aviators IS CURRENTLY the best artist, but now I can see that I'm trying to beg the viewers to see a change in the point of this debate. I now change my claim that Aviators WILL BE in the future the best artist..."
If my opponent is saying that Aviators is not the best artist, then I should win the debate. The debate is about who the best artist is now, not who may or may not become the best artist. My cat has the potential to become the best artist (she plays the keyboard real well) but she isn't currently the best artist so it doesn't matter. Unless my opponent has a time machine so he can go into the future, get a list of the best selling albums, the most popular artists and similar evidence then he has no way to prove that this potential will make Aviators the best artist. That brings me to my next point: evidence.
My opponent has yet to provide any evidence that Aviators is the best artist. All my opponent has done is say that Aviators has changed his life, Aviators is deeply moving to him and that the fans of Aviators love him. That is not evidence. My opponent has stated that Aviators is a pony artist and since pony artists are the best, he is the best. That is not evidence (unless he can prove pony artists are the best, but that would be as flawed as this debate). My opponent has stated that since Aviators made him believe in fictional "Equestria" Aviators is the best. That is no evidence either, that is borderline delusional, but it isn't evidence. Pro has claimed Aviators is the best but provided no hard evidence, he has instead made clear his opinion and repeated them in lots of different ways. I hope the voters see that, since Pro had BOP, he is failing to fulfill it.
My opponent has offered a few criteria for Aviators being better than Justin Beiber, so I can show that by these criteria to show that Aviators isn't the best now that I have some.
"1.Who doesn't just stick to one pop genre, and actually experiments a little with his music?"
According to My Little Pony wiki, Aviators"tends to fall into the vocal alternative pop/rock genre". So Aviators is some electronic (what I heard was) pop stuff and apparently some rock stuff somewhere too. It seems my opponent values experimentation in his music. Does more experimenting=better music? If so, can we find artists who have done more experimenting?Radiohead is a good example. They started as a typical pop-rock/garage rock sounding band, but over the course of their discography their sound changed pretty dramatically. They basically went from a pop rock band to a heavier sounding punk band to an experimental rock over the course of their career. Their latest album is a heavily synthed digitally distorted work with lots of relaxed, minimalist songs on it. The mood is totally different, the sound is totally different, it's a hell of a difference for one band. Other bands like Pink Floyd have shifted sounds from their beginning throughout their careers. Taylor Swift started out country, turned pop rock and then went full pop. Aviators is not unique in having experiments with his music or changing sounds.
"2.Who is older, and therefore has more experience in the music production business?
If experience in the music business is the test, Aviators is far from the top. Anyone famous has more experience, real experience, than Aviators with the music business. Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Metallica, ACDC, Moby and countless others all have had years if not decades in the industry."
"3. And finally, WHO DOESN'T HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD?! WHO HASN'T BEEN ARRESTED, FOR CELESTIA'S SAKE??!!"
Lots of artists haven't been arrested. I supposed they are all tied for best artist? I could waste my time naming a few but there are simply too many, I think it can be agreed that there are other artists with clear arrest records.
He also mentioned the good messages that Aviators has in his music. Lots of musicians don't have arrest records. That doesn't make them the best. Christian bands have clean music, kids music is clean and happy. If the cleanliness of a message is a factor than Aviators is not the best. Lots of artists also sing about peace, universal love, equality, happiness. Messages which are positive or meaningful are not unique to Aviators and abound in music.
Let's review. My opponent has claimed that "numbers", "logic and reason" do not count in this debate. I think we can consider that a concession on any and all objective points of view, which shows that Aviators is not the best.
My opponent has admitted that Aviators is not currently the best artist. He has stated that Aviators has the potential to become the best. That should be considered a loss right there.
My opponent has only given completely subjective opinions to show Aviators is the best. He has offered no real evidence. You cannot prove right an opinion, it is simply not possible in this type of debate format. My opponent bases his whole argument on his belief, if I believe that Aviators is not the best, am I as right as he? I don't know how to better demonstrate that point than to say it's fallacious and hope the voters agree.
I don't want to risk an auto save and although I'm not sure I'm quite done with this I'll post anyway. Sorry in advance for any errors.
You're forgetting something REAL important...my surprise. A surprise that will BLOW the roofs off of everyone's minds and will prove my point like never before.
As said previously, I won't give it up until the RIGHT moment, and believe me, I know when that moment will be.
In the meantime, I might as well rebuttle. Now I wanna make this point real important, because it's a huge part of who I am. So here it is...I DON'T CONCEDE TO ANYTHING!!!!!!
I do quite believe it is pretty obvious that my opponent has CLEARLY gotten the wrong idea when I changed the subject of this debate a little bit.
My point is, sometimes because of my autism I tend to not think things above and beyond (pardon the irony) and did not think at all if I could prove that he IS the best artist, and did not realize it until later on. So I changed it up to now fit my true point and claim that RIGHT NOW, AVIATORS DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SOMEDAY BECOME THE GREATEST ARTIST THIS WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. (I seriously doubt I can stress that any more strongly).
I know what the problem is now, and I'm sure everyone else does, too. It's not the lack of evidence or the improper claim points or even the fact that I'm "cheating" by asking Avi via email for advice. No no no no no, it's something much more stupidly simple than that, something I probably should have thought of before I even started this debate. It's WHO I'm debating against.
(Skip this next part if you don't want what I'm giving you)
You know, if I had known all this time ago that every single one of my opponents was gonna be all "logic reason" this and "evidence proof" that, I would have just bucked the idea out of my mind and motioned to stay on more Brony-appropriate websites, where ONLY the coolest and smartest and lovingest and most amazing people EXIST. In fact, I should probably just buck my surprise, because if you won't appreciate it and learn something from it, what the buck is the point anyway? (That's pony talk, sir. Good luck rebuttling THAT!)
HOOOHH! (*Deep breaths*) My gosh, this is in SO many ways like golf, where the other player seems nice at first, but then just can't help both making enemies because you both think you know EVERYTHING! Well, I DON'T know everything, and neither do YOU, my friend! And neither does Aviators, and that's just the good magical thing about predictions (OH! Did I forget to mention that this was also meant to be a PREDICTION DEBATE!?!?!?!?!??) (OOHHH! A NEW IDEA FOR A SURPRISE JUST POPPED INTO MY MIND!!!) (Grr, I SWEAR IN THE NAME OF EQUESTRIA, I WILL NOT LOSE AGAIN TO A REGULAR COMMONER SUCH AS YOURSELF!!!! YOU GOT NOTHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!!!!!.....)
Look, it's late. I'm outta my mind, I'm going crazy Pinkie, so I'm saying exactly what's on my mind in this debate. Deal with it. That part about me remembering something for a new surprise is true, AND it is in fact backed up by scientist evidence discovered by middle-age Brony psychologists (I'm not even going to nudge you on about which ones I'm talking about) (Don't snoop, or cheat, or snoop) AND will very much determine the outcome of this debate as to if Aviators is the best artist by majority Brony fans, or if he even deserves a CHANCE, which he does. Period. Case closed. He may not be best now, but just you wait. Just you wait......
(I'd like to hear you call THAT a concession, all Dr. Know-It-Alls out there!) ...........just you wait.........
Okay, I'm getting nowhere, am I? I'm practically stalling till the last round just to kill off an argument and show my surprises to the world and see how good it does me. So here's me saying I probably should have put more thought into this debate, and concluding this second-to-last argument with a good luck to all the faithful viewers (OOOIII, it's late!) And I promise all of you that in my third "Aviators is the Best Artist" debate, I will be more wiser with my opponent choice, and have more evidence to see just how DEMENTED the non-Brony world is. (JAR, it's late, speaking my mind here)
All right, well, there's no more point in stalling now, I say FAREWELL! And opponent, take all the time you need to rebuttle. Take two or three days or MORE if you'd like. I'm currently on vacation with my family (Not mentally, physically!) so until I am able to regain my composure and sanity (yeah, right, autism dominates over that!), sayonaraa, au revoir, adios, and Gesundheit.
(I'd also like to give a shout-out to 9spaceking. It seems I become just like him when I'm all tired and out of mind, and honestly I don't care at all saying what's on my mind wherever I want.)
GESUNDHEIT!! THAT'S HOW IIIII SAY SAYONARAA IN GERMAN!!! (Ok, seriously, bye-bye.)
Pretty sure I don't need to say much to this. My opponent has admitted that he is stalling for the last round because he is busy and he wants to reveal some surprise at the end. He has also conceded the debate. Let's see how.
"I shall now change the topic of this debate to the subject of Aviators having the POTENTIAL to become the best artist."
My opponent has given up saying that Aviators is the best artist and is trying to move the goalposts to Aviators having the potential to be the best artist. He has in doing so conceded that Aviators is not the best artist. Look, here he admits that he cannot prove Aviators is the best artist!
"My point is, sometimes because of my autism I tend to not think things above and beyond (pardon the irony) and did not think at all if I could prove that he IS the best artist, and did not realize it until later on. So I changed it up to now fit my true point and claim that RIGHT NOW, AVIATORS DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SOMEDAY BECOME THE GREATEST ARTIST THIS WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. (I seriously doubt I can stress that any more strongly)."
I cannot stress strongly enough that Pro is trying to move the goalposts and in doing so is abandoning his burden of proof of proving that Aviators is the best. He should lose the debate as he has abandoned the main point he set out to defend.
I'd also like to say I don't really appreciate being attacked for using logic and reason and not being a brony. Pro should probably lose the conduct point too. He isn't helping his case by complaining that my logic and reason are defeating his case so much that he needs to move the goalposts.
Pro is trying to move the goalposts. Pro has abandoned his burden of proof by deciding not to defend the contention that Aviators is the best artist. Pro should lose the debate.
Right, umm...if I somehow DO lose this debate....well, I won't care. I might as well tell you the first part of my surprise.
The psychologists over at BronyStudy predict that one day, a great leader will arise from the herd/fandom and preach a great message of Love and Tolerance to the world. Now, the way I see it, there can only be one out of three ways that this will turn out.
1. If it's not Aviators, it will be me.
2. If it's not me, it will be Aviators.
3. There's always the possibility that it will be BOTH of us!
(The reason I might seem unfair is because I don't know any other Brony that's true enough to be the one.)
All right, and for the second part(s):
(To all people who inevitably dismissed my urge to listen to his music and just took my word for it. Seriously! Listen to him!)
So here's my final attempt at trying to make my point clear. Basically, what I'm trying to say overall is that sometimes music can be an emotional medicine that keeps us spiritually alive and healthy while at the same time inspiring hope and vision of the future. But not ALL music does that. Some people just create music just for the (whatever) of it, and some of the music with the all-down, flat rock-bottom horrible messages I mentioned earlier is just sad. Aviators doesn't do that. No no no no no, every single piece of art he creates sort of embraces and makes you think about our collective voice of music and our strength that's so desperately needed today. I can't think of ANY other artist that can do that as greatly and EASILY as Aviators (or any non-Brony artist, anyway). And that's pretty much the reason why I think he at least has the qualities to become the best one day, because he is the Tony Stark of the music world. (I'm not kidding, he really is! XD)
Ummm...let me underline and specify some of the highlighted messages of his popular music: "Never trust what you see in your reflection." -- Mirrors; "Rise against the hate, rise against the lies when you face danger from all sides." -- From All Sides; "The key to the future lies within the past." --Aeterno; "Love and Tolerate, spread love instead of blind hate." -- Red (from Ghosts in the Code); ...do I even need to mention "The Adventure"? Now, who else has the ability to create such AWESOME music with all these mixed message so easily? I guess a more appropriate subject for this debate would be that Aviators is the most UNIQUE artist. I should consider that during the summer.
But, you know, enough conflict between me and you, let's let the Voices Of The Crowd speak up for Love and Tolerance and tell us just how important Avi is to the music world and society (and so incredibly UNIQUE.........and interesting). And voters...please be kind and reasonable and thoughtful with each and every one of your decisions. I seriously don't know how much more strongly I can stress that.
(I mean, seriously, you think I'd be smarter about the world as it's supposedly just because I'm learning about debating in school right now, but no! I'm trying to see the world as it's SUPPOSED to be and life how it SHOULD be, which, well.........isn't this. It's supposed to be a lot better, a lot more orchestrated, and about 20% cooler, if I say so myself.)
Do I really need to say any more? I guess not. Very well, then. I leave it entirely up to the PEOPLE to decide what TRUE justice is! So until then, farewell, cheerio, sayonaraa, audieu, and Gesundheit (and comment if you want to know more!).
I don't see how that surprise was at all relevant to the debate. This whole pony religion thing is kind of weird and certainly doesn't prove that Aviators is the best artist.
Let's review. My opponent opened in round 2 by "proclaiming" that "facts and media recognizance and popularity and all that" were secondary to "what's inside the music of the so-called 'best artist'". That is fine, but my opponent basically dropped all of the fact based arguments. He has basically conceded that Aviators is not the best artist in terms of success, skill, talent, popularity, ect. I think I have proved that pretty well.
In round 3, my opponent called "logic and reason" his "natural enemies" and again tried to claim that they were of secondary importance. I still think that all of the objective measurements for "best artist" matter, though my opponent does not. I think the voter should vote based on these categories, not strictly based on what is "inside the music". In round 3, my opponent also conceded the debate.
"Because I admit that I may be a little bit wrong about him CURRENTLY being the best, BUT I won't be afraid to claim that he has more than enough of the right POTENTIAL to become so."
That is moving the goalposts. He has surrendered the point that Aviators is not the best artist and stated explicitly that he will "now change (his) claim that Aviators WILL BE in the future the best artist". That is not the resolution. My opponent should lose here. Also in round 3 I found some criteria that my opponent seems to hold as mattering to the best artist and showed that Aviators is not the best in these categories (experience, criminal record, message in music).
In round 4, while insisting that he had not conceded, my opponent reaffirmed his concession.
"My point is, sometimes because of my autism I tend to not think things above and beyond (pardon the irony) and did not think at all if I could prove that he IS the best artist, and did not realize it until later on. So I changed it up..."
He blatantly admits to changing his objective, or moving the goalposts. There is not way to vote for Pro after he has conceded the debate more than once. And he had failed at this point to refute any of my objective evidence.
My opponent has tried to justify? or defend his moving of goalposts.
"1. Well, buck. I seriously have no idea whatsoever why a debate shouldn't have more than one subject, or "goalpost", whatever. 2. When did I ever say that this was a regular debate with proof and evidence and all that........no matter."
1. A debate can cover a wide variety of topics, but Pro and Con should always be trying to prove their side of the resolution. The resolution does not change even if what the participants are talking about does. One side cannot declare that the resolution is changed, that is the same thing as forfeiting the original resolution.
2. You didn't say it was going to be, but you never said it wasn't normal either. If I had known you wished to avoid facts and logic, I would not have accepted the debate. However, since there was no agreement beforehand, pro cannot "proclaim" (as he is so fond of doing) that logic and reason and facts and numbers do not matter.
My opponent again moves the goal.
"I guess a more appropriate subject for this debate would be that Aviators is the most UNIQUE artist."
Sure, I guess it would have been more appropriate. That is not the resolution you set out to defend. And in round 5 Pro does not once try to prove Aviators is the best artist. At least he doesn't say so.
Pro conceded and moved the goalposts in round 3 and never tried to move them back. Pro ignored and therefore conceded all of the objective measurements of best artist, such as most talented, successful, popular, ect. Pro made claims that were subjective. There is no way to prove that Aviators has the best message, because the message means different things to different people. The message may mean nothing to me or anyone else. My opponent has failed to prove that Aviators has any value that is not subjective or relative; he has failed to prove that Aviators is objectively the best in any way. I think that therefore he should lose the debate. If nothing else, he has moved the goalposts enough to justify losing the debate without even looking at my arguments.
Thanks for the debate. Vote Con please!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.