The Instigator
Kefka
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Dir en Grey is the most versatile and great band of all time.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,831 times Debate No: 8412
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

Kefka

Pro

Dir en Grey

They transcend genre, redefine versatility, have a great singer with a wide range of vocals, and lyrics with genius metaphors, extended metaphors etc., to tell stories within their songs. Also, they sing about 'important' matters, as do other bands, but not with the vividness and style that Diru (nickname) executes.
Danielle

Con

I negate the resolution "Dir en Grey is the most versatile and great band of all time." Perhaps most obvious about this resolution is the fact that it is entirely subjective; not everyone will agree on what the greatest band is. However, more important than the opinionated resolution is the fact that my opponent has made little to no sufficient arguments in defense of his belief.

To support the resolution, Pro makes several claims. First, he mentions that DEG transcends genre and thus "redefines versatility." While this might be true, consider the fact that it is almost impossible for a band to be pigeonholed into just one genre. Most bands can be classified by at LEAST two genres. For instance, an alternative rock band fits under the description of both "rock" and "alternative rock." Similarly, DEG is described as being a rock band or a rock metal band. While there are certainly all different kinds of ROCK, a band like The Rolling Stones, for example, is famous for their songs that fall into the categories of rock, classic rock, country, blues, ballads, disco, jazz, big band, electronic, etc. This plethora of genres (and there are more) far exceeds the categories of music DEG can be described as playing. Therefore, if there are other bands that can be considered to fall into more categories or genres than DEG, then DEG fails to be recognized as the most versatile band according to this qualification.

Next, Pro notes that DEG's singer has a wide range of vocals. I'd like to note singer Robert Palmer, who throughout his career has been known to sing songs of a multitude of genres, including rock, r&b, rhythm & blues, soul, jazz, swing, reggae, ska, etc -- an accomplishment that DEG's singer has not (yet) accomplished. Moreover, there are other known singers (some whom are household names, and some who are not not) whose actual vocal range is far greater than the singer of DEGs. Consider artists who have the ability to span their vocals over an 8 octave range in terms of high and low notes, keys, etc. However, this point is almost entirely irrelevant; a singer's vocal range is hardly indicative of a band's versatility or greatness, therefore Pro's point should not be taken into consideration. What if a band had a great singer, but horrible musicians? The singer is not the only artist to be taken into consideration given the resolution of this debate.

Finally, Pro cites DEGs lyrical content as what helps make them "the best." Obviously, this point is moot. Who is to be the judge for what "good" lyrics are? In addition to being entirely subjective, there are many people who prefer music without lyrics, to which this point would be taken into zero consideration when determining which band is the best. Moreover, not everyone wants their music to talk about "important" matters. Many people use music as a means to escape the drama of their every day lives; not dwell in it.

In conclusion, I must reiterate the notion that what band is to be considered the best is highly subjective. Therefore, it is my opponent's burden to prove via valid contentions why DEG is suited for that title. I have effectively argued against all of Pro's arguments. I can also effectively argue the resolution by naming another band which I consider to be of greater versatility and accomplishment, therefore making them "the greatest." If I can prove that said band is 'better' via my own contentions, I will win this debate.

To demonstrate my position, I will choose The Beatles to oppose DEG as being the most versatile and greatest band. Some reasoning for my position includes:

1. The Beatles are the best selling musical act of all time. While popularity may not be indicative of talent, the fact that they are the most popular band that has ever existed (they sold over 40 billion albums worldwide) certainly demonstrates the band's appeal as opposed to DEG, which many people have not even heard of.

2. The Beatles released 40+ number one singles, EPs and albums in the UK. DEG has failed to achieve such prestige.

3. The "experts" of music magazines such as Rolling Stone have listed The Beatles as being the greatest band of all time. This consensus was reached via contentions such as my own, and surveys of opinions of many music connoisseurs.

4. While DEG may transcend language barriers in some instances, The Beatles sparked an entire cultural revolution, influencing not only music but other forms of art, politics and philosophy worldwide.

5. The Beatles dabbled in all kinds of music genres, even creating some new ones of their own. They also were the first popular act to use exotic instruments in their songs and experiment with different sounds and tones. It is undeniable how much their sound had progressed from their inception until Lennon's death. For instance, they later on used classical musicians on their pop albums (which was unpopular, and obviously a testament to their versatility), music sampling, and played around with various tones from guitar feedback, just to name a few examples.

6. The Beatles also redefined the music industry in general; they changed the entire way (technologically) music was recorded. "We were always pushing ahead: Louder, further, longer, more, different." -- Paul McCartney

Thus, I believe The Beatles to be a more versatile and far greater band than Dir en Grey. I stand in firm negation of the resolution both based on my opponent's lack of valid contentions in support of DEG, and the fact that I believe The Beatles to trump DEG in all aspects of my opponent's values as well as some of my own.

Back to ye, Kefka.
Debate Round No. 1
Kefka

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for her response that will make this debate interesting; but, sadly, I will have to forfeit this round. I overestimated how many debates I could handle, and put too much into one debate, and have been busy as well.
Danielle

Con

I accept my opponent's forfeited round, though his profile maintains that he is currently involved in just one other debate (which I happen to know includes an argument due from his opponent and not him... tehe). Regardless, I hope Pro can post a third round argument at a later point so we can finish this debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
Kefka

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response, and apologize for having to forfeit the previous round; hopefully I can produce an advocacy worthy of two responses.

My opponent begins by saying that an argument for a 'best' band is entirely subjective; though she uses evidence similar to mine to negate my resolution? Every debate is subjective in its own way. Some more than others, but does this mean we should just leave it at that? Should we not debate gay marriage, flag burning, best ideology, favorite movie, or any subject that is largely twisted by personal opinion stemming from religion, patriotism, etc.? I challenge my opponent to lay forth an advocacy. Instead, it seems she chose to dodge the main point of the argument, and then, after criticizing my advocacy for its subjective matter, responded with appeals to popularity and the same subjectivity that apparently invalidated all of my arguments.

Now to address my opponent's criticisms of my assertions:

Con states that all bands are able to be identified by at least two different genres. But, very few can claim that they are able to diversify themselves among genres such as Death Metal, Shock Pop, Visual Kei, Melodic, Progressive Metal, and many other genres that are on such opposite ends. Dir En Grey has achieved this, hence it has earned its right to be considered superbly versatile. Hence, this leads me to say that they transcend genre.

Next she undermines Kyo's (Lead singer of Diru) vocal range by using Robert Palmer as a counter vocalist that challenges the Kyo's vocal range. Although my opponent lists a great many genres, these genres require only a soft tempo and volume. Can a singer such as Robert Palmer boast to being able to growl, scream, expressing true emotion through rage based sound, and manipulate his voice so greatly as to transition from extreme hardcore screaming, seamlessly, to soft, melodic singing? I understand that a singer is not the only individual in a band that gives the band quality. Dir En Grey's guitarists Die and Kaoru are able to keep up with the band's diversity in styles of play.

Con then proceeds to say that lyrical content has no merit in a debate about the 'best' band. How can this be true? Most bands at this time have lyrics in their music, while there are some that do not, and are still great (i.e. 65 Days of Static). So bands should be critiqued on what their music attempts to convey. Yes, it's true that people will sometimes not care what the band is talking about, judging from what's popular now a days; though, this really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. People are touched by lyrics as much as they are by a melody of a guitar, maybe even more so. If a band can produce meaning to their existence as artists, they prove that they are able to embody what makes music art. This is done through having lyrics that mean something, as well as having a sound that opens up an individual to be able to hear, physically and mentally.

Con, after assuming my advocacy was dismembered, hypocritically argues The Beatles to be the best band.

My opponent admits the fallacy in using popularity as evidence for talent, but then says such things as "The Beatles released 40+ number one singles, EPs and albums in the UK. DEG has failed to achieve such prestige". Prestige in this case means popularity, since that's what determines if a song becomes a 'number one'.

Next Con uses the opinion of "experts" to advocate The Beatles being the greatest band of all time. Appeal to authority. I could produce many "experts" who praise Dir En Grey for their ability to break language barriers, delve into numberless genres, and redefine genres altogether; this doesn't make Dir En Grey any more 'great' in a debate.

Though The Beatles were undeniably influential in the development of the international music industry, they were actually incredibly formulaic in the process, and didn't really branch out creatively until the Vietnam Era. So, not only are The Beatles a questionable competing "great" band, but they are also a band whose innovative time has ended. Since Dir En Grey is innovating currently, and since I've proven their exceptional merit across industry standards of artistry & creativity, their potential has yet to be fully realized.

Thank you for accepting the debate, and good luck to you L.
Danielle

Con

Thank you, Pro, for the excellent third round.

Re: Subjectivity

For the purpose of clarification, I will explain my reasoning regarding the matter of subjectivity in this debate. What I said was that any band deemed to be the "best" IS, in fact, entirely subjective. However, that does not mean that it can not be debated. Indeed the part of my argument that Pro failed to mention was when I noted, "More important than the opinionated resolution is the fact that my opponent has made little to no sufficient arguments in defense of his belief." In other words, the winner should be determined not based on individual preference, but based upon who made the more convincing arguments. You can't just say X's voice is better than Y's. Instead, premises must be supported by facts and/or reasoning. Thus, I was not hypocritical anywhere in this debate.

Re: Genre Classification

Pro points out that DEG has achieved being classified in various genres of music. I never argued this claim, and in fact noted that most bands DO get labeled as pertaining to more than one genre. However, Pro listed five genres that DEG is related to, whereas I mentioned at least nine genres that a band like The Rolling Stones falls under. In other words, the versatility of TRS has exceeded the versatility of my opponent's DEG according to his very own value (genre classification). This clearly negates one aspect of the resolution.

Re: Vocals

While I am not arguing that Kyo's vocal ability transcends genre, I simply noted that there are other singers whose vocals can also transcend genre. The example of Robert Palmer indicates how one singer can be used to sing songs of all different sounds. Additionally, in a previous round I mentioned how there are other vocalists whose actual abilities exceed that of Kyo's. For example, Mariah Carey is infamously able to expand her vocal abilities over an 8 octave range! Regardless of whether you like her music or not (I personally don't), that is still a talent she has that illustrates how her vocal abilities may trump that of Kyo's, thus not making him the greatest singer in terms of comparison. Another note is that while MC may not be able to transition from melodic singing to hardcore metal or screamo, there are other singers that can (i.e. Bert McCracken of The Used). My point? Pro has not proved why Kyo's abilities are the best, either regarding vocal range or genre transition. The same logic applies to the band in general.

Re: Lyrical Content

Pro questions "how can it be true" that lyrical content plays no part in what makes a band 'the best.' I'd like to point out that I never said that it didn't matter at all; simply that it could not be the only factor taken into consideration, and that even as a single premise of many would be hard to defend. Why? First, as I've mentioned, some people don't like music with lyrics or don't care about the lyrics as much as the music behind them. To these people, lyrical content would be meaningless in a debate about which band was the best.

Second, just because a band has good or thought provoking lyrics doesn't necessarily indicate that they'll be considered the best or even relevant. For instance, some people like songs with lyrics that tell stories (Billy Joel), some like lyrics that they can barely comprehend (From Autumn to Ashes), some enjoy lyrics about love (Britney Spears), teen angst (Green Day), being miserable, lonely or sad (Dashboard Confessional), politics (Anti-Flag), money, hoes and clothes (Notorious B.I.G.) etc. Nowhere did my opponent argue why DEGs lyrics were the best or even among the best. Instead, he just argued that their lyrics were "genius."

Again, to merely state opinions in a debate about one's preferences means nothing without any facts behind them. As much as Pro is attempting to depict me as being hypocritical, he cannot. For instance, I can argue that Eminem's lyrics are the best, and to do so would be subjective. However, if I said that his lyrics were the best BECAUSE... and then inserted my reasoning... then I have a point worthy of consideration in this debate. For example, I could say that his lyrics depict raw emotion that touch those who listen to his music; that his rhymes are complex; that his lyrics are versatile in that they're both 'deep' and funny, depending on the song; that his lyrics are controversial and have often sparked political and cultural debate, such as when he talked about the shootings at Columbine High School, etc. With this reasoning, I have defended my opinion. Pro provided no such reasoning, and as such his determination of what he thinks to be the best (or simply says is the best) is irrelevant.

Re: The Beatles

I believe I have already explained at length why I was in no way hypocritical anywhere in this debate. This includes the appeal to population fallacy which Pro assumes that I have used. However, what Pro failed to mention or argue in any way is that something's popularity IS often relevant to a debate. For instance, when voting on something in a democratic way, argumentum ad populum is entirely relevant; the majority gets to decide what is the "best" or most proper. Additionally, sometimes a majority opinion is exactly what will make something 'the best.'

If there are 20 guests at my party and 3/4 of them prefer The Beatles over DEG, then The Beatles would be the best band to play for the purpose of entertainment. Plus, in terms of releasing number one singles, etc., it should be noted that popular appeal is the entire basis of capitalism. Products are valued based on how much money they can make, which is proportional to its popularity. Since The Beatles have more fans, have achieved higher recognition (more albums being sold, etc.), then The Beatles are the best in this category as well. Note that I can argue any reason at all why I consider The Beatles to be the best, including capitalistic appeal. Using that alone, the resolution has been negated.

Regarding the appeal to authority, Pro mentions that he "could produce many 'experts' who praise Dir En Grey for their ability to break language barriers, delve into numberless genres, and redefine genres all together." However, what Pro COULD do is irrelevant -- he simply DIDN'T. On the other hand, I backed up my claim using sources that include highly regarded music magazines and esteemed critics, all of whom note The Beatles prestige over almost if not all other bands in history, let alone a far lesser regarded band such as DEG. In other words, this is yet another instance in where I backed up my claims whereas Pro has not; he only said that he could.

Finally Pro uses the argument that since The Beatles time has ended and DEG's has not, then DEG must be the better band. Coming from someone who is fond of pointing out logical fallacies, I find this flawed logic to be quite comical. Pro is ASSUMING things like DEG will keep producing music, that it will be good, and that it will exceed in talent and versatility that which The Beatles has already accomplished. Using history as an example, odds are that Pro is wrong. While there is no guarantee, the evidence is statistically in my corner that this will not be the case. Moreover, Pro completely ignored my arguments regarding The Beatles and the cultural revolution they sparked, their everlasting influence on music and beyond (a degree to which DEG has not even come close to rivaling), the fact that The Beatles are the most innovative band of all time noting the many ways which they changed the industry (DEG has not impacted music production as such), etc. This can only mean that Pro concedes to these points.

Re: Conclusion

This debate comes down to facts and arguments vs. simple stated opinions. It has been a fun debate, though Pro has simply failed to defend his arguments, many of which were also rooted in fallacies (i.e. the Everyone Is Entitled To His Opinion fallacy).
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Two Lwerd accounts giving all points to Vi. Vi voting for herself in all points. Lawlzor :)

"though Pro has simply failed to defend his arguments"

Awesome conduct there, eh?
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro had a very difficult task here, made more difficult by a short intro in rd 1 and missing rd 2. Pro had one round to judge. Put simply, Pro did not make his case. Placing a higher burden on pro/instigator is not necessary as an equal burden is not satisfied either. Pro never gave a good value to his contentions. Why should transcending genre be important? I think this point is important but pro never explained why, and I am only judging arguments. Con did not need to present a better band as her position was simply a negative one. She only had to make pro prove Dir en Grey was the best, and he did not.
B/A - Tied, no oppinion either way here.
Conduct - Con, Pro missed a round and only presented good infor in his final round.
Convincing Arguments - Con, explained above. Pro did not make his case.
Sources - Tie. Sources were not important in this one, and neither side really used them.
S/G - Con is well written, but my policy is to leave this one unless one side makes big mistakes. I did not see any. Tie
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
Another straight 7...wonder who that was?
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I wish that this debate had all 3 rounds. However, we all have lives outside of debate.org (hopefully :D), so sh*t happens, right?

Based on these two rounds, I think that Pro is making some arguments that go disregarded in Con's RD 3 post. While Pro's RD 1 post, I agree, could have been more thorough in his attempt to prove that Dir En Grey is so spectacular, I don't think that he suffers entirely in RD 3 of being warrantless. I think that Con's primary mistakes appear in RD 3, which is what makes the vote difficult.

For example:

*Con accuses Pro of being warrantless throughout, but Pro does give an accounting of his stated opinions using elements of the band's musicality and performance with regards to vocals, lyrics, & genre transcendence. Just because one band is able to identify as more genres than Dir En Grey doesn't actually reduce the merit of Dir En Grey, because this is a whole picture approach. The Rolling Stones may be in like 9 genres, but are they as versatile in all other categories of musicality as Pro claims his band is? This was never addressed by Con.
*The wash argument (about experts) is still won by Pro. The point was not to flood RD 3 with conflicting expert quotations. It was simply to state that too many "experts" say too many things to pin a positive advocacy on them. A wash just makes the whole line of argumentation on EITHER side obselete.
*Pro made one pretty awesome argument against The Beatles that was never answered, and I think it really takes out a lot of what Con has to say: Dir En Grey is still producing music, so their potential has been proven, but is still potential. While this argument may have flaws, Con doesn't bother to point them out.

Before: Con
After: Pro
Conduct: Tied
Sp/Gr: Tied
Convincing: Pro (very close, though)
Sources: Tied (neither of you actually quoted any materials-- Con just name dropped Rolling Stone Magazine & quoted a member of The Beatles)
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
Hmm gave all 7 points to yourself..nice..
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I had 3 debates going on. One with Vi, one with Alto, and one with you. I had to forfeit the final round of Alto's, that's why it says I"m not currently doing the debate anymore.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I personally don't see what one has to do with the other :P
Posted by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
I kind of realized that :D
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Hahah possible reason why L and I are dating, Kefka ; )
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
The Who > all.

Yeah, I'm a little biased...but meh....
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 8 years ago
GeoLaureate8
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kefka 8 years ago
Kefka
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
KefkaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07