The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
violetviolin
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
violetviolin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 49675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

I found this competition between this poet and Shakespeare
http://www.scribd.com...

This poet beats Shakespeare in this competition for three reasons
1) his poems are more emotional that Shakespeare's sonnets
2) his poems are more lyrical than Shakespeare's sonnets
3) his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets
violetviolin

Con

To begin, I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate, and would like to say that I am looking forward to hearig the rest of what my opponent has to say.

I would like to begin by discussing the wording of the resolution: Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition
This resolution's wording determines that pro must prove that "this poet" aka Colin Leslie Dean does defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition. The resolution's wording also determines that con must simply prove this statement to be untrue. As the resolution implies this, and the pro has not provided a burden for the con, my arguments must be looked at with this weighting in mind.

I would like to first provide a definition of poetry, as this is important to the resolution, and my opponent has failed to do so. Poetry, as defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary is:
Literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; poems collectively or as a genre of literature

As shown in the definition of poetry, their very nature and purpose is to express feeligs and ideas. This definition comes into conflict with the pro's stance n the resolution. The pro stands on the assumption that emotions are concrete and comparable, which would allow them to compete. Emotions however, vary from person to person in response to different things. When one person sees a paintiong, it may bring them joy, and another person pain. Therefore, we cannot quantify or compare emotions, so we cannot say that one poem is better than another as this would entail comparing their expression of feelings, which I have proven to be immpossible.
Along with this, ideas cannot be quantified or compared, so according to the definition of poetry which states that its purpose is also to express ideas, you cannot compare poetry.

Looking at my opponents arguments:
1) his poems are more emotional that Shakespeare's sonnets
As I stated earlier, you cannot quantify emotions, as the usage of "more" in my opponents argument entails
2) his poems are more lyrical than Shakespeare's sonnets
My opponent gives no definition of lyrical, and does not provide a link back to the resolution. I have shown what a poem entails, and how "lyrical" it is is not in this definition. If my opponent fails to explain how "lyrical" relates to the resolution than you cannot look to this argument.
3) his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets
Again, no link to the resolution.

To summarize, con is arguing that you cannot "defeat" a poem because the purpose of a poem is ideas and emotion which are not quantifiable or comparable. Pro's arguments do not stand because argment 1 is about more emotion, but emotion is not quantifiable, and argments 2 and 3 have no link back to the reslution.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your response.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

firstly get over your addiction to definitions
just read the poems out aloud and you will clearlyhear the emotion and lyrical/musicality of deans poems-which are superior than Shakespears

1)it is common knowledge amongst poets that lyrical refers to musicality
thus deans poems are more musical than Shakespeare

example
Shakespeare
Sonnet 128
How oft when thou, my music, music play'st,
Upon that blessed wood whose motion sounds
With thy sweet fingers when thou gently sway'st
The wiry concord that mine ear confounds

deans lines are obviously to any ear more musical/lyrical -all you have to do is read both poems aloud
example
lay thy languid neck upon my lap that I may kiss its pulsating vein to run my tongue along thy flesh to hear thy lusts refrain give me thy lips that I may kiss suck from thee thy heated breath give me thy face that I may in its sight gain paradise

2) you can ompare emotions
a sobbing girl is less emotional than an hysteric crying girl
thus deans poems are more emotional than Shakespeare
example
Sonnet 145
Those lips that Love's own hand did make,
Breathed forth the sound that said 'I hate',
To me that languished for her sake:
But when she saw my woeful state,
Straight in her heart did mercy come,

now deans-s clearly more emotional
example
give me thy lips that I may kiss and bask in the radiance of the ineffable splendor of thy beauty to hear the wild beating of thy heart to warm in the effulgence of thy smile oh that I would be crushed in thy arms like a flower such that in the heated paroxysms of our ardor the shuddering of our vein sets us aflame
violetviolin

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate before I begin.
1. To start, I would like to respond to the unwarranted attack on my use of definitions. My opponent stated:
"firstly get over your addiction to definitions"
This comment shows both bad conduct and a lack of understanding about debate. The point of a debate is to maintain objectivity, and look at the truth and arguments that each side presents. If no definitions are provided, it is impossible to remain objectivity as there is no way of knowing exactly what you are debating. In this round, my opponent could have been debating with a very different definition of poetry than I was using, and the only way to clarify is to use definitions. You must look to my definition of poetry when judging and voting for the round, because my opponent provides no other alternative, and my definition is from a highly credible source (Oxford Online Dictionary).

2. I would next like to respond to my opponents first argument, in which he states that:
"it is common knowledge amongst poets that lyrical refers to musicality thus deans poems are more musical than Shakespeare"
I would like to point out that the argument that I had made against this point originally was not solely based off of the definition of lyrical, but on its link to poetry, and why how lyrical something was actually mattered to the debate of which was a better poem. I had pointed out that the definition of poetry which I had provided did not include anything about how lyrical a poem was. My opponent has not provided any link from his point on lyrical to the resolution, and has not shown that how lyrical something is actually matters to poetry. Therefore you cannot look to my opponent's argument. I extend my argument against this.

3. I will next respond to my opponents second argument which states:
"you can ompare emotions
a sobbing girl is less emotional than an hysteric crying girl
thus deans poems are more emotional than Shakespeare"
I would like to bring to attention the fact that every person expresses emotions in different ways. Some people tend to have stronger reactions to things then other people, but that does not mean that they are more emotional, simply that they choose to express what they feel more. For example; if one person is public when they find out terrible news, they will be just as upset as if they had found out at any other time, but they may choose to try to hold it together until they are alone, whereas if someone finds out terrible news in private, they are more inclined to show how upset they are because there is nothing stopping them from doing so. So, we have no way of comparing emotions because we do not know what the true level of someones emotions are. Therefore, my opponents second argument does not stand, and my argument which states " Therefore, we cannot quantify or compare emotions, so we cannot say that one poem is better than another as this would entail comparing their expression of feelings, which I have proven to be impossible" still stands. I extend my argument.

4. I would like to bring back my opponents original third argument which stated:
" his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets"
My argument against this was that there was no link from desire to poetry or to the resolution. My opponent has dropped this argument, showing that he concedes to my arguments against it, which I can therefore extend.

5. My opponent has posted several examples of the poetry which we are comparing, however he has not shown how it is relevant to the debate, or even proven that what he is saying about it is true, therefore you cannot look to this as evidence for his case, and you must drop this from the debate.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your next arguments!
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"4. I would like to bring back my opponents original third argument which stated:
" his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets"
My argument against this was that there was no link from desire to poetry or to the resolution. My opponent has dropped this argument, showing that he concedes to my arguments against it, which I can therefore extend.

5. My opponent has posted several examples of the poetry which we are comparing, however he has not shown how it is relevant to the debate, or even proven that what he is saying about it is true, therefore you cannot look to this as evidence for his case, and you must drop this from the debate."

my closing argument is
i have given evidence
con has not sufficiently refuted that evidence
any one who read Dean's and Shakespeare's poems out aloud would here hear Dean's are more emotional and full of desire

these debate is about subjectivity i.e the subjective experience of the poems
not about word definitions

con is an cons head playing with word definitions
all con had to do was read the poems out aloud
con has not read the poems out aloud
if con had he would hear the emotion desire
violetviolin

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate.

I would first like to respond to my opponents closing arguments. As this is the last round, I will not bring in any new arguments, but simply rebut what my opponent has claimed in past rounds.
In the last round, my opponent first copied and pasted several arguments that I had made in the round prior, and used them to try to prove me wrong. I would like to point out that he has not explained wh these arguments are wrong, he simply retyped them and included them in his closing arguments, which firstly, does not prove anything that he says, and second, goes against all of his points, so you cannot look to this part of his arguments, and I can extend these two arguments.

Next, I would like to respond to his closing arguments. He first says:
"i have given evidence
con has not sufficiently refuted that evidence"
You cannot look to this argument as
1.) He does not explain this argument or give proof or explaination as to how it is true, and
2.) This argument is a blatant untruth, as in fact, the only evidence that my opponent has given is not evidence at all, as it is simply copying and pasting the very thing that we are debating about, which could be used to support both sides equally (if my opponent says otherwise, then there would be no debate, as it would simply be an unquestionable truth, and as my opponent started the debate, obviously he believes that it is possible to look at this from multiple points of view) and my opponent also failed to explain the importance of these quotes, and how they support his case.
3.) If you are looking to evidence, I am te only one that provides reliable outside evidence. I provide the definition of poetry (from the Oxford Onlind Dictionary) which is key to maintaining an objective debate.

Next, I will respond to my opponents following argument:
"any one who read Dean's and Shakespeare's poems out aloud would here hear Dean's are more emotional and full of desire"
1.) I have proven that unless my opponent proves that desire has a link to the debate/poetry in general (which he has failed to do) you cannt look to any arguments about desire
2.) I have also proven that because emotions are subjective and not comparable, we cannot base a round n which poem is more emotional, therefore any arguments abut emotion fail. My opponent has not proven that emotions are compareable (he responded to my argument from the first round about this, but dropped the argument I made in response in the second round, showing that he agrees with this, or that it is undeniably true)

My opponent's next argument of the closing speech was:
"these debate is about subjectivity i.e the subjective experience of the poems
not about word definitions"
1.) My opponent has not explained why subjectivity is better, while I have shown why it is necessary to remain objective. Debate is based off of obectivity. If it were not, a judge could walk into a debate round and say "i like your nail polish color better, so you win". While this is an extreme example of subjectivity, I use it to show that unless we look to the most objective argments and remain objective in our decisions, there is no point to debating.
2.) Word definitions are key to maintaining objectivity, and therefore key to debate. As they are key to debate, any attack on them fails, and must be dropped.

Next my opponent makes several personal attacks:
"con is an cons head playing with word definitions
all con had to do was read the poems out aloud
con has not read the poems out aloud
if con had he would hear the emotion desire"
1.) What is a "cons head"? I do not know for sure that this is a derrogatory term, but it is not exactly professioal conduct, and I urge the voters to look at this when making decisions.
2.) My opponent said I was "playing with word definitions". This is unwarranted as I have proven many times over that definitions are key to debate and to insult them is to insult debate itself.
3.) My opponent continues to make uneducated personal attacks. "con has not read the poems out aloud
if con had he would hear the emotion desire". My opponent has no reason to belive that I have not read the poems aloud. I have, in fact read them aloud, and I still do not see that we can compare the emotion in these poems, or that desire is important to the round, which actually furthers my points.

I will extend all of my arguments next and resummarize why they are important to the debate.
1.) I extend my definition of poetry, as my opponent has provided no alternative definition. Definitions are important to the debate in order to maintain objectivity.
2.)I extend my argument on how you cannot quantify, objectify, or compare emotions. My opponent has not made any logical arguments otherwise, whereas I have proven this to be correct in every round of the debate. This is an importat argument, as emotions are what poetry is based off of, as shown in my definition, so if you cannot compare emotions, you cannot compare poetry through emotions.
3.) I can extend my argument on that how lyrical something is is not linked to the debate. My opponent never proved otherwise, and totally dropped this argument in the third round. This is important as it takes out the second of his three arguments.
4.) I can extend my argument against the desire of the poems. I have yet again proved that this has no link into the resolution, and my opponent has not even tried to prove otherwise, but simply repeated stating that his poet's poems have more desire without proving that desire is important to poetry.
5.) I can extend all of the arguments that I have made to rebut my opponents attacks, as my opponent has simply dropped all of them.

I urge you to vote for con as con is the only one that provides an objective and reasonable debate, whereas pro has simply created illogical arguments throughout this whole debate, and dropped almost al of the arguments which I have made. Thank you, and may the best debate win!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by violetviolin 3 years ago
violetviolin
Thank you for your arguments, and I forgot to mention this earlier, but I am fine with you using the comments to cross examine me for clarification purposes only.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
"1)lyrical
1. (Music, other) another word for lyric1, lyric2, lyric3, lyric4"

So, in music "lyrical" means "lyric", NOT "MUSICAL". Indeed, "lyric" IS a synonym for "lyrical". But MUSICAL isn't even in this definition!

"2).lyrical - suitable for or suggestive of singing
melodic, melodious, musical - containing or constituting or characterized by pleasing melody; "the melodious song of a meadowlark"

This IS NOT EVEN CALLED A "SYNONYM" UNDER THE LINK YOU PROVIDED!!! It clearly is colour-coded as a "RELATED WORD".

You areeither very sloppy, highly desperate to prove yourself right or a lousy liar.
And yet you have the nerve to call me "plain wrong".
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
you say
"Yeah, well - no. "Musical" is NOT a synonym for "lyrical". I checked. Then double-checked. Show me where you get that from."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
1)lyrical (G2;l=8;r=8;kəl)
adj
1. (Music, other) another word for lyric1, lyric2, lyric3, lyric4

2).lyrical - suitable for or suggestive of singing
melodic, melodious, musical - containing or constituting or characterized by pleasing melody; "the melodious song of a meadowlark
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
His debates are simply means to shameful promotion. He suffers from delusions of grandeur and gives himself a pseudonym of someone(perhaps an imaginary person he would like to become), which he has declared as a brilliant philosopher, poet and mathematician. It's really amusing to get to know him personally.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
So you're saying the Merriam-Webster-definition is WRONG, and yours is RIGHT?
Yeah, well - no. "Musical" is NOT a synonym for "lyrical". I checked. Then double-checked. Show me where you get that from.
If "musical" WERE a synonym for "lyrical" (that is what you falsely claim), then the sentence "so some lyrical poems can be more musical" WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL!
Because then you'd say: "Some musical poems can be more musical" which is a contradiction, as "musical" is another absolute. Nothing can be more musical. It can either have harmonic qualities - then it is musical - or NOT - then it's not musical at all.

mu"si"cal: of or relating to music
: having the pleasing qualities of music
: enjoying music : having a talent for playing music

You admit that "desire" is an emotion, but there are different emotions. That's exactly what "supersede" means:
su"per"sede: to take the place of (someone or something that is old, no longer useful, etc.) : to replace (someone or something)
1a : to cause to be set aside
b : to force out of use as inferior
2: to take the place or position of
3: to displace in favor of another

If "desire" is ONE emotion, then if you make "emotion" a point, you'd bring up desire TWICE.

So, I am NOT wrong, your debate is bogus.
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
you say
"Your point 1 supersedes your point 3, as "desire" is an emotion.

lyr"i"cal (adjective) : having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality (Merriam-Webster's)
"lyrical" is thus an absolute, and hence the comparison "more lyrical" does not exist.

There is necessary connection between quality of a poem and its emotional content.

Your resolution is impossible to discuss, it makes no sense anywhere."

desire can be different to emotion emotion can be hate love fear etc
desire is longing for something

lyrical can mean muisical
so some lyrical poems can be more musical
so your comments are just plain wrong
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Your point 1 supersedes your point 3, as "desire" is an emotion.

lyr"i"cal (adjective) : having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality (Merriam-Webster's)
"lyrical" is thus an absolute, and hence the comparison "more lyrical" does not exist.

There is necessary connection between quality of a poem and its emotional content.

Your resolution is impossible to discuss, it makes no sense anywhere.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Good lord, the Vogon has returned... Still peddling that jaundiced tripe you call verse, I see. Are you out on parole or did you escape during a prison riot?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
shakuntalavioletviolinTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's crappy poetry is nothing compared to that of Shakespeare, as con profoundly showed. Pro used nothing but his own unfounded opinion as his entire argument while con actually used credible means of argumentation, complete win to the con