The Instigator
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
ArthDubey
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Freddie Mercury is the Best Singer of All Time

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 1 vote the winner is...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 88394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

missbailey8

Pro

First round- acceptance
Second round - rebuttal
Third round - closing statement

I'll be arguing that the singer Freddie Mercury is the best singer of all time. Con must give reasons against my claim. Thanks.
ArthDubey

Con

First of all naming ANYONE the best singer of ALL time, that's preposterous, because unless you have a gigantic group of humans who are like 2000 year old or something having photographic memory, it's just not reasonable. The history of Music goes thousands of years back so we just don't know that there might be someone better than Freddie Mercury. I certainly believe that Freddie mercury is an exceptional singer but best singer of ALL TIME, that's absurd.
Then judging someone's singing capability is extremely subjective like, I like someone, Somebody else likes someone else, hence comparing them needs a parameter and there is no parameter on which we can judge a singer 500 years back and Freddie mercury so that's my basic point against naming anyone best of all time. we don't have to forget that in the span of these 200 years itself there were John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Mariah Carey and many others. I don't say that they were better than Freddie mercury ( I am personally a fan of Freddie Mercury) But someone might feel that they were.
So I would like conclude by saying Freddie Mercury is great but BEST of ALL TIME you might wanna reconsider that .

P.S.- Don't resort to personal insult or anything like that, because that will prove nothing but the fact that you don't have any points.
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for your acceptance. Sure, I would've liked to see the argument in this round, but it's just fine. Personal insult is just unprofessional, so none will be used on any side of the debate. I'll start with my arguments.

(Some of these paragraphs are taken from another argument I made about Queen. All of it was written by me. For full assurance, you can check my 'Queen is the Best Rock Band of All Time' debate. Just letting you know.)

Aside from being one of the most iconic singers of the 20th century, Freddie Mercury had quite a lot of experience. In Queen, he did the lead vocals, some backup vocals, and played the guitar and piano. Even though he had a baritone speaking voice, his singing range included F2- E6, to F6 and F5. Mercury had over a four octave range while most people have only a two or three octave range.

Mercury also wrote a majority of Queen's songs. This includes 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Somebody to Love', 'Don't Stop Me Now', 'Under Pressure', 'We Are The Champions', 'We Will Rock You', 'Another One Bites The Dust', etc. I can go on forever of all the songs he's written for Queen! These are some of the most memorable songs of all time.

Also, his stage presence was truly fantastic. Mercury wore strange outfits confidently and pranced around the stage with tremendous vigor and energy. It was incredibly contagious. Just listening to the live recordings with no visuals assured you that he loved every minute of it. It was amazing that Mercury still performed when he was in excruciating pain inflicted by AIDS.

Not only did Freddie Mercury take on rock and its different genres, but he also did an opera album called Barcelona with Montserrat Caball". This was his first time doing anything like this, but it was a successful attempt and many praised Mercury for his second solo album. Sadly though, this was his last solo album before he died of complications from AIDS.

In conclusion, Freddie Mercury sang and wrote some of most iconic songs in history, had a memorable and incredibly energetic stage presence, and did an outrageous jump from rock to opera that proved to be successful.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal.
ArthDubey

Con

I happen to be new on this website so I didn't knew that I had to post my arguments in second round (My apologies for that), so I am re-posting that-

First of all naming ANYONE the best singer of ALL time, that's preposterous, because unless you have a gigantic group of humans who are like 2000 year old or something having photographic memory, it's just not reasonable. The history of Music goes thousands of years back so we just don't know that there might be someone better than Freddie Mercury. I certainly believe that Freddie mercury is an exceptional singer but best singer of ALL TIME, that's absurd.
Then judging someone's singing capability is extremely subjective like, I like someone, Somebody else likes someone else, hence comparing them needs a parameter and there is no parameter on which we can judge a singer 500 years back and Freddie mercury so that's my basic point against naming anyone best of all time. we don't have to forget that in the span of these 200 years itself there were John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Mariah Carey and many others. I don't say that they were better than Freddie mercury ( I am personally a fan of Freddie Mercury) But someone might feel that they were.
I have said it time and again that I am familiar with his contribution in music industry but my question is - Is it rational or logical to name anyone the best singer of all time?
So I would like conclude by saying Freddie Mercury is great,hands down, but BEST of ALL TIME you might wanna reconsider that.
Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for your opening statements.

Yes, judging singing capability is somewhat subjective. While you may like someone I don't like, the other way around, both of us hating them, or, our situation, both of us liking them, then that is subjective, but only on how much you like them. But range isn't subjective. Like I said in my opening statements, Freddie Mercury had a range of between four and five octaves, which means he must have been able to control his voice so he could, of course, sing. So yes, there is, technically, a parameter for measuring voice.

Also, relating to how we rate media, many people cite best movies of all time. The history of film is much shorter than music by all means, but who knows, there may be an independent film, a foreign film, or something we simply haven't seen yet. While you may say this is breaking my own argument, I'll bring something up: IMDB top ten movies [1]
1. The Shawshank Redemption
2. The Godfather
3. The Godfather: Part II
4. The Dark Knight
5. Schindler's List
6. Pulp Fiction
7. 12 Angry Men
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
9. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
10. Fight Club

These movies are all considered the best movies of all time. But how do they determine that it's the best movie? How can you say The Dark Knight is better than Pulp Fiction? I think it's compare and contrast, in many respects. What do they do that's unique? What do they excellence at? What do they have in common? I've seen both The Dark Knight and Pulp Fiction and they are very different movies, even though they are both, technically, action. The two best things about each movie (Dark Knight's Joker and Pulp Fiction's dialogue) are both completely different, but one can still choose one over the other based on their own merits.

The same can be said for singers, like comparing Mercury to Lennon, Carrey, or Dylan. They all have one thing in common: they all are musicians. Really, that is the only basic thing they have in common. When you compare all four, you can measure all on their own merits, like with film. Their range, unique voice, charm, stage presence, and personal presence can all be acknowledged to give you an opinion of the artist.

Let's compare Christina Aguilera and Johnny Cash. Even though Aguilera can hit the high notes that Cash can't, Cash has a better voice and more charisma than her.

With the example, I would say that Mercury stands out as a fantastic figure of his genre and with his combined range, voice talent, stage presence, and so on, he rises above all.

Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.
ArthDubey

Con

ArthDubey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I 100% agree. Freddie Mercury kicks @ss!
Posted by yomama12 1 year ago
yomama12
This is more bias debate, so the votes would probably be biased as well.
Posted by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
I could do that, but the debate is more reasonable. Ex. His range, his experience, etc. Believe me, I definitely would if this weren't a debate. XD
Posted by Quadrunner 1 year ago
Quadrunner
Dang, just post a song and the debates over. Why three rounds?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Everything 1 year ago
Everything
missbailey8ArthDubeyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeit