The Instigator
CrazyCowMan
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Heavy Metal is the best genre of music.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,178 times Debate No: 51354
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

CrazyCowMan

Pro

Hello, I think that heavy metal is the best genre of music, and I know that belief isn't very popular. This doesn't have to be a very serious debate, and the layout with follow as such:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments.
YYW

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
CrazyCowMan

Pro

Alright dude, thanks for accepting.

I'd like to start out by saying that, despite extreme popular belief, heavy metal is often very meaningful. I'd like to use a few examples here, Facade - Disturbed [1], Never Enough - Five Finger Death Punch [2], and Master Of Puppets [3].

"Facade", by the band "Disturbed", is about a woman trapped in an abusive relationship who just can't seem to get out. There is no doubt that a song like this is very meaningful. My next example was "Never Enough", by the band "Five Finger Death Punch", about being forced into doing things over and over and abusing good-hearted people. Of course a song with such sorrowful and enraging power has meaning. The final example I mentioned was "Master Of Puppets", by Metallica. This song is about drug addiction and opposes the use of drugs, and so obviously is meaningful.

The next point I have is that Heavy Metal opens a great way to express anger and vent. These emotions are often kept inside and cause great mental pain to the keeper. Expressing your thoughts is beneficial because otherwise there comes a point where a person simply cannot contain themselves and will snap.

My final reason is that Heavy Metal can often serve as a wake-up call. Two songs by the band "Disturbed", "Deify"[4] and "Another Way To Die"[5], are great examples of this. "Deify" tells us to stand up to every power-hungry control-freak who has deified themselves, and not be controlled, while "Another Way To Die" warns us of how humans are destroying the world. It is important that humans do not live in their own self-created dream world where everything is peaceful, or otherwise everyone less fortunate then them will suffer and no problems will ever be fixed.

Thanks for reading this, mate. I look forward to seeing what you've got to say.
YYW

Con

Many thanks to my opponent, for this most engaging debate.

I'm going to talk about the resolution, and then rebut my opponent. He's making the claim, therefore he's got the BOP. Simple enough, right? Brilliant, let's get started.

We're gathered here today, to debate this resolution: "Heavy Metal is the best genre of music."

If heavy metal is the best, then it's got to be better than all others, right? That being said, if any musical genre is as good or better than heavy metal, then my opponent's lost this debate. It's his burden to prove that heavy metal trumps every other kind of music out there. Simply saying that it's awesome, and it might be, isn't enough to affirm the resolution -because being awesome by itself isn't enough to say that it's "the best."

Savvy? Right, then. Onto my opponent's case! Righteous.

PRO begins by asserting that "despite extreme popular belief, heavy metal is often very meaningful" but never directly establishes 'meaningfulness' as his criterion for "best" genre ever. But, let's assume that he did. My opponent's right that there are some really meaningful heavy metal songs, from Staind, Distrubed and above all, the Ozzman. But, there are meaningful songs in almost every genre. Examples of other meaningful songs might include:

A Change Is Gonna Come, by Sam Cooke, which explored individual struggles to overcome racial adversity.

Nights in White Satin, by The Moody Blues, which explored the pain of unrequited love, and ongoing passion.

My Heart Will Go On, by Celine Dion, which gave voice to the pain of love lost.

Something to be Proud Of, by Montgomery Gentry, which reframes our perspective of what it means to live a meaningful life.

Beautiful Day, by U2, which gives us hope and encourages us to persevere through our darkest moments and our hardest struggles.

And there are so many others... none of which could even remotely be classified as within the heavy metal genre. So, even if being meaningful was, by itself, a sufficient criterion for "best ever" then heavy metal music cannot be described as being better than all others, because there are other songs from other genre's that are at least as if not more meaningful than any of the ones my opponent listed, or could list.

But, "meaningfulness" is a difficult standard to uphold because it's necessarily subjective -which we can know because meaningfulness varies from person to person. What is meaningful to me, for example, can and very likely will differ from what is meaningful to my opponent, because we are different people, with different thoughts, feelings, sentiments, values, experiences and accounts of ourselves.

My opponent's second argument is that heavy metal is the best genre ever because it "opens a great way to express anger and vent." And for some people, it might. But for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger. So, even if for some heavy metal might be a healthy venting outlet, the fact that it could cause the very problem that my opponent says it's purposed to alleviate at once negates the possibility that having the capacity to vent anger is a good or sufficient standard, or that even if heavy metal music may do that for some people, that it's the best genre ever in any objective sense.

My opponent's final idea is that heavy metal "can often serve as a wake-up call" meaning that it "warns us of how humans are destroying the world." In principle, my opponent is measuring a specific heavy metal song's value by evaluating the quality and depth of their sociocultural message -which I can appreciate. But, that doesn't mean that heavy metal is the best genre ever because not all heavy metal songs have such a deep or valuable meaning and even if they did, there are other songs from other genres which serve as even more compelling harbingers of tragedy's onslaught.

For example:

Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction" issues a foreboding warning of a myriad of horrors the United States faced during the Vietnam War. Among them, the draft, dangerous foreign policy, the risk of collective doom in the wake of America's fighting communism, social powerlessness in response to political injustice, racial inequality and the like.

Another example is found in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start The Fire," which nearly exhaustively charts the veritable litany of social, political, cultural, international, domestic and other problems/challenges/struggles/hurdles the faced by Americans during the Cold War.

Neither Barry McGuire's nor Billy Joel's songs are heavy metal, but they do precisely what PRO is saying that heavy metal does, and probably better, too. That isn't to disparage heavy metal, but if warning humankind is how we're measuring "best ever" it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that heavy metal could be the best ever by that standard. But, again, I'm not sure that standard is sufficient either in that while it might appeal to particular individuals, not everyone wants to be warned of imminent doom.

For example, in Thriving Ivory's "Angels on the Moon" (also, not heavy metal), the lead singer implores his subject:

"Don't tell me if I'm dying, because I don't want to know." Implicitly, knowing about something imminently threatening might lower quality of life, especially if what's so ominous can't be changed. It might be, after all, that rather than being warned of something horrible yet to come, that it's better to just enjoy the days we have, and live our lives as best we can -in ignorance. Or, that might be the case for some people. But because that could be the case for some people, I think it's a bit too bold to be ok with PRO's standard in his third argument.

In any case, there are some heavy metal songs that are really awesome. Even still, that doesn't make heavy metal the best genre ever. After all, we all know that the best song ever is One Direction's, aptly named, "Best Song Ever." If only the best genre could have the best song, and the "Best Song Ever" is not heavy metal, then heavy metal can't be the best genre ever. (jk, this was just to troll, sort of).

Peace out.
Debate Round No. 2
CrazyCowMan

Pro

I'd like to thank CON again, for accepting.

I'd also like to start by pointing out that my opponent seems to of completely ignored the debate structure that I proposed in round 1:

"Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments."

CON has made mostly rebuttals in round 2, against the structure. This is extremely severe, I believe, though I'm not going to freak out over it.

CON also said "PRO begins by asserting that "despite extreme popular belief, heavy metal is often very meaningful" but never directly establishes 'meaningfulness' as his criterion for "best" genre ever." this is true, and might of been a mistake, but I didn't bother establishing "meaningfulness" because I thought the definition was common knowledge.

Though it is true that other songs in other genres can be just as meaningful or even more meaningful, heavy metal will go where other genres seem to be afraid of going, and it's style and rough sound emphasizes that meaning to an extent which no other genre could hope to compete with. Take "Angel Of Death"[6], by "Slayer" as an example, about the holocaust. Sure, any song could talk about the holocaust, but not in the same powerful style as heavy metal. Please do not mistake this as me going against my own structure, and adding a new argument. I am merely rebutting CONS argument that other genres have songs even more meaningful.

I'm also extremely curious as to why CON seems to think that, simply because someone is old, they wouldn't like metal or would get angrier much easier, as he seems to imply "...for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger.". As for fundamentalist Christians, I'm simply stricken, why would your religion stop you from wanting to hear the powerful sound of a band playing their hearts out?

My opponent states "...that doesn't mean that heavy metal is the best genre ever because not all heavy metal songs have such a deep or valuable meaning and even if they did, there are other songs from other genres which serve as even more compelling harbingers of tragedy's onslaught." this is true, not all metal songs are meaningful, but this can be extended to literally every other genre. Not all rap songs are meaningful, neither pop or rock songs are ONLY meaningful. Also, once again, my previous argument comes to play here, the unique, often angry, sound of heavy metal emphasizes it's meaning.

Thank you for reading, I am on the edge of my seat pondering what you have to say about your infringement of my proposed debate structure, and the fact that you didn't really present any arguments, and only attempted to refute mine.

:)
YYW

Con

Right, let's address some concerns.

A rebuttal is a kind of argument or proof which rebuts (1); to rebut is to prove (something) is false by using arguments or evidence (2).

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So, in rebutting I have made arguments against my opponent's case, which is wholly consistent with the structure stipulated. After all, a rebuttal is a kind of argument.

With that said, let's get onto some more rebuttals. ;)

PRO responds to my unhinging his framework by contending that he didn't "bother establishing "meaningfulness" because [he] thought the definition was common knowledge." And indeed, it is, but PRO conflates 'definitions' and 'frameworks' in error, insofar as the two are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not taking issue with any definition, I'm rebutting the idea that meaningfulness could be a sufficient criterion to establish what constitutes the "best genre" ever. So, because his response does not undermine my rebuttal because it does not reestablish or ground the claim that "meaningfulness" is how we can know that any genre is the best ever, he drops my point and I have overcome his argument.

However, in a separate claim, PRO asserts that "Though it is true that other songs in other genres can be just as meaningful or even more meaningful."

Let's break this down: PRO concedes that if meaningfulness were a sufficient criterion for what constitutes the best song ever, that there are other genre's which could be just as meaningful or more so than heavy metal. So, at least some other genre's must have music, then, which is as meaningful or more meaningful than heavy metal. In that concession, he has negated his own first argument because if heavy metal is not as a whole more meaningful than all other forms of music, than it can't be the best genre ever, where "meaningfulness" is our measuring standard. Therefore, I have won that point.

Moreover, PRO claims that "heavy metal will go where other genres seem to be afraid of going, and it's style and rough sound emphasizes that meaning to an extent which no other genre could hope to compete with." So, novelty, then, is PRO's new standard for meaningfulness. But, all new songs may breech novel territory and being novel or breaking new artistic ground to convey meaning is not something that's only found among heavy metal songs because all songs which are not like previous songs are, at least in some sense, novel, in that they are distinct creative products from others. Consequently, my opponent has yet again employed a standard that does not necessitate heavy metal's being the best genre ever -and he has failed to affirm the resolution. Therefore, I've won that point too.

But, there are even bigger issues in play. The fact that novelty is itself a subjective criterion for meaning is problematic due to the reality that, as I have argued in this debate's penultimate round, the resolution requires objective criteria for heavy metal (the genre in question) to be established as the "best" ever. And, PRO's not done that. Instead, he's put forward some examples of reasons why he likes heavy metal, and I can appreciate that -but they don't mean that heavy metal is the best genre ever -and he admits this, sort of, when he says that when he concedes that "not all metal songs are meaningful, but this can be extended to literally every other genre. Not all rap songs are meaningful, neither pop or rock songs are ONLY meaningful" in the fact that in measuring meaning, he's applying his own subjective criteria to evaluate meaningfulness.

My opponent never really responds to this argument, but instead wants to take issue with my example about why a particular type of person might not find heavy metal musical (the fundamentalist Christian). But, his rebuttal doesn't actually address the argument or negate the example's function -it instead tries to take issue with religion's having an impact on musical taste in all cases, which of course it does not, nor did I say that it did. So, subtly, my opponent's misunderstanding has resulted in him straw manning my argument, which he never responds to, and in effect therefore still stands.

To conclude, I did not violate the structure stipulated in round one. Rebuttals are arguments, so there is nothing I did which is inconsistent with what PRO wanted. In this debate I've negated every single argument my opponent has offered from two angles: I've illustrated his his standards are insufficient to establish what constitutes the best genre ever and I've argued that even if his standards for what constitutes the best genre ever were sufficient, heavy metal does not meet those criteria because there is nothing about heavy metal which makes it stand out above all other genre's. A third perspective I've advanced is that there are problems with even asserting that any genre could be the best genre ever because of the inherent subjectivity necessitated by that evaluation. PRO never responded to that. Therefore, on those three fronts, I've won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
This has no relevance to the voting, of course. But I'm just gonna go ahead and drop it off here: http://www.cracked.com...
Posted by CrazyCowMan 3 years ago
CrazyCowMan
@bsh1 1

Why were PRO's sources more reliable? We both used youtube...
Posted by CrazyCowMan 3 years ago
CrazyCowMan
Haha, this was fun. I didn't actually expect to win this debate, and I actually agree with CON. It was fun though, and I don't mind losing, that's why I said it didn't have to be a serious debate.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NiqashMotawadi, can you explain why you feel the BoP was shared, when it wasn't noted in R1 and the presumptive burden is on the instigator to prove their motion?
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD UPDATED

Thanks to a study by a friend, it turns out both debaters had an almost equal number of spelling and grammatical mistakes, so I'm going to leave the S&G tied, while the conduct is fully justified to go for Pro as Con directly responded and refuted Pro's main arguments in a round where no rebuttals where allowed.
Posted by Technition 3 years ago
Technition
War?
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Niquash if you walk down that road, it's going to be a long and unpleasant experience for you.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD

I thank Pro for initiating this debate and debating professionally, when his opponent violated the rules, derailed the debate and then went ahead to Bladerunner and his friends and spammed their profiles with requests to vote for him. I'm going to base my conduct point on the fact that Con offered rebuttals when he was not supposed to do so according to the debate structure underlined in Pro's opening statement. Con tried to offer justification for that using semantics but completely ignored Pro's accusation that he responded to direct claims Pro made when he was not supposed to give any rebuttals. For instance, 'My opponent's second argument is that heavy metal is the best genre ever because it "opens a great way to express anger and vent." And for some people, it might. But for others, like old people or fundamentalist Christians, it might actually cause anger."; This is directly rebutting one of Pro's points when that was prohibited according to the debate structure. Therefore, Pro gets the conduct point for following the actual rule of this debate which Con seemed to ignore altogether.

When it comes to S&G, Pro's writing had fewer spelling mistakes and run-on sentences. For instance, Con shamelessly says 'Staind, Distrubed(sp)', which shows that he's not familiar with the debate altogether as he fails to spell names all music geeks should know. In addition to all those shameful spelling mistakes, Con mostly used more slang words such as "ok" and "jk" as if he was in a rap battle, and not an actual debate. Therefore, S&G rightfully go to Pro.

When it comes to arguments, the burden of proof was shared. Pro had to prove that Heavy metal is the best and he failed to do so through his arguments which were easily refuted by Con. Nevertheless, Con made no convincing arguments to support his share of the burden of proof, the final position was neutral, and so I will leave the arguments tied.

Sources are tied as well as both used Youtube videos
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
S&G was equal enough. As was conduct, as I don't find Pro's objection to Con's R2 compelling enough to warrant a conduct point. I'm tempted to give Con sources, for demonstrating a wider variety of songs to support his point, but I don't think it quite rises to that level.

Which brings us to arguments.

Pro had a tough row to hoe. He did a fine job of supporting heavy metal as a genre which can have meaning, and be worthwhile. But at no point did he support his motion, as Con pointed out. Pro's motion was that heavy metal was the BEST genre. Supporting that requires he put all other genres as "less than" heavy metal. As Con notes, Pro defeats himself somewhat by admitting that "it is true that other songs in other genres can be just as meaningful or even more meaningful". As Con notes, he then switches his argument away from meaningfulness to that of novelty, or boundary-pushing. But he fails to support heavy metal as the "best" at doing that, even if I accepted it as a criteria for "best".

Pro, in the future, I'd probably recommend establishing from the get-go what your criteria for "best" is going to be. That way you can concentrate on that, rather than switching gears in midstream, as you did here. Because Pro failed to support his motion, in the end, arguments to Con.

On a non-scoring-related point, I want to give props to Con for "We Didn't Start the Fire". Definitely up there in terms of my own favorite songs (again, though, as noted, that didn't factor into my scoring).

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Have to give points to con just because pro didnt even mention sabaton ;)
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct points for violating debate rules by rebutting in round 2 and (poorly) attempting to explain it. However, even disregarding portions that violated debate rules Con had a stronger case.
Vote Placed by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it is obvious who won here. Con makes much more convincing arguments without his rebuttals or argument even being challenged well. So, that is obvious from what I can see. When it comes to conduct.. I had to give that to Pro. Despite the fact, con tries to justify his actions. It is clear, there is a difference between a supportive argument and a rebuttal. This being said, this is my vote.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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 derailed the debate and broke the rules, and failed to justify that in his last round, because he ignored the fact that he addressed specific points Pro made and rebutted them when he was not allowed to do so according to the debate structure. Read the full RFD in the comments for examples and detailed descriptions.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol...Loving the sass, YYW. Anyway, I think Con should've conformed more closely to the stipulated structure of the round...semantically rebuttals might be arguments, but that was clearly not the intent of Pro's statement. Nice try, but conduct will go Pro. As for arguments, it's fairly straightforward. Inasmuch as Pro has the sole BOP, and insofar as Pro must defend against every other music genre possible, I feel it was very hard for him to win. Ultimately, there are other genres of music that are just as artistic and more mellifluous than Heavy Metal. I thought it was also intriguing how Con permed Pro's offense with Joel...Neat twist. Arguments and sources (for providing sample clips) go to Con. Therefore, I vote Con. Good round! [Disclaimer: I was asked to vote on this debate by YYW.]
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
CrazyCowManYYWTied
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: RFD in comments.