The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

If colin leslie dean debating his book is SPAM then so is JK Rowling' debating her new book SPAM

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...
oculus_de_logica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 49930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

Its argued on here that colin leslie dean debating his new book is SPAM
IE YOU CAN SEE HIS FREE POETRY BOOKS HERE
http://www.scribd.com...
oculus_de_logica says
http://www.debate.org...

quote
"Stop self promoting your poetry"

then if that is so then JK Rowling' debating her new book is also SPAM
SPAM is self promoting advertising
so why can it be acceptable for J K Rowling to promote debate her new book
but not acceptable if colin leslie dean does it
I argue if it is bad for one ie colin leslie dean then it is bad for the other ie JK Rowling
oculus_de_logica

Con

Since this debate was indirectly addressed to me I'll guess I'll have to accept it.

In this debate I'll make the case between promoting ones own book in a reasonable way as opposed to promoting it in an obnoxius way that does not have an effect.

standard DDO rules and conditions apply, no forfeits, no plagarism, common manners and standard round setup: (opening case: Rebuttals: further rebuttals: closing case without rebuttals from Con) at the risk of 7 point loss with violation.

definitons of self promoting:
the action of promoting or publicizing oneself or one's activities, especially in a forceful way.

spam:
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.

debate:
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

In this context it is also a debating thread on DDO akin to this one.


you may make your case.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

Icon says
point 1)
"In this debate I'll make the case between promoting ones own book in a reasonable way as opposed to promoting it in an obnoxius way that does not have an effect."

reply i have not been obnoxious
you seem to imply any spam YOU do not like must be obnoxious

point 2
definitons of self promoting:
"the action of promoting or publicizing oneself or one's activities, especially in a forceful way."

reply
if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site that self advertising fits this definition

point 3
spam:
"irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."
"
as i dont spread malware nor does JK Rowling that point does not apply to me or JK Rowling- it thus is up to you to prove i spread malware
thus
in reply
if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site that self advertising would fit this definition

I have shown that based on YOUR definition if JK Rowling debated her new book on this site then that would be spam
oculus_de_logica

Con

Readers of the debate, my opponent has failed to make a valid case in his opening round, for not only did he make an oversimplification fallacy but also misread and misinterpreted the dictionary definition provided in this debate.



WHO IS Colin Leslie Dean?
A quick google search shows us next to nothing on the actual character. For all we know he might just as well be a random person on the street. We find next to no “official” statements from the actual author, find no actual publishers that do acknowledge his existence and truth to be told I had never heard of him before actually arriving to DDO. What we can know about Dean is that he seems to have an awful lot of fans who strikingly all have the exact same grammar, need to advertise his unknown work and use the exact same vocabulary as each other with every single one portraying the same sense of logic and stubbornness over a period of several years. The similarities aren't so surprising, considering that in every single case the community that has been the target of said advertising scheme has always managed to identify the vessel as Dean himself. So, we see that in numerous websites Dean has been trying, unsuccessfully, to further his own agenda and his own work. Instead of resorting to honest advertising and actually placing effort into creating a good name for himself he is actively diminishing his own reputation and own credibility by trying to hide behind a mask and promoting his work on irrelevant forums, often resulting in annoyance and ridicule.



Why would J.K Rowling be better fit for self promotion?
Rowling, unlike Dean, is already a famous author that has a large fan base and a global recognition as a quality writer. There are a few places in the western world where her name isn't known and even fewer places where she is disliked. If Rowling where to come to DDO for some unkown reason she wouldn't have to use a fake name, she wouldn't need to address herself falsely as “leading author” and she could actually get into a detailed and mature discussion about the numerous things in the HP world for instance, for it is a rich world that many already know and love. She wouldn't need to try and rally up a discussion about something nobody but her is familiar with and she wouldn't have to post a link to an ill formatted webpage demonstrating the topic so she could actually have the discussion. In short, she already has such fame and quality that self promotion isn't needed, from that point it would simply be discussion. It would maybe be weird, but the opportunity to discuss something as famed as the HP franchise with the author would be an opportunity few would complain about. Dean however, being unknown and is not generally recalled as a quality writer, cannot have a vivid discussion about his work for nobody knows it. Yet after being told countless times that his poetry is not good[1] he still persists trying to promote it. The fact that he has lost over 22 debates, a majority of which where about Dean. This is equivalent to spam:
irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising.




If you would have just done this once, it would have been fine. But after 20-something debates on the matter, along with a handful of Yahoo questions, topics on ilovephilosophy forum, biological websites and so on and so forth[2]. We can safely say that you're not going to reap any benefit from this. On the argument of “malware”, my opponent failed to read the definition, for it clearly is listing things that are commonly associated with spam. Advertising, phishing and malware are examples of spam, but spam isn't all these things as once, so my opponents comments on that matter are irrelevant.

When defending Dean you have often been incredibly obnoxious, stubborn and refuse to actually listen to any reasonable logic. Not only have you compared Dean, an unknown poet, to Shakespeare, one of the greatest innovators and contributor of the English language[3], numerous times and recalled the latter as inferior to Dean often with almost comical efforts and results, but you never seem to truly get what those who criticise you are really saying nor how the English language works at times. I quote the first citation:
“that is just poor logic
being a horrible terrible poet does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet”
Here you condemn your opponents “horrible logic” and then strike back with a sentence so absurdly incorrect, non sensible and filled with all sorts of logical fallacies that I wasn't sure how to react to it. For one you are conceding to the fact that he is a horrible poet. The second part is somehow the conclusion that a horrible poet can still somehow be a leading poet. That's as sensible as saying that a plate full of tapeworms can still be considered a 5 star cuisine. If he is a leading poet he needs to lead, or if we take the definition: “To be the best/most important.” Unless he is the only poet in Australia he isn't leading. Someone who has next to no recognition and is generally recalled as a bad poet by those that have read his poetry is not leading anything. We are much closer to saying that J.K Rowling is a leading children book author in the U.K because she is one of the more respected, known and well received author of children novels in the U.K.




To conclude:
Dean isn't a well published author. That makes all the difference. He may well be the most mind boggling pioneer of a poet in his own mind, but to the general public he just comes off as someone trying way to hard. His poems are not well received, people generally are only annoyed by his constant self-promotion for we know that we won't receive any quality if we do end up clicking on the link as opposed to Rowling who would give us what she promisied in terms of quality writing. A quick look over the bibliography of Dean shows us that not a single book he has ever published has ever gotten a good array of reviews, most are ignored completely[4]. Looking over the bibliography of Rowling gives us a large collection of books that are getting a large majority of great reviews and a large people agreeing that it should be highly rated. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key aspect that must be considered when it comes to this debate. Rowling is a quality author. Dean is not.



I rest my case.



1-http://www.debate.org...
2-https://www.google.is...
3-http://www.debate.org...
4-https://www.google.is...
5-https://www.google.is...



Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says

point 1)
"Readers of the debate, my opponent has failed to make a valid case in his opening round, for not only did he make an oversimplification fallacy but also misread and misinterpreted the dictionary definition provided in this debate."

reply I have shown that cons definition of spam WOULD FIT JK Rowling' if she debated her new book on here

point 2)
con says
"To conclude:
"Dean isn't a well published author"
reply
con changes the gate posts here and trows in another argument that was not in his initial argument
cons original definition of spam did not include the idea of being a well published author

spam is -self promoting adverting material
it is a term that is used by people like con to disparage authors they dont like
and als not aplly to the elf promoting adverting material of authors they do like

I say in conclusion con has not disputed my claim
he has in effect shown himself-by his initial definition of spam that JK Rowling WOULD FIT ' cons definition of spam if she debated her new book on here
oculus_de_logica

Con

Actuallly, my opponent isn't realising what the resolution is. The resolution is that if J.K Rowling would come here to debate her work it would be spam as opposed to Dean. He then tries to change the definition of spam to make it include self promotion, something not even mentioned in the definition:
"irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."
"

If Rowling where to try and discuss her work here it would differ from Dean in the key aspect that she would actually be able to discuss it with someone as the odds of someone actually knowing the work she wants to debate are much greater. The key difference is that Rowling would come here and could actually use the DDO platform to discuss her work and offer new insights into it. She would actually be able to come and discuss this without needing to link to it, without having to advertise it per say and wouldn't need to appear under a third person name. However, Dean is not able to come here to discuss his work without actually advertising it. Given the HP universe is so popular and so diverse she could discuss it in a plethora of ways. Google shows that the term “Harry Potter” has been brought up on at least 180 occasions on DDO, and Rowling at least 3060 Times, indicating that there is a constant drive to discuss and debate her and her work. If Rowling would come along and start debating her own topic we would not notice, for it would just be another drop in the sea, she would not even make a dent, it wouldn't be irrelivent for she wouldn't be advertising, she would actually be discussing. However, Dean's name is mentioned around 140 times in DDO, and albeit that might seem like it would be signs of his discussion value removing all results that include your username (-shakuntala) leaves us with 7 results. Out of 144 discussion threads, debates, polls and opinions you have started or contributed to 137, meaning that you're the key component of the entire Dean regime. If Rowling where to start discussing her own book on DDO the total number of threads that are not associated with the account she has here would still be in such a massive majority to the threads she actually might start that we could barely notice her. It would just be another debater that insists on debating Rowlings work, for there are plenty of them already. If we were to remove her from DDO all together and there would still be a plethora of topics concerning her work. If you were to leave DDO all together Dean would vanish from existence as far as DDO would go. We'd remember you for perhaps a week and after that not a single soul still on DDO would actually care to remember his work, his poetry, and his shakuntala account. He would be gone, erased from DDO excistance. Nobody would discuss him, nobody would attempt to promote his poetry and nobody would keep on creating debates to further his poetry. It's all you. You're the only one that is actually promoting him. 137 sites exist directly and indirectly advertising Dean from your hand. You are spamming, your forcing deans poems, philosophy, mathematical theorems e.t.c into a discussion platform that has again and again shown that it does not want It. There is absolutely no will on DDO to discuss this topic in any positive way and no will to discuss this outside your account. It's self promotion because nobody else is promoting it. Rowling is not going to fit that definition because she does not need to promote herself, her work is promoted by her fans, it is promoted by itself and it's discussable nature.

You're fighting for a dying case. The more you try to force Dean onto an audience that does not want it the more of an annoyance is Dean going to become. He has next to nothing to discuss about his work that doesn't require him to actually post the work itself alongside the discussion because, suprise suprise, nobody has a clue what he is talking about without it. Rowling is discussable, Dean isn't.

The resolution is not going to fall your way simply because Rowling isn't forcingly advertising herself to gain some recognition. Dean is. Rowling doesn't need to advertise her work. Dean has to. Rowling actually has material that people are willing to discuss. Dean does not. Rowling is already discussed. Dean isn't.
Rowling isn't spamming herself all over the internet. Dean is.

https://www.google.is...

https://www.google.is...

Debate Round No. 3
shakuntala

Pro

reply using cons own definition I show
both Rowlings and me fit cons definition

thus if my debate are spam so would be Rowlings
if Rowlings debate would not be spam then my debates would not be spam

con says
"Actuallly, my opponent isn't realising what the resolution is. The resolution is that if J.K Rowling would come here to debate her work it would be spam as opposed to Dean. He then tries to change the definition of spam to make it include self promotion, something not even mentioned in the definition:
"irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc."

con says"
He then tries to change the definition of spam to make it include self promotion, something not even mentioned in the definition:"

reply
spam means self promoting advertising material
thus if Rowlings debated her new book on here it would be self promoting advertising material"

con says
"irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc"

1)if Rowlings posted a debate on here about her new book it would have been unsolicited -thus fitting cons definition
2)if Rowlings posted a debate on here about her new book it would typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising-thus fitting cons definition

i have posted debates about deans work which fit
1)unsolicited -thus fitting cons definition
2)would typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising-thus fitting cons definition

so both Rowlings and me fit cons definition

thus if my debate are spam so would be Rowlings
if Rowlings debate would not be spam then my debates would not be spam

thus what is good for one must be good for the other
oculus_de_logica

Con

My opponent isn't really understanding what spam is. Spam has nothing to do with self promoting material. Self-promotion does not indicate spam and spam does not indicate self promotion. They can include one and other, but neither definition provided make the requirement of the other. The next point my opponent raises againis that Rowling would not be wanted (something unsolicited does apply to). I already showed you that this is incorrect: DDO has been talking about Rowling on thousand of occasions with HP being mentioned hundred times or so. If it where in deed unsolicited we wouldn't be talking so much about it. Her debates would have a superior purpose than advertising as I've pointed out due to the nature of her work: It is actually discussable. On a debating website debatable material that is a popular topic already isn't irrelevant nor unsolicited. However Deans work is irrelevant, it is not debatable as proved by the wast lack of interest by the half of the DDO community to discuss it without your initiation and I already showed that we do not like Dean's work, meaning it is unwanted on this forum, it's unsolicited. My opponent even conceded to that point in this round, that his work is not welcome on DDO.



If Rowling would debate here it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss, she could come here out of egoistic agenda to discuss her own work without the need to promote it.



If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work, he's trying to get others to read it since it won't be read otherwise, something that would not apply to Rowling since her work is already read.



As I already said, DDO without the user-account “Rowling” would still give us a DDO site with thousand references to her and hundred HP debates. A DDO without my opponent would mean that Dean would not exist here, he'd just be a meaningless name.

Debate Round No. 4
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"If Rowling would debate here it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss, she could come here out of egoistic agenda to discuss her own work without the need to promote it.

If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work, he's trying to get others to read it since it won't be read otherwise, something that would not apply to Rowling since her work is already read.
reply

con now again changes the goal post by now defining spam to be NOT
having something to discus
quote
" Rowlings it wouldn't be spam as she would actually have something to discuss
If Dean is to debate here however he would be spamming since he isn't discussing his work,"

in a previous post I showed how cons original definition of spam fitted both me a and Rowlings
con has not refuted those arguments all he has done is change the goal post by now defining spam to be NOT
having something to discus
oculus_de_logica

Con

Dear readers of the debate, my opponent generally is not understanding the train of thought that is put into my arguments. I did not move the goalpost nor did I change any definitions. My opponent is taking a single sentence out of my entire debate and acting as it was my only argument. If we are to ignore the massive walls of text that my opponent has not addressed at all and focus on that one insignificant point. Let me explain as simply as I can the logic behind that sentence.

1A : SPAM is according to definition irrelevant or unsolicited.
2A: DDO is a debating website
3A : Thus, Debates are relevant
4A: Debates have to have a topic that is discussable in order to be of any value.
5A : Thus, we deduct from 3A that only discussable topics are relevant.
6A: 1A thus tells us that discussable topics are not spam.

1B : Rowling is a famed author
2B : Rowling has a vivid, popular collection of work that has a wast world associated.
3B : Said work is already discussed widely on DDO without her own intervention.
4B : hence, her work is discussable
5B : as concluded in 6A discussable topics are not spam and thus Rowling would not be spamming.

1C : Dean is not a famed author
2C: Dean does not have a vivid, popular collection of work that has a wast world associated
3C: Said work is not discussed at all on DDO without his intervention, as showed.
4C: hence, his work is not discussable
5C: If it is not discussable it is not relevant as a debate and thus is spam.

If we move on with the same train on the topic of self promotion

1D : Rowling is a famed author
2D : Rowling has a vivid, popular collection of work that has a wast world associated.
4D : If Rowling would come here she would already be known, and as such her work would not need to be promoted.
5D : If it does not need to be promoted she can always leave out the link to said work
6D: since 2D she can still debate someone without advertising the work as shown by 5D
7D: 6D shows us that Rowling can debate her book here without needing to promote it herself.

1E: Dean is not a famed author
2E : Dean does not have a vivid, popular collection of work that has a wast world associated.
4E : If Dean would come here he would not be known and would need to promote his work in order for anyone to be able to discuss it.
5E : If it does need to be promoted he can never leave out the link to said work
6E: since 2E he can not debate someone without advertising the work as shown by 5E
7E: 6E shows us that Dean can not debate his book here without needing to promote it himself

This is the main ground for this entire debate, this logical train that shows us the difference between Dean and Rowling, and why it isn't moving the goalpost. here you have a perfectly logical path between spam and discussability: The entire case against pro summed up to under 5 seven line statement deductions: 30 statements all in all. And yet my opponent did not provide us with a single reason why this argument was incorrect: I had to strip it down to it's bare core in order for my opponent to hopefully see how it relates and how it isn't moving the goalpost the slightest. My opponent is also fixated that Rowling would come here to advertise, while I've shown that it is perfectly logical if she would only come here to debate her work, she wouldn't need to advertise. the resolution said nothing on self promotion and yet my opponent tried to defend that mute point without realizing that it wasn't even fully related to the debate, only that one quote that started the debate.

as stated and stated again: Dean is not a leading poet, it is doubtful he is even a known poet at all. I wonder if anyone still remembers him at the platforms he used to promote himself on before he came to DDO, and I wonder how long he'll be remembered once for some reason he stops visiting this site. DDo will forget him fairly quickly, and with all due respect to Dean, it might just have to be that way until he realizes what it does take to become a great author and poet, and how important it is to actually listen to what others have to say instead of just blurring it out.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
shakuntalaoculus_de_logicaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a self promoting hack, clearly is spamming DDO. Con explains why Rowling wouldn't need to spam DDO because she would bring real content to the table. Conduct because Pro is a spammer, SG because Pro uses weird line breaks and poor punctuation. Sources because Con provides some.