The Instigator
shakuntala
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
seoa
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is Terridax comment about this poem accurate

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 3 votes the winner is...
seoa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 60999
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

shakuntala

Con

Is Terridax comment about this poem accurate
http://www.scribd.com...

Terridax says
http://www.debate.org...
"After reading it for about a minute I had to stop because it was so horrible"

I argue it is not ie I argue this poem is not horrible
seoa

Pro

I will argue that this poem is horrible. Good luck to the neg.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Con

horrible definition
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. Arousing or tending to arouse horror; dreadful: "War is beyond all words horrible" (Winston S. Churchill).
2. Very unpleasant; disagreeable.

on point 1 I can not see anything in this poem that arouse horror
please show me those lines that you say arouse horror

on the contrary there are many lines that arouse beauty
eg
Oh beloved each budding rose springs from thy breath
All things beautiful are but reflections of the face of thee
All nightingale songs sing of thee
In all things is thy face flower bird bee in everyplace
From every flower in every garden I breathe the scent of thee
Oh my sighs for thee be frothing up the waves upon the sea

on point 2 I cannot see anything in this poem that are very unpleasant; disagreeable
please show me those lines that are very unpleasant; disagreeable
on the contrary there are many lines that are quite beautiful
eg
Oh to see the face of my beloved bright like noon day sun
Oh I like sickle-shaped moon
or the split moons face laced in necklaces of stars like upturned candles bright for thee does upon this path long for thee do long
again
Oh that the moon-faced cunt to I wouldst reveal its sight to me
My soul breathes a thousand sighs each pore of my drying flesh laments for the sight of thee
Oh I plead with thee send forth the fragrance of thy breath
Send forth the sight that enraptured on it my soul might be
seoa

Pro

seoa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Con

looks like I win the debate
seoa

Pro

Didn't think you would actually take this seriously, but if you are, I will too.

My arguments first, then refuting his arguments.

1. Terridax has far more credibility than you do; if you compare Terridax's win percentage, 100% out of 3 debates, to yours, 11.32% out of 68 debates - or if you compare Terridax's ELO rating, 2200, to yours, 1000, it is obvious who has more ethos. As such, his comment, "After reading it for about a minute I had to stop because it was so horrible," is probably true.

2. It is obvious that you, shakuntala, are also gamahucher, the author of this poem. Not only have you started other debates where you applaud your own writing, but the Sufis Garden Bk. 2 has 0 likes and no ratings - as you are obviously a fan of gamahucher's writing, the only possible reason why you have not liked or rated gamahucher's "erotic poetry" already is because you ARE gamahucher. As such, what you are doing this website is essentially just self-advertisement, something I will talk about in my third point.

3. You are breaking the terms of service of this website. According to this excerpt from the Terms of Use at http://www.debate.org...:

You agree to use the Debate.org's service in accordance with the following content posted and code of conduct guidelines: Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use Content that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, harmful, hateful, harassing, pornographic, threatening, racially or ethnically offensive, abusive, that would violate another person's rights, constitute or encourage a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or violate any local, state, national, or international law or regulation, or that is otherwise inappropriate.
Will not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service.

As this poem, self-proclaimed as "erotic," is obviously inappropriate, pornographic, and possibly even obscene, and because I have already proven in my second point that you are advertising yourself and trying to draw traffic to a website, I will be reporting you after I finish writing this Round and I recommend anyone who reads this debate to do the same.

On to your points:

I agree with both definitions of horrible, as they both apply to your writing.

1. Arousing or tending to arouse horror; dreadful. Yeah, this poem aroused horror in me when I read it, not because of the content of the writing, but because of the utter lack of writing sophistry, syntax, diction, and overall ability. You are a very bad writer my friend. It may have gotten better further in, but I was only able to read the first few stanzas before my eyes started bleeding and I had to be driven to the ER. Additionally, if I were to read this poem to a baby, or a child, I may be charged for unintentional manslaughter, a crime that I am sure would arouse horror within me. I'm sorry, but any poem that is written in size 500 font probably isn't all that good.

2. Very unpleasant or disagreeable. Self-explanatory. I'll just copy and paste the passage that the con used:
Oh to see the face of my beloved bright like noon day sun
Oh I like sickle-shaped moon
or the split moons face laced in necklaces of stars like upturned candles bright for thee does upon this path long for thee do long
again
Oh that the moon-faced cunt to I wouldst reveal its sight to me
My soul breathes a thousand sighs each pore of my drying flesh laments for the sight of thee
Oh I plead with thee send forth the fragrance of thy breath
Send forth the sight that enraptured on it my soul might be

I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 3
shakuntala

Con

in conclusion I have given evidence as why why Terridax comments are not accurate
all con has done is just give assertions without explaining why the poem is horrible
thus I must win the debate

con says
"On to your points:

I agree with both definitions of horrible, as they both apply to your writing.

but all he does is just say is

"Yeah, this poem aroused horror in me when I read it, not because of the content of the writing, but because of the utter lack of writing sophistry, syntax, diction, and overall ability
'
con does not explain why the poem is horrible all he talks about is the presentation of the poem

con does not give examples to back up his assertion about the poems presentation
con by not explaining why the content of the poem is horrible con does not address what is taken for granted that the debate is about the poems content If con wants to say Terridax was commenting on the poems presentation then con has to prove that before he starts debating the poems presentation As con has not proven that then his assertions are not proven
thus I must win the debate

con says
2. Very unpleasant or disagreeable. Self-explanatory. I'll just copy and paste the passage that the con used"

con gives us no reasons/explanation as to why the lines he copied are horrible

thus
con only gives assertions without any explanation as to why the poem is horrible
thus I must win the debate
seoa

Pro

I thank the con for a good debate. Anyways,

Conceded Points:

1. Terridax's comment must be right since he is more credible than shakuntala (evidenced by ELO, win percentage). Thus, since I win that the comment that the poem is horrible must be correct, the poem is horrible and I win the debate.

2. shakantula admits that these poems are nothing more than self-advertising.

3. shakantula admits that he should be banned. As such, please ban him. And also while we're at it, let's vote him off the island.

And his points:

First, I'd like to say a quick word: shakantula continually addresses my points as the "con's points." Sorry buddy. You're the con. By constantly refuting himself, he not only proves he has an incredibly low IQ, but he simply has no way to win the round. So vote pro.

He says "con does not explain why the poem is horrible at all he talks about is the presentation of the poem." Sorry, what? Firstly, I do not only talk about presentation - shakantula fails to understand the meanings of the words syntax, diction, writing ability, and sophistry. Without syntax and diction, you don't have a poem - they are the poem. Without writing ability and sophistry, you don't have a good poem - you have a horrible poem. Since shakantula completely concedes these points, vote pro automatically.

Not only that, but the con says that the main point of the debate, which he claims "was taken for granted," was that the debate was about the "poem's content." A few points on that:
1. I address your content - diction and syntax quite literally mean content. The only time I address the presentation was when I talked about your size 500 font, a point that went conceded, more proof that your poem is horrible.

2. The topic of this debate, as agreed by both of us, was whether or not "THIS POEM was horrible," not whether "this poem's content" was horrible.

3. Since when has the quality of a poem been decided solely by its content? That's like saying we should judge books not for its writing, but for its synopsis. In fact, poems are far more dependent on its actual writing style and prose than books - it is for that reason that poets like Shakespeare and Robert Frost are so appreciated - not for their ideas, but for their techniques.

Also, the con says that all of my arguments are assertions without evidence. Certainly not. My explanation that I had to go to the ER because my eyes started bleeding is the proof of my assertion for my first point and the poem itself was proof for my second point. Not only that, but interestingly, the pro uses an assertion to claim that assertions should be ignored without evidence, while himself not providing evidence as for why assertions without proof are bad, a contradictory statement that can not be taken seriously.

Thus, for making my eyes bleed and arousing horror, for being just a really bad poem in general, for using giant font, for asserting that assertions are bad, for being less credible than Terridax, for breaking the Terms of Use of debate.org, for calling me the con, and for killing babies, this poem must be horrible. Vote pro.

And seriously man, advertise somewhere else.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
shakuntalaseoaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave evidence of how the content and the quality of the poem were poor (even if he didn't Go as far as he could have to demonstrate poor writing). Con actually failed to offer any argument, he simply asked for Pro's opinion in R2 saying he "cannot see anything to arouse horror" and asking pro to basically make.a case. He then states in R4 that pro didn't address his arguments, but he never made any! In light of con's lack of any argument and (apparent) weak self promoting arguments go to pro, null for sources, and conduct to con for pro's ff'ed round.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
shakuntalaseoaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, but pro actually proved a better case
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
shakuntalaseoaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, Pro clearly used hyperbole and at least some trollery. Still, Con had the presumptive BoP, here, and offered nothing but assertion that it wasn't so. Pro did likewise and, in the case of a tie in terms of argument, the win goes to the one who doesn't have the burden. Further, as an inherently subjective topic, there's going to be some level of subjective appeal to the vote. Pro's points regarding the poem seemed more accurate to me. Hence, overall, arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.