The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 955 times Debate No: 35554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

I argue this Post Post-modernist poet is good
http://www.scribd.com...

It is claimed this Post Post-modernist poet is an "untalented poet and philosopher from Australia "
http://www.debate.org...

but
I will say the poet has to be good as the poet gave a poetry recital at The Bohemian Absinthe Lounge, TIME on Sansom St. in Philadelphia in the USA
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

To get an invite for an Australian poet to give a recital in America the poet must be good
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Post postmodern is irritatingly a specific literary movement, and my opponent will have to show including sources what post post modernism is, and then demonstrate, again using quotation, what particular aspects of his work are post postmodern. Otherwise, he cannot come close top fulfilling his burden of proof.

I am personally if not narcissistically wondering if he is now post postmodern rather than archaic after a previous debate in which my opponent demonstrated a complete ignorance in postmodernism. Now, he is instead of putting him in a well established literary movement, he instead must be BEYOND this literary group and into the newest thing. Nevertheless, I'll listen with bated breath for my opponents arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"Post postmodern is irritatingly a specific literary movement, and my opponent will have to show including sources what post post modernism is, and then demonstrate, again using quotation, what particular aspects of his work are post postmodern. Otherwise, he cannot come close top fulfilling his burden of proof.

I am personally if not narcissistically wondering if he is now post postmodern rather than archaic after a previous debate in which my opponent demonstrated a complete ignorance in postmodernism. Now, he is instead of putting him in a well established literary movement, he instead must be BEYOND this literary group and into the newest thing. Nevertheless, I'll listen with bated breath for my opponents arguments."

no where do you say yes or no to my post
"Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"

if you say he is no good then say why
if you say he is not a Post Post-modernist poet
then say why

you only focus on the Post Post-modernist -without telling us if you agree and why or if you dont agree and why

I TAKE IT YOU HAVE READ SOME OF HIS POEMS
so
if you say he is no good then say why
if you say he is not a Post Post-modernist poet
then say why
I have made the claims if you disagree
so tell us why you disagree with post

I have backed up my claim that this Post Post-modernist poet is good
by citing evidence which would support that

if you disagree with the evidence
then
why
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I have no burden to show how this nobody is post postmodern. The burden of proof I'd on the one who purposes. You have given no evidence. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, or in a preferred formulation of this idea: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"I have no burden to show how this nobody is post postmodern. The burden of proof I'd on the one who purposes. You have given no evidence. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, or in a preferred formulation of this idea: absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

point 1
con does not answer why the poet is not a good poet
thus he has not refuted my claims

point 2 con says
"I have no burden to show how this nobody is post postmodern"

true but if you say he is not post postmodern
then you have a burden of proof to show why
thus he has not refuted my claims

con does not even tell us
if he has even read the poems

point 3
con has taken the con position
but does not tell us why this Post Post-modernist poet is not any good

all he says is

"this nobody " [even a nobody can be good]
being a nobody does not prove the poet is no good-for even "a nobody" can be good

thus not refuting my claim

con infact shows to us all his prejudices -again without any proof -and forgetting that even "a nobody" can be good

on the contrary
I gave evidence that the poet "is a somebody" is good ie being invited to give a recital in America

Thus in conclusion
I back up my claims with sources

on the contrary
con gives no argument to refute my claim
except the fallacious comment that the poet is "a nobody" can be good -forgetting that even "a nobody" can be good
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Unsurprisingly, my opponent still has not mentioned any reason to believe this nobody (appearing in a tiny show in a small part of a city which is not advertised is not being a "somebody", anymore than an appearance speaking in a church for five minutes on faith makes you eminent) is a postpostmodernist.

Postpostmodernism can be said to mean, roughly, "a common positive theme of current attempts to define post-postmodernism is that faith, trust, dialogue, performance and sincerity can work to transcend postmodern irony."[1] Or, to quote Turner, a postpostmodernist: "the gradual dawn of a post-Postmodernism that seeks to temper reason with faith."[2]

To be fair, another school argues that post-postmodernism is "intellectual triteness"[3]. "Whereas postmodernism favoured the ironic, the knowing and the playful, with their allusions to knowledge, history and ambivalence, [post postmodernism] typical intellectual states are ignorance, fanaticism and anxiety"[3].

None of this, of course, exists in the poetry above, because it does not have any pretences to being postpostmodernism. It is closer to the latter in the fact that my opponent displays a fanaticism, ignorance and anxiety in his defence of the poetry, which justifies for example Kirby's analysis that we live in a pseudo-modern (a term referring to a post postmodern world) society. However, this does not exist in the realms of the poem, and therefore we ought to vote CON.


1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - City as Landscape: A Post Post-modern View of Design and Planning, Tom Turner
3 - The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond, Alan Kirby
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
you say
"How embarrassing is it when no-one else shares your view of this author's work?"

and that is coming from a person who admits he has not read the poets work

quote
secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."
so how valuable is your opinion
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
How embarrassing is it when no-one else shares your view of this author's work? I don't mean on this site, of course, but over the years all of the sites you've propagandised this individual?
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
Stephen_Hawkins actually lied in the debate he tells us
"None of this, of course, exists in the poetry above, because it does not have any pretences to being postpostmodernism"

he tells us what exists in the poetry but has not read the poetry -as he admitts

quote
secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."

- thus he lies
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
sorry cut out the full quote in last post which was not clear
here is the post again

Enji sais for her /his voting

that con

".... Con in Round 3 used the framework he suggested to Pro in Round 1 to explain post-postmodernism and to explain why the poem isn't post-postmodernist.."

what a joke con has admitted he did not read the poems
Stephen_Hawkins be warned acts bad faith
quote
secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."
so how ca he tell us anything about the poetry

yet you say he wins the debate
what a joke

seems Enji cant really assess a debate if he/she could he/she would have seen con did not refute my post with any evidence but only gave definitions of post post-modernism
but to which he did not say why the poet was not a good post post-modernist poet -because he had not even read by his own admission the poet poetry

what a joke
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
Enji sais for her /his voting

that con

"k he suggested to Pro in Round 1 to explain post-postmodernism and to explain why the poem isn't post-postmodernist."

what a joke con has admitted he did not read the poems
quote
secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."
so how ca he tell us anything about the poetry

yet you say he wins the debate
what a joke
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
con admits he has not read the poetry
"secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."

the debate was about
"Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"

con took the con position -mean he believes the post post-modern poet is no good
yet
seeing he has not read the poetry he cant even have a debate

as how can he tell us the post post-modern poet is no good if he has not read the poets poetry
thus his whole debate is a sham

and by that admission he should forfeit the debate
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
con admits he has not read the poetry
"secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. ."

the debate was about
"Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good"
seeing he has not read the poetry he cant even have a debate
thus his whole debate is a sham

and by that admission he should forfeit the debate

and by that admission he should forfeit the debate

con said in the debate that dean was a non body as his poetry recital was not advertised

"Unsurprisingly, my opponent still has not mentioned any reason to believe this nobody (appearing in a tiny show in a small part of a city which is not advertised is not being a "somebody""

now he says
"Firstly, yes, I've read the link. I also looked up what the absinthe thing group was, and it is for amateurs. Meaning, I could go."

if he has read the link then he should applogise for saying the recital wasc no adverstised -because it was he would see tt if he has read the link
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Firstly, yes, I've read the link. I also looked up what the absinthe thing group was, and it is for amateurs. Meaning, I could go.

Secondly, no, I didn't read the poetry. I however recognised your ignorance of what post postmodern. Please stop advertising this person.
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
con says
"Unsurprisingly, my opponent still has not mentioned any reason to believe this nobody (appearing in a tiny show in a small part of a city which is not advertised is not being a "somebody"

con has not even read the link I gave
but my link is to an advertisement on the NBC-thus indicating the poet is a somebody
here is the link I gave
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

also it seems he has not even read any of the poetry
thus his whole debate is a sham
Posted by shakuntala 3 years ago
shakuntala
con cheats
as refutation of the poet being post post-modern he offers a definition of post post-modernism at the end of the debate
thus not allowing my refutation

notice
con never tells us why the poet is no good
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
shakuntalaStephen_HawkinsTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con politely indicated in Round 1 what Pro should have argued, however Pro proceeded to make no arguments. Con in Round 3 used the framework he suggested to Pro in Round 1 to explain post-postmodernism and to explain why the poem isn't post-postmodernist. Conduct and arguments to Con for this approach - Pro could have learned something (even if he didn't). Pro doesn't attempt to use proper spelling and grammar; S&G to Con.