The Instigator
Jibby_page
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
waylon.fairbanks
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,256 times Debate No: 18708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Jibby_page

Con

Notion : Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser.

In this debate I will be questioning this symbolic status of the "Lizard King". I expect my opponent to defend it. The terms legend and loser are defined as under, and so is the name Jim Morrison.

Legend : a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits
Loser : a person or thing that seems destined to be taken advantage of, fail, etc
Jim Morrison : James Douglas "Jim" Morrison (December 8, 1943 – July 3, 1971) was an American singer and poet, best known as the lead singer and lyricist of the rock band The Doors.

No semantics. Facts will help. Individual opinion shall also be respected provided it is backed by concrete argument.
My opponent goes first. As a rule I request my opponent to leave his/her space for argument in Round 3 blank.
Looking forward to debating over this issue.
waylon.fairbanks

Pro

Con, thanks for posting this strange and original debate topic. Con is against his notion that Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser, so I assume I am arguing in favor of Morrison's legacy as a legend.

Artistic Output

While Jim died in Paris at the young age of 27, and had the reputation of a heavy partier, his artistic output with the Doors and individually was extraordinary (and he even graduated from UCLA on top of this). He published two books of poetry, and wrote the lyrics to the vast majority of the six Doors' studio albums.

Innovations in Rock and Roll

Moreover, Jim applied an intellectualization to his influences that was unprecedented by rock and roll musicians before then. Most musicians in the 60's were primarily influenced by other musicians and other genres. Morrison's lyrics draw less on prevailing trends in pop music, and more on obscure and eccentric poets and philosophers. The influence of poets and novelists like Arthur Rimbaud, Celine, William Blake, Jack Kerouac, and Charles Baudelaire is overwhelming in Jim's lyrics and poetry. One can even see the influences of anthropologists and philosophers like James Frazer and Friedrich Nietzsche in Jim's work.

In addition to the unique spectrum of influences Jim brought to his art, his innovation to the roll of the front man is legendary as well. His baritone voice, shamanic dancing, and psychotic antics, took the Doors from a small band formed in 1965 to a world famous rock band, selling out shows on both sides of the Atlantic only two years later. Even Jim's craziest moments, ie. the New Haven arrest show and the Miami arrest show, are the mark of a good front man: extremely entertaining.

Legacy

While my first two arguments attempt to show why Jim has gained the status of legend, the mere worship and respect people still hold for him is the greatest testament to Jim's legacy of a legend. If anyone has been to the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris, and seen the hundreds of people who flock to be in the presence of Jim's remains daily, Jim's status as a legend is pretty secure. The sheer number of visitors deems Morrison almost a sort of secular saint. Almost 50 years later, Jim Morrison is a folk hero to thousands of people, which by nature makes him a legend.

Concluding Thoughts:

Jim was by no means perfect. He was often very bad to his long time girlfriend, Pamela, we was a violent alcoholic, and favored the drugs that ultimately killed him. But this, I would like to assert, does not make him a loser. When someone's life is defined by their infidelity, that may make them a loser. But Jim's contributions to rock and roll, and his legendary life were achieved in spite of his personal flaws. This strange relation between his personal problems and his public successes, almost makes him a tragic hero. His infamy makes his status as a legend even stronger.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
Jibby_page

Con

Thank you Pro, for joining the debate.I was beginning to think that the world was no longer that into the legendary "Shaman prophet" anymore. But here as you are, to his rescue and defence, allow me to commence.

"Artistic Output

While Jim died in Paris at the young age of 27, and had the reputation of a heavy partier, his artistic output with the Doors and individually was extraordinary (and he even graduated from UCLA on top of this). He published two books of poetry, and wrote the lyrics to the vast majority of the six Doors' studio albums."


"Heavy partier" does't even begin to cut it, Pro. Morrison was constantly criticised by band-mates, producers and fans who truly had his best interests at heart about how he constantly placed the much glorified "long, prolonged derangement of the senses ' above everything else. But he never paid heed? Did he ever listen to a single piece of advice despite obvious proof that he was crumbling? He did not. This lead to his death at the age of 27, when he reportedly overdosed on heroin. His undertakers estimated his age to be around 56 as he clearly appeared to be a man that age. All due to his, as you put it, "heavy partying". Only someone, having been destined to fail would behave that way. And he did. That's a loser by definition.

As far as his artistic output go, you mention him in association with The Doors. I fully support that view, and consider the rest of his band mates as extremely talented, yet one of the most under-rated musicians I have ever come across. In fact,it is a not very well known fact, but some of The Doors' most popular songs like 'Touch Me' and 'Light my Fire' were written by guitarist Robby Kreiger. On the other hand, Morrison's poetry seems to be the work of someone so strung out on drugs and booze that he had no idea what he was coming up with. 'The End', ironically ending with his apparent fantasies to murder his father and have sex with his mother reflect this argument of mine well enough. Most of his lyrics are alleged to be rehashed and recycled versions of writers and philosophers, which I will talk about later.

As far as graduating from UCLA goes, Morrison had taken up his dream of movie making inspired by idol James Dean. But he never really followed it up, which, objectively seen, was a waste of not only his time and effort, but also of an admission seat in the school, which any other student, of that time, would have been desirous of. Sure, this one sounds far-fetched, but you cannot deny it all the same.


"Innovations in Rock and Roll

Moreover, Jim applied an intellectualization to his influences that was unprecedented by rock and roll musicians before then. Most musicians in the 60's were primarily influenced by other musicians and other genres. Morrison's lyrics draw less on prevailing trends in pop music, and more on obscure and eccentric poets and philosophers. The influence of poets and novelists like Arthur Rimbaud, Celine, William Blake, Jack Kerouac, and Charles Baudelaire is overwhelming in Jim's lyrics and poetry. One can even see the influences of anthropologists and philosophers like James Frazer and Friedrich Nietzsche in Jim's work.

In addition to the unique spectrum of influences Jim brought to his art, his innovation to the roll of the front man is legendary as well. His baritone voice, shamanic dancing, and psychotic antics, took the Doors from a small band formed in 1965 to a world famous rock band, selling out shows on both sides of the Atlantic only two years later. Even Jim's craziest moments, ie. the New Haven arrest show and the Miami arrest show, are the mark of a good front man: extremely entertaining."

The only reason, as is apparent now, that Morrison chose to model his work after, or, to put it politely, 'draw inspiration' from, obscure and unknown poets and philosophers was that he wasn't too keen on getting the fact that he had, in fact, plagiarized, out into the open. Plagiarizing and gaining inspiration are two different ideas, I agree, but 'original' wasn't exactly how you could describe Morrison's philosophy.
As far as his lyrics go, it would not be unfair to call them unintelligible words which meant something to Morrison alone; much like the work of a drug-addled lunatic to say the least.

And about his showman tactics, I can say only this. One stoned man projecting himself as the ultimate know-it-all to a crowd full of stoned people. That's entertainment. And if the said stoned man is sexy, smart, has the baritone you mentioned and dances around like a shaman (I bet he was making that dance up as well; I mean, how many in the crowd would know what a shaman danced like?), the chances of the masses eating him up as a legend increase tremendously. But then people have always had this problem. Of being strange. :)


"Legacy

While my first two arguments attempt to show why Jim has gained the status of legend, the mere worship and respect people still hold for him is the greatest testament to Jim's legacy of a legend. If anyone has been to the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris, and seen the hundreds of people who flock to be in the presence of Jim's remains daily, Jim's status as a legend is pretty secure. The sheer number of visitors deems Morrison almost a sort of secular saint. Almost 50 years later, Jim Morrison is a folk hero to thousands of people, which by nature makes him a legend."

Morrison's legacy, though popularized far and wide, is built on a foundation of lies. And the reason for this popularity is that most people are unaware of the lies Jim lied about various things. In fact, the very fact that he had to lie, proves that he, himself thought that he would never hit it big, by sole virtue of his musical and poetic talent.
The defining moment in his life, as claimed always by Morrison, was the incident as a child, when he claims to have seen "Indians scattered all over the highway, bleeding to death" This, in fact, was grossly overstated. In the book 'No one Here gets out alive" , his sister is quoted to having said this, "He enjoyed telling that story and exaggerating it. He said he saw a dead Indian by the side of the road and I don't know if that's true". His father, in the same book said, "We went by several Indians. It did make an impression on him." No mention did the two make of "Indians scattered all over the highway". If there was a siilar scene, they would have remembered.



Concluding Thoughts:


Jim was by no means perfect. He was often very bad to his long time girlfriend, Pamela, we was a violent alcoholic, and favored the drugs that ultimately killed him. But this, I would like to assert, does not make him a loser. When someone's life is defined by their infidelity, that may make them a loser. But Jim's contributions to rock and roll, and his legendary life were achieved in spite of his personal flaws. This strange relation between his personal problems and his public successes, almost makes him a tragic hero. His infamy makes his status as a legend even stronger.

It does make him a loser, unfortunately. When asked about doing drugs he replied "I was testing the bounds of reality. I was curious to see what would happen. That's all it was, curiosity." Fine. Accepted. Once, maybe. But 250 mg of LSD everyday is not curiosity. It's a habit. A HABIT WHICH HE ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIM. That's a loser by definition.


The floor is yours Pro.
Vote Con.




waylon.fairbanks

Pro

I am not into a "shaman prophet", but I do think it is arbitrary to degrade one of rock and roll's most enigmatic and famous musicians into a category of "loser". In this round I will respond to your criticisms and offer my final points.

Artistic Output

First off, Con's statement that "Only someone, having been destined to fail would behave that way. And he did. That's a loser by definition" is contradictory to his definition in the first place. Con states that a loser is someone who is used and manipulated by others, and then criticizes Morrison for simply not following the directions of others.

Con's biggest problem is that he ridiculously applies his morality of what it right and wrong, and judges Morrison by this. This is the overarching theme in his argumentation, and ultimately its failure. The immorality of using Heroin and LSD is only valid if the law is valid. So if Con respects the Controlled Substances Act, good for him, but if Jim Morrison did not respect it, you cannot call him "bad" or "good" for what he chooses to do.

Touch me is a pretty crappy song really, as is that entire album. The lyrics to Touch Me are so bad, in fact, that after that album, The Soft Parade, The Doors began individually attributing song credits. Light my Fire, two of the three verses were written by Krieger (the second Morrison wrote), but every other song (covers excluded) off of The Doors, Strange Days, and Waiting for the Sun were written by Morrison, which you fail to give credit to.

Again, saying he is a loser because of the Oedipus Rex section of The End is more intellectual snobbery on the part of Con. Is Bruce Springsteen a loser because he wrote "Nebraska" about a murderer? Or the Stones losers because of "Midnight Rambler"? The End is a piece of art, whether Con likes it or not does not matter, the fact is, he is debating the legacy of Morrison on debate.org 40 years after his death, and millions of people find great meaning and importance in Morrison's lyrics. Do you, dear reader, tell me who is more entitled to call who a loser...

Innovations in Rock and Roll

I have to give Con credit here. He manages to accuse an artist of plagiarism, yet with no quotations or examples of plagiarism. If Con can actually provide an example of direct plagiarism, then his refutation of my statements may actually have some validity. He may even be able to Google "The Doors, plagiarism" and find something, but the fact is, he makes the accusation and then finds justification to back it up. Beyond being slanderous, this is bad debate technique.

"As far as his lyrics go, it would not be unfair to call them unintelligible words which meant something to Morrison alone; much like the work of a drug-addled lunatic to say the least." Ironically, this makes no sense.

As for his showman tactics, con does not like them. Fine, but a lot of people do, and just because Con does not like something does not make its author a loser.

Legacy

Ha! Is that all you have got Con? So what if Jim lied? People like Jim because he created great music that millions love. Con, do you seriously believe that Jim's embellishment of a story invalidates all the respect people have for him? And if his little self-myth about the "Indians on dawn's highway" even matters to most people? I had much respect for Jim because I identified with his lyrics far before I knew about his little stories he made up. It does not matter.

But, con, if you seriously believe that all those millions of people who have Doors posters on their walls, or those who know every lyric to Roadhouse Blues, are just fools because they hero loved to tell an embellished story, who can we look up to? Churchill, by your analysis, would be a lying drunk. Jefferson would be a hypocritical wino. Hemingway would be a suicidal booze hound. You neglect that just because somebody does not personally appeal to you, or to your moral superiority, they must be "losers" objectively.

Closing Thoughts

I am not convinced that LSD took advantage of Jim. Both Robbie Kreiger and Ray Manzerek have stated that the usage of LSD was very influential in Jim's lyrics and artistic process. Whether you are for recreational drug use or not, Jim took his experiences from drugs, and translated them into legendary songs, which propelled him to a prominent role in Rock and Roll history. If he sat around on the couch all day, never did anything, because of LSD, your argument would stand. But considering the name he made of himself, being in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, being considered one of the greatest vocalists of all time, and one of the greatest songwriters too, I think if anything, Jim used LSD- not the other way around.

Like it or not, in a 5 year career, and 27 years of life, Jim Morrison went from a beatnik in Venice, CA to a household name in America and Europe. And while some may disagree, the name is not a mark of infamy. Jim Morrison is not a symbolic name of crime or drug use, of young death or being a "loser". Jim Morrison is a symbol of freedom and damn cool music. And in spite of his extremely influential career, his tendency towards self destruction is tragic. He was obviously a deeply flawed person, but this does not make him a loser. What he did while he was alive, is what makes him a legend. So many artists in history abused drugs, died young, and had a tendency towards self destruction, but at the end of the day, it is the painting on the wall that makes them a legend. It is "Love Me Two Times", "Break on Through", "Unknown Soldier", and an impressive list of songs that makes Morrison famous. And the juxtaposition of his great musical virtuosity, and Morrison's notorious private life, that makes him, not a loser, but a modern legend.


Debate Round No. 2
Jibby_page

Con

Well, I seem to have hit a raw nerve. I would like to apologize to Pro and any other Morrison fan out there if I have demeaned the famed singer. I also request all voters to kindly vote on the basis of quality of arguments alone, and not on any pre-formed bias or emotion of any sort. Thank you.




"First off, Con's statement that "Only someone, having been destined to fail would behave that way. And he did. That's a loser by definition" is contradictory to his definition in the first place. Con states that a loser is someone who is used and manipulated by others, and then criticizes Morrison for simply not following the directions of others.
"

My apologies, Pro. I did not know that you would take the definition of 'loser' to such literal heights. Anyone reading your views would be inclined to believe that a person entering rehab for drug/alcohol addiction and obeying (or in your opinion, being manipulated by) what the staff there tell him/her to do, in order to rid him/her off the problem would be dubbed a loser. I would like to place on record for all our readers here that such a person is not a loser, but a fighter and the people advising him are not manipulators, but merely helpers and well-wishers. Frankly, I cannot believe you actually said that.

"Con's biggest problem is that he ridiculously applies his morality of what it right and wrong, and judges Morrison by this. This is the overarching theme in his argumentation, and ultimately its failure. The immorality of using Heroin and LSD is only valid if the law is valid. So if Con respects the Controlled Substances Act, good for him, but if Jim Morrison did not respect it, you cannot call him "bad" or "good" for what he chooses to do. "

Nowhere have I tried to project a stand of 'morality', as Pro has stated. I have only tried to portray Jim's tendency to ignore the ill-effects of his addictions to such alarming levels that it led to his untimely death at the young age of 27, or in other words, how he allowed his urges to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIM, in the long run. I have never called Jim 'good' or 'bad'. However, I will call any such life-consuming substance bad. Life is good, agreed? So anything which endangers life, snuffs it out, should be logically deemed bad.

Touch me is a pretty crappy song really, as is that entire album. The lyrics to Touch Me are so bad, in fact, that after that album, The Soft Parade, The Doors began individually attributing song credits. Light my Fire, two of the three verses were written by Krieger (the second Morrison wrote), but every other song (covers excluded) off of The Doors, Strange Days, and Waiting for the Sun were written by Morrison, which you fail to give credit to.

I would like to point out that 'Touch Me' reached #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #1 in the Cashbox Top 100 in early 1969 (the band's third American number-one single). The single also did well elsewhere, peaking at #1 in the RPM Canadian Singles Chart and at #10 in the Kent Music Report in Australia.[1]

So clearly, Pro's views are Pro's own personal bias speaking out against this lovely number. Also, The Soft Parade was not very well appreciated by fans and critics alike, due to the fact that this was a departure from the usual style of the Doors, employing brass and string instruments, and not due to the album being 'crappy', as Pro vaguely puts it. And truth be told, four songs on the album each, were written by Morrison and Kreiger, the ninth, 'Do It' was a joint effort by both of them. Also, fans complained that it was creatively lacking as the songs followed lyrical formulae of previous albums.[2] This proves that even his admirers were bored of the same brand of Morrison poetry, surprising for someone considered a 'Legend'. Also, Pro is factually wrong in stating that it was due to the 'bad' lyrics of 'Touch me' that the song credits were mentioned separately. It has been very clearly stated that the reason for individual credits was that Morrison did not want the phrase 'get your guns' on 'Tell All The people ' to seem like it was his philosophy[2]. Also, Pro is wrong in saying the system of individual song credits started after 'The Soft Parade'. It started with it due to the reason I just mentioned.

Also, the reason why Kreiger started writing a large number of the Doors' lyrics, as stated in Tom DiCillo's 'When You're Strange', was that Morrison had headed too far down the road to destruction, again due to his addictions, compromising on the time he had to allot for his creative pursuits, thereby ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. The authenticity of this documentary should not be doubted, as Ray Manzarek himself had stated that 'this would be the true story of the Doors, the anti-Oliver Stone', referring to the 1991 movie, 'The Doors' [3]

"As for his showman tactics, con does not like them. Fine, but a lot of people do, and just because Con does not like something does not make its author a loser. "

I would like to quote a line from 'When You're Strange' yet again. After the performance in New Haven, when Jim was arrested for the first time on stage, the reputation of The Doors had become one of a 'dirty, dangerous band'. Johnny Depp also goes on to describe in his narration that after that incident, there was a marked change in the audience's attitude which turned up to watch shows. The center of attraction was no longer the music, but instead, watching Morrison go crazy and act all messed up, a 'spectacle' who was TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF by all the boozing, all the hashing, all the dropping and all the shooting. Can't blame the crowd really; after all, People are Strange. :)


Ha! Is that all you have got Con? So what if Jim lied? People like Jim because he created great music that millions love. Con, do you seriously believe that Jim's embellishment of a story invalidates all the respect people have for him? And if his little self-myth about the "Indians on dawn's highway" even matters to most people? I had much respect for Jim because I identified with his lyrics far before I knew about his little stories he made up. It does not matter.

But, con, if you seriously believe that all those millions of people who have Doors posters on their walls, or those who know every lyric to Roadhouse Blues, are just fools because they hero loved to tell an embellished story, who can we look up to?

Hey Pro. Maybe you're the wrong person I'm telling about Jim's lies. You like just his music. Your respect towards Jim is drawn only due to his talent. But there are millions who consider Jim a God, a 'Shaman prophet', who visit his grave everyday, pray TO him and contribute largely to his 'legend' status. I think the fact that Jim lied not only about the Indian incident, but also about how his entire family was dead, would, and SHOULD, make a hell lot of difference to them.

And about the lyrics to 'Roadhouse Blues'. There is one line which is particularly disturbing. 'And I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer.' Do you know what drinking in the morning is a sign of, Pro? According to the CAGE questionnaire, it is one of the four warning signs of alcoholism[4]. Fine, admitted, Jim was already an alcoholic and had been TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY ALCOHOL (I'm not blaming him). But incorporating and glorifying alcoholism in his lyrics, which millions of impressionable fans would listen to and thus, potentially ruining their lives too?? How is that fine? Ruining your life is one thing, understandable almost, if you think really really broadly. But encouraging and enticing others to do the same as well? Encouraging them to be TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF?

I rest my case.
I thank Pro for a really enjoyable debate.
I thank the readers for their valuable time.
Vote Con.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
waylon.fairbanks

Pro

While I would love to respond, I will honor Con's wish to have this round left blank, in order to give each debater 2 chances at debate.

I thank my opponent for the challenge, and our readers for their time.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I remember when The Doors became popular. That's not like remembering when Garfield was shot, but it's close.

Hallucinogens were very popular then. The people who used them were a guaranteed pain in the butt, always paranoid and occasionally dangerous.

Famous people are notoriously unreliably as to what made them successful. Often enough, they succeed in spite of what they think was import, not because of it. A famous computer pioneer (Kay) claimed the success of his company was due to giving employees free salad and locating the plant where there were see breezes. He subsequently went bust regardless. Success is more often in spite of theories of what helps.

Snake bites are certainly 100% natural. Not necessarily good.
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
No problem man..I have that problem too..doesn't come across that much in written debates though, lucky for me..:)
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
Natural is better, but I mainly stick to a drink here and there. Oh, and sorry about any ad hominem attacks in my round. I get too damn worked up when I debate. So it's nothing personal dude. Intensity problems I guess :)
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
So 'Stay natural' is the motto huh? I like that..:)
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
No, I try to stay away from synthetic drugs of all types. I don't like the idea of putting chemicals in my body, not knowing what they are. But that's just my preference. I don't frown upon others who take a different view.
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
Cool Waylon...that's something about Steve Jobs I never knew..And have you? It's ok if you don't wanna say.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
No no no. I am not disagreeing with you, Jibby Page. There is this good scene from Bill Maher's documentary, when he is interviewing someone from the Marijuana Church, and the person is talking about "melting boundaries" and "discovering new realms", and Maher asks him "is there any chance that when you do drugs, you're no discovering new realms, but you are in fact just really high?"

I agree with that. So please do not stereotype what I think. A lot of really creative people (ie. Steve Jobs, John Lennon) have directly cited LSD as a creative force that ENCHANCED their creativity, and this is not a debatable point, it's a fact... that FOR THEM, it was a creative force.

I have no interest in debating how certain drugs effect certain people. If somebody says LSD made them more creative, I will take their word. I do not think it is some sort of miracle drug. What does bother me, and what does inspire this rant, is when people like Friedman make all of these declarative statements about something they probably do not understand. Drugs, like everything else, are very complex, so to say it is immoral to take, destructive, and restrictive, especially if somebody has not even taken it, can aptly be described as arrogant.

Again, the example of Steve Jobs speaking positively about LSD, explicitly saying "doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things I have done in my life." That is a fact Jibby and Friedman, that is a quote. So I do not think LSD is good or bad, creation enhancing or creation restricting, it is just a drug that makes you really really high for 10 hours, and what you make of those 10 hours is your choice. You can get in a car and kill somebody, or have revelations that lead to Apple. But do not condemn something just because it does not work for you, or it is illegal. Friedman, you are straight up arrogant for being 18 years old and thinking you can dismiss something a lot of people find useful. Jibby, I have no problems with your opin
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
Waylon, I know where you're getting at with this..there is a very popular belief that acid melts away yhe boundaries of pale logic and reason to expose you to endless possibilities..very impressive, but I view it as weakness, as a dependence..if you've got all that creativity bottled up inside of you, why you need acid to release it? Why can't you express it on your own?
And for the record, I have.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
Friedman, have you ever dropped acid?
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
Thanks Friedman..you speak my mind :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Jibby_pagewaylon.fairbanksTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof. Relevant evidence would include citations and analysis of song lyrics, opinions of rock critics and historians, and even polls of fans. Nothing was offered, the only evidence was in Pro's last round, where it doesn't count because it can't be refuted. Hence, what we have are pure unsupported opinions. It would be a tie, except Pro had the BoP.