The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/10/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,092 times Debate No: 16414
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




1)This is the only song that I can not tolerate under any means. First of all, this is the song so called "music lovers" claim to like even it is impossible to escape the song, it's everywhere. It's on the radio, at school dances, even tv ads. Therefore, the so called "music lover" has not boosted his cred in any way. They also claim to love queen but cannot state any other songs by queen. Talk about liers.

2)Also, how could anyone love what sounds like the chanting of muppets on crack (listen closely 3:28-3:32)?

3)There is no clear chorus, because said song think it is too cool for school.

4)Lyrics are non-sensical and do not offer any thought on the human condition.
"I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, scaramouche, will you do the fandango?
Thunderbolts and lightning - very very frightening me
Galileo, Galileo,
Galileo, Galileo,
Galileo Figaro - magnifico-o-o-o"

5)The girl who broke my heart danced to this song so it must be a pretious garbage song.


Just to be clear, we are debating about the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Specifically, is it pretentious garbage? I think it's a fine song, though not Queen's best, and I think Pro has failed to prove this assertion.


1) Other people's opinions about and reactions a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song. The song is widely played because many people like it, which should be an indicator that it is not pretentious garbage (people tend not to like pretentious garbage).

2) Pro will have to post a link to a video because I don't hear chanting muppets on crack in any of the verisons I checked. I will respond to Pro's question anyway: it is possible that what sounds awful to you may sound better to other people. Perhaps you have differing musical tastes.

3) Lots of songs have no clear chorus. Pro thinks this is because "said song think it is too cool for school." However, the song does not have thoughts of its own. It's unlikely that Queen made the song with the intent of proving that they are too cool for school, but if Pro can submit some evidence of this we can consider it.

4) A song does not have to offer any thoughts on the human condition. If anything, making bold claims about the human condition would make a song more pretentious. Instead, many of the unusual lyrics probably serve to add more complexity to the vocals on the song. Freddie Mercury was ranked as the 18th greatest rock singer by rolling stone (a bit underrated in my opinion, I have no idea how Bob Dylan surpassed him), citing his four octive range [1]. The lyrics showcase Mercury's singing ability.

However, the song does tell an interesting story about a young man who is setenced to death and must deal with his own mortality at a young age. While it might not offer a profond conclusion about the human condition, the song does tell a troubling story that gives the listener something to link about.

5) See number one. Other people's attitudes toward a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song.


1) The song features innovative vocal editing, a vocalist with incredible range, a complex guitar solo, and it weaves together very different sounding segements into a coherent whole. All of this requires great technical skill to play and record and brilliant songwriting ability to arrange at all. Because of the great among of skill required to produce it, we should not consider the song garbage.


The inadequacy of Pro's attacks and the great skill required to produce the song should be enough for us to conclude that it is not prentetious garbage. You don't need to like the song, but you can't reasonably conclude that it isn't a great musical accomplishment regardless.


Debate Round No. 1


1)Con has made arugement that because said song is popular, it is not garbage. This is bullpoop, popularity is not based on quality of song it is based on marketablity and chance. Justin Bieber is widely played because many people like it. Nuff said'. There are plenty of bands that do not get airplay such as Lifetime (greatest band in the world) that are of the highest quality.

2) Again, this is essentialy the same arguement as #1. I have different music tastes but again:the biebs!

3)More songs have a chorus than those that do not have a chorus, therefore it is pretenious.

4) A song does not have to offer thoughts on the human condition, but the lyrics, not matter how good the vocals sound, are idiotic and could have been thought of by a mentally challanged 5th grader with severe ADD.

5) ok you got me there but she's still a bitch who likes queen.

6) Technial skill does not make a song great. Muse is the best example for being technial but having uninspiring songs.

Vote Pro!


1) I did not say that the song was necessarily good because people liked it, I said that if it was prententious it is unlikely that it would have much popular appeal. Furthermore, any claims that Pro makes about the quality of the song based on people's reactions are rebutted by this claim. Finally, Con asserts the because the same argument can be made for the music of Justin Bieber, it must be flawed. I see no reason why this should be the case. In what way could we determine whether a song is good, if that is at all possible, except by looking at whether people like it?

2) Pro doesn't respond to the point about muppets. Instead, he asserts again that my argument that people have different musical takes could be used to defend the music of Justin Bieber. Indeed, it could. That I do not like a form a music does not give me grounds to call it objectively bad. Aesthetic quality is determined b tastes and people have many different tastes.

3) Just because something is not normal does not mean it is prententious. Most people are taller than 5'2" tall, but being shorter than this does not make one prententious. Pro has also not shown that there is any objective value to having a chorus.

4) Pro's claim about the vocals has not been warranted. He concedes that there is a relevant musical for the seeming nonsense and fails to address the fact that other parts of the lyrics tell a story about a young man's struggle with mortality.

5) Conceded by Pro. Bohemian Rhapsody is probably not a very good song to dance to but to each her own.

6) Technical skill does not have to make a song great, only not garbage. The music may seem bad to some people, but it took great skill and effort to write, play, and record. This is enough for us to conclude that it is not terrible. Pro's claim about Muse is not warranted. I like Muse and don't fine their songs uninspiring.

Voters, please enjoy listening to Knights of Cydonia

Debate Round No. 2


RicheyWentz forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by HandsofManos 5 years ago
don't be a jerk when debating, try taking things seriously for once. or, my personal favorite, grow up.
Posted by RicheyWentz 5 years ago
Don't be rude, handsofmanos.
Posted by HandsofManos 5 years ago
does anyone else think that wentz is a pretentious piece of garbage?
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
You beat me to it Grape.
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
Ugh, I dislike Queen intensely.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
How dare you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Sources because Pro never provided a link to the song where he heard chanting muppets on crack. Arguments because Pro didn't uphold his BOP in any way other than putting out his own subjective opinion.