The Instigator
racist
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Seriously
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Shakespeare? No such author!

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: 3/10/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,217 times Debate No: 15285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

racist

Pro

Over 350 years have slipped by since Bill, 52, Author, passed on to that great stage in the sky. Today he is a number of things - a literary legend, a cult hero, and a multizilliondollar little earner in merry old Shakespeare crazy England. My last visit to Stratford on Avon planted me in the bullseye of the Shakespeare industry - a mix of resort, shrine, and cultural supermarket. When he migrated to paradise in 1616 his squalid little village didn't have expensive stores, souvenir stalls or its own luxurious Hilton Hotel. The quaint little dwelling in Stratford's Henley Street is where William Shakespeare, son a John, a glovemaker was allegedly born in 1564. True or not, the tourist queues grow longer by the day for a glimpse of the Bard's manger.

The closer to 1600, the more you realise there's not a scrap of evidence that William Shakespeare was the author he's claimed to be. The tiny grammar school of his supposed education in the 1500's was about the size of our standard dining rooms today, improbable to produce the playwright we now know as 'The Bard'. There was one poor, ill-paid teacher who was given three books - one Latin Grammar, one eulogy on Queen Elizabeth and an almanac probably chained to a desk and a dirty great stick, boys, for the use of.

The Shakesperean plays and poems show an exceptional grasp of a wide variety of subjects - language, law, science, philosophy, politics and the classics. It's generally accepted that the author would have needed an astounding vocabulary - 15000 - 20000 words. John Milton, author of the epic Paradise Lost had a mere 8000. There's no evidence that Shakespeare ever went to school, that he ever owned or read a book or that he could even write his own name. There are only about six alleged 'signatures' of his in existence - four of them most likely guided by someone else's hand.

The official shingle at the entrance of the Stratford Grammar School today states: "It is generally BELIEVED that Shakespeare was educated in this school." Not that he WAS, but that it is 'GENERALLY BELIEVED' he was.

A visit to Shakespeare country is incomplete without a trip to Anne Hathaway's cottage. We all know Bill married her - or do we? The marriage register states she married another some three years before she was supposed to have trod down the aisle with wondrous Willie. As Shakespeare lovers and groupies queue up at box-offices around the planet, and pay well to worship the bard and his works, what do we really know about him? The most honest answer would have to be - precious little.

The standard avoidance distractions are usually, 'Yes, it's possible Francis Bacon & his brother might have done them, but it's a bit academic.' Totally irrelevant. I don't really care whether Snow White wrote them. My core challenge has always been, if he's the great national, indeed, world treasure he's cracked up to be, show me the FORENSIC EVIDENCE! A single page of his handwriting should nail it - I'm not too precious about quality proof (evidence). The doubting Thomases claim that there is a huge difference between the historical King MacBeth and the Shakespearean MacBeth - that the Scottish king was chosen by universal acclaim, whereas Shakespeare's Macbeth has the status of a street criminal - they claim it was an anti-Scots conspiracy concocted by a team of Oxford or Cambridge scholars to vilify the Scots for poitical purposes. I don't really care! Show me the forensic evidence of the conspirators if you must, but don't trot out the predictable coulda woulda shoulda theories. I mean, reputations are at stake, and it wouldn't do to have a fresh crop of Oxford Dons lying destitute in the gutter in torn wigs and scuffed shoes.
Just show me any 'Poor Yorick' who knew him well.
Seriously

Con

I'm holding a banana in my hand. If I believe the banana is not there and do not say the banana is there to anyone, does the banana still exist? I think yes.
Now, if I video the banana being held in my hand is the banana still existent?
I think yes.

By this logic, if a recent video of shakespeare was to arise, one would assume Shakespeare existed.
Folks, attatched is a video of Shakespeare. I rest thou case.
Debate Round No. 1
racist

Pro

The existence of bananas would be a truly interesting topic - in another and more relevant debate. Shoving comedy videos as proof of anything is absurd to say the least. Imagine how satisfying it would have been had 'Seriously' bothered to read and absorb what was actually written. My argument rests on a premise so simple, that even 'Seriously' should be able to comprehend it. With so much material from other authors available for study, where is even ONE page of the "Bard's" original manuscript in his own handwriting? There is no mystery - only silence. What a pity.
Seriously

Con

Does eating a ripened (or yellow) banana provide more nutrition than an unripened (or green) banana?

Let the debate begin!

* Unripened/Green Bananas.

1.) Unripe bananas contain about 20-25% more starch than ripe bananas. What are the pros and cons?

* The Cons - this can make the unripened banana hard to digest.

* The Pros - your body has to break down the starch itself, thereby causing your blood sugar to rise more slowly than it would in an ripened (or yellow) banana.

2.) Unripe bananas relieve constipation. What are the pros and cons?

* The Cons - if you eat too many, it could give you the runs!

* The Pros - at least you'll finally be able to go!

3.) The unripened banana can be grounded up and used to make Banana flour! What are the pros and cons?

* The Cons - there are no cons in this instance.

* The Pros - banana flour is three times richer in minerals than wheat flour, and is a great gluten-free product.

* Ripened/Yellow Bananas.

1.) A ripened banana has only 1-2% starch. What are the pros and cons?

* The Cons - although low in starch, the chemical process involved converts those starches into sugars. Thereby, causing your blood sugar to rise a little faster than it's unripened (or green) peer.

* The Pros - not only is it easier to digest, the "nutrient content does change slightly as the fruit ripens." "As a banana ripens, it's level of antioxidants (which decreases the damages free radicals can do to your cells) increase somewhat." - so stated Dr. David L. Katz, MD.

2.) The ripened banana relieves diarrhea. What are the pros and cons?

* Cons - although some disagree, eating too many bananas can cause constipation.

* Pros - hey, it keeps you from running back and forth to the little girls/boys room.

Even with a side by side comparison, I have to agree with Dr. David L. Katz, MD 'that all of this is so insignificant since both ripe (or yellow) and unripe (or green) bananas are rich sources of":

1.) magnesium (which helps bones absorb calcium and remain strong)

2.) folate (forms of the water soluble B9 vitamin that is vital for fighting birth defects)

3.) fiber

4.) potassium

5.) vitamin C

6.) vitamin B6

So in conclusion, I think the true debate lies with personal taste. Whether their raw, (fried - in moderation ), unripe (green), or ripe (yellow), their both good for you. So have a banana, it's good for you!

* A Safety Note: be sure to talk with your physician or a nutritionist to see just how little or how much you are able to consume.
Debate Round No. 2
racist

Pro

How seriously 'Seriously' be taken? Not very.Unfortunately, S has chosen to display a somewhat listless and amateurish form of mockery that bis frankly embarrassing. There is also a tinge of 'the mind like a steel trap' symptom - once it slams shut, there's really no reopening? Pity. I don't suppose you'd prefer to just go back quietly to the sandpit and let the grownups get on with more serious stuff - mmmmm?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by racist 6 years ago
racist
Yes, 'Boredinclass' iI agree. But for far darker reasons than we might expect. Poking fun and criticising some flea-bitten dead poet would appear to be a fruitless activity, were it not for the serious ramifications this old fraud has uncovered. There is far more to Shakespeare than meets the eye.Try and find ANYTHING of a personal nature on this man and it's like walking into quick sand. Cheers!
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Shakespeare sucks anyway
Posted by racist 6 years ago
racist
It's a very simple proposition, my dear Wolfhaines - idle court gssip (royal or otherwise) i a pretty sorry piece of rhetoric to establish the existence of one so important and venerated as"The Bard". Surely all those volumes of the most illuminating literature of our time would have had residence SOMEWHERE in England? A mere PAGE of actual handwriting is all I crave. Youd think I was asking to steel the Royal Sceptre for Glory's Sake. Cheers!
Posted by wolfhaines 6 years ago
wolfhaines
Shakespeare existed, as having him not exist is less likely than him having existed, especially as accounts from the reign of two monarchs talk of him in royal courts. Hard to be non-existent in a royal court I can tell you.
You are saying Shakespeare couldn't exist because he didn't have the upbringing necessary to produce a genius. I shall go tell that to every other artistic genius who ever grew up without a background in their field...
Posted by racist 6 years ago
racist
Hi, Mr Carroll! I'm ok for your suggestion. I'm sure it will be a more interesting event than some others on this forum. Just a quick orientation query - what is your stance on the existence or otherwise of the original manuscripts of, say, The Merchant Of Venice? Do hey exist in the Bad's own hand? Serious inquiry.
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
I'll have a real debate on this if you like racist. I have done some studying on Shakespeare.
Posted by racist 6 years ago
racist
Thank you for bolstering my overview.Many theories abound, yet they have not exposed the Bard's writings to computer analysis. The Shakespeare industry is far too prudent to risk such nonsense, eh, what?
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I read an interesting theory that Christopher Marlowe faked his death and became Shakespeare.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
racistSeriouslyTied
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: Cons argument was bananas
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
racistSeriouslyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Seriously, Seriously didn't debate, con was so off topic i just couldn't help but give conduct to pro
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
racistSeriouslyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: No tiger blood here.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
racistSeriouslyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was ridiculous here.
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
racistSeriouslyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just being obnoxious.