The Instigator
Raziel
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
left_wing_mormon
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Raziel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2010 Category: Arts
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,967 times Debate No: 12004
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

Raziel

Pro

I'm asking Con to present his argument first since [s]he has the burden of proof. I will go on to explain the resolution. To understand the reference I'm refering to you have to read or have read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies". I will be arguing that the lord of the flies in the book was not a concrete physical character. But rather an illusion or abstact concept so to speak. Con will be arguing that the lord of the flies was an actual physical creature. With that being said, Please add quotes from the book if needed, but put the page number where I can find the quote. Thank you for debating this topic with me. :)
left_wing_mormon

Con

Thank you for starting an intellectual debate here. This site needs more of these.

I will contend that the Lord of the flies is a representation or reflection of what Jack becomes in the novel. I have several theories here, and I'm not sure if this will totally fit within the guide lines of the debate, but just let me know.

The term "Lord of the flies" can mean so many things. Is it a title given to the actual atmosphere of the island? Is it a direct correlation to Beelzebub, the satanic demon who, according to Christian theology, was often referred to as the Lord of all Flies? I believe it is all of these things and more. All of these elements point to Jack, in my opinion. On one hand you have Ralph, the image of man. Ralph is a symbol of Mans desire to hold on to moral and ethical principles in order to lead the children in a structured manner. On the other hand you have Jack who aims to serve the more primitive and barbaric needs of human nature. The story then shows the battle of good and evil and which will prevail.

With this in mind, all the characters evolve from page one to the end of the novel. What does Jack become. It is my contention that Jack becomes the "leader" of the children. Their Lord. The chief of the hunters. Their Lord of the Flies.

I will use supporting evidence from the novel later in this debate. As of now, it is my opponents turn to prove his case. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Raziel

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. To my understanding Con is saying Jack was the Lord of the flies. I'm going to attempt to proove that the Lord od the flies was an illusion.
Illusion: Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading reality.

Here's some quotes from the book. "Maybe there is a beast...maybe it's only us" Chapter 5, pg. 50.

This is meant to imply that the beast is all in there heads not actually themselves.

"[F]ear can't hurt you anymore than a dream. There aren't any beasts to be afraid of on this island..." pg. 75.

The only time anyone encountered the L.OF.T. was when Simon was in the jungle alone. He imagines himself talking to the Lord of the flies. This was merely a hullicination. After the conversation Simon passes out which is reasonable evidence that he was already 'sick' and in a delusional state. Another reason that we can deduce that it was an illusion is because before Simon saw the pig's head Jack and his tribe were there and it was a regular dead pig's head. And even if the Lord of the flies is a representation of evil it is still an intangible concept and not physically real. I look forward to my opponents response on prooving Jack to be the Lord of the Flies and refuting my arguments.

m.reference.com/d/search.htm?q=illusion
left_wing_mormon

Con

I would like to establish that the beast in the book is an entirely different element than the lord of the flies. The beast is a product of the boys young paranoia. My opponent even quotes Simon who is the only one who realizes that the beast is not real but rather a figment of their imagination that was created in part due to the hunters rise in savagery. But I digress...

The conversation between the sows head and Simon is one of the most remarkable literary achievements by Golding. But let us exam what the sow head could possibly represent. While there are some who say the "vision" Simon has with the severed head of the pig is actually a conversation with the Lord of the Flies, meaning the pig is the lord of the flies. No doubt this head is something the boys begin to almost worship by the end of the novel, as seen by their "ritualistic" slaughter of Simon. But what I will state is that the sows head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery. His violence and recklessness is what led Jack, after declaring himself the chief, to pin the sows head on the staff. It is his mark of leadership, so to speak.

The choirboys in the beginning are seen walking along the beach, led by Jack, dressed in all black. The contrast of the light sand pinned against these small black figures gives the image of little flies. Hence these choirboys are flies. As we know the hunters are mainly structured with the choirboys, again their leader: Jack.

The feast that the boys have before Simon's death also solidifies Jack's overt prominence over the tribe. Golding describes the celebration feast as follows: (note I'm typing these words from the book, forgive me if they are some what "altered") "Before the party had started a great log has been dragged to the center of the lawn, and Jack, painted and garlanded, sat there like an idol. There were piles of meat on green leaves near him, and fruit, and coconut shells filled with drink." Notice that he is sitting in the center of the party where he is closet to the food. The log is later described in the chapter as his "throne." When Jack says "Give me Drink!" Henry without pause hands him his drink. All of this symbolism is a motif of the demonic imagery of Beelzebub. Jack is supposed to represent the lord of the flies.

To dismiss this symbolism and state that the Lord of the Flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack. The Lord of the Flies could be many things, whether physical or metaphorical, but it all comes back to Jack.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Raziel

Pro

Although it appears Con has made a compelling argument against me, in reality he has not.
Ge has completely ignored proving his case, but instead continues to tell how Jack represents the Lord of the Flies.
In his second round he failed to refute my arguments, so I extend them all.
In the beginning round it clearly states that Con would have to proove that the Lord of the Flies was a physical entity.
Just to point ou a few flaws in his argument:
Con: "To dismiss this symbolism and state that the lord of the flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack" This is may be relevant to the story but is not to the debate.
Con: "The Lord of the Flies could be many things whether physical or metaphorical." You were suppose to proove that it was a physical entity not what it could be.
Con: "But what I will state is that the sow's head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery" Jack's savagery is not Jack.
Prooving that Jack resembles the L.O.F.T. is not the same as prooving it a physical entity. I would also like to point out that by arguing that the L.OF.T. is s symbolic representation is actually implying that it is NOT a physical entity.

Before you cast your votes I ask you to reread my first round and the begining of my second round to realise that Con failed to defend what he was suppose to.
I ask that Con does not present any new information to the debate seeing as I cannot refute it. Thanks Con and good luck!
left_wing_mormon

Con

My opponent made a couple claims in this final round that I believe don't make sense in context to the debate. I would like to point these out to the voters (Notice his responses to what I have said)-
1.)"Con: "To dismiss this symbolism and state that the lord of the flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack" This is may be relevant to the story but is not to the debate."
2.)Con: "The Lord of the Flies could be many things whether physical or metaphorical." You were suppose to proove that it was a physical entity not what it could be."
3.)Con: "But what I will state is that the sow's head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery" Jack's savagery is not Jack.
Prooving that Jack resembles the L.O.F.T. is not the same as prooving it a physical entity. I would also like to point out that by arguing that the L.OF.T. is s symbolic representation is actually implying that it is NOT a physical entity."

My response.
1.) What is relevant to the story is in fact relevant to this debate by default. This is a debate on the book by William Golding "Lord of the Flies"
2.)My opponent attempts to quote me here, but he leaves out the last part of the sentence--"...it all leads back to Jack." My opponent quotes this statement with a period after "...physical or metaphorical...". All of the elements that describe the Lord of the flies are describing, in one way or another, Jack.
3.) I will simply just respond to my opponent by saying Jacks savagery is Jack.

Conclusion:
What I did in this debate was prove that the literary elements of this book that describe the violent nature of the children are as a direct result of the actions of Jack. Jack plays the role of the Lord of the Flies in this book and there is no refuting that. I did use compelling evidence from the book and personal interpretation to do this. In round two the basis for my opponent was talking about "the beast." As anyone will tell you the Lord of the Flies and the mythical beast are two different elements of the book all together. With all do respect, this shows me that my opponent does not have a strong understanding of the novel at hand. My opponent also goes on to say several times that I have not done my job stating that the Lord of the Flies is a physical entity. This is simply false, I proved Jack, a physical character of the book, was the Lord of the Flies on the island.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
lol @ backhanded implication
Posted by Raziel 7 years ago
Raziel
If it's based on the quality of your debate then I still should win.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 7 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Just out of curiosity, on what basis are the voters voting on? The quality of my debate or who ever has the coolest alien avatar? Because if it is based on the avatar, then my opponent should win.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Yes
Posted by left_wing_mormon 7 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Yes and I think it is not far fetched to say that Jack is the symbol of that evil, so really he is almost a physical manifestation of the "Lord of the Flies". Any one agree?
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Yes, I read all of the veiws from different people. Almost all of them said it represents Satan.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Lord of the Flies" is supposed to represent evil or Satan. Another name for Satan is Beelzebub which literally translates into lord of the flies.
Posted by Sonofkong 7 years ago
Sonofkong
There is no doubt the Lord of the Flies is an illusion. Do Pigs heads talk all the time. A great book though.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 7 years ago
left_wing_mormon
I love it too. True masterpiece.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
I loved this book.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Sam_Lowry 7 years ago
Sam_Lowry
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 7 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Junk629 7 years ago
Junk629
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by The_0rigin 7 years ago
The_0rigin
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Raziel 7 years ago
Raziel
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jaweber1 7 years ago
jaweber1
Razielleft_wing_mormonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25