The Instigator
Zerosmelt
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The Velvet Underground Are Simultaneously The Most Underrated and Overrated Band of All Time.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,578 times Debate No: 5139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (9)

 

Zerosmelt

Pro

The Velvet Underground Are absolutely one of my favorite bands.
I think they are unbelievably brilliant. Yet many don't think so. And many others think they are so great that all others pale in comparison. They are amazing but there are many other amazing bands as well. I do feel that their first album is overall the best album i've heard. (i've heard alot of albums)

To be clear my resolution is that they are the band who is simultaneously most overrated and underrated. Not that they are both the most overrated band and most underrated band. I could could easliy provide a band that is more overrated than TVU and a band that is more underrated than TVU without even leaving their decade.

The beatles are more overrated than TVU
The kinks are more underrated than TVU

Heres something to chew on:

The Top Albums of 1967 according to users:
http://rateyourmusic.com...

Top ablums of all time, according to users: #4
http://rateyourmusic.com...
Danielle

Con

:: POINT ONE ::

I argue that there is no way for Pro to prove that TVU is simultaneously the most underrated and overrated band of all time. His entire argument supporting the resolution has so far been based on his opinion and hearsay. This contention alone is enough to win me the entire debate.

:: POINT TWO ::

I'll be honest - I don't think a lot of people have ever even heard of TVU, especially not a lot of young people. Thus they cannot possibly (logically) be considered one of the most OVER-rated bands.

:: POINT THREE ::

The only kind of 'factual evidence' we can go by here are actual studies or polls that have been published. So here are 2 random lists (the first ones I found using Google) regarding the most over-rated of all time. The Beatles make The Top 10 both time, landing at both number one and number four [1]! Likewise, when Googling the BEST bands of all time, The Beatles actually came in at number two [3] and number one [4]. So, according to these polls (and many others), The Beatles top the list as both the best AND most-overrated. Now if you're thinking is that The Beatles have never been considered UNDER-RATED, think again. If The Beatles are so great... and they are... then given their accomplishments and stature, they should always be considered the GREATEST band of all time. However since they're not... since Led Zeppelin often takes the gold... then they, The Beatles, are also under-rated as well.

Anyway my point here is that Pro has not shown enough 'evidence' that TVU is considered by others, at least, to be simultaneously both the most over and under-rated band.

:: POINT FOUR ::

How often do we hear the phrase: You either love it or you hate it? It's pretty common, and with reason. Logic tells us that if something is unique, some people are going to embrace its differences and claim it brilliance. Others will be turned off by the unfamiliarity and brand it rubbish. This applies to many aspects of life - not just music or TVU in particular. Therefore it can be said that this is an entire speculatory argument that could be made about anyone and any thing.

:: POINT FIVE ::

The 5th way I can win this debate is to offer at least ONE band that I can argue is both the most underrated and overrated band of all time. So in this round, I will list a number of bands along with a detailed description of why I feel they are both simultaneously underrated and overrated. If you agree with my analysis, or at least find it more thorough and thought provoking than Pro's, then you must vote Con. Some bands for consideration are:

[The Ramones]

Who doesn't find themselves singing along to the Hey! Ho! Let's Go! commercial, or get pumped whenever "I Wanna Be Sedated" comes on? Let's face it - The Ramones are often credited as being the best punk band of all time, and from a number of sources [5]. The Ramones were also largely responsible for an entire movement of youth and sub-culture across the globe (punk). Yet they are almost never considered on The Top 100 Bands of all time... 100! They also have not sold a lot of records in comparison with other bands, meaning they weren't mainstream popular and therefore under-rated by a lot of the public.

[The Beatles]

Ah, The Beatles. A plethora of major accomplishments include producing the first concept or rock opera album; creating one of the most popular (sold) records of all time; introducing a lot of unfamiliar instruments into the maintstream, including the studio itself ; suggested a future of sonic and lyrical experimentation [6]; etc. HOWEVER, musically the Beatles' songs are not very challenging. Most of them are based on just a few chords that are easy to learn and play. The theory behind this is, if The Beatles were better musicians, their songs would be more complex. One also has to wonder if they really LIKE The Beatles of if they are just brainwashed to think they're supposed to, because of all The Beatles have done for the industry. Hmm. On the other hand, The Beatles are often considered the hands-down greatest band of all time.

[Nirvana]

Sure they pioneered grunge, but let's face it - grunge kinda SUCKS! Would this band have really been as big had not Kurt Cobain killed himself? Huh? Huh?

[Coldplay]

Suppose Chris Martin was ugly. Or that he wasn't married to Gwynth Paltrow with a kid named Apple. Or that other tres chic celebs didn't love him. Would you? Most fans (and there are a lot of them) love Coldplay for that they are: a poppy British sensation. However, many people would even go so far as to consider them genius! I kid you not.

[Billy Joel]

This guy sells out concert after concert after concert after concert. His ticket prices are enormous and he even gets to play at cool gigs such as being the final performance played at Mets Stadium! But when was piano rock ever cool anyway? Elton John was really the only other big name, and he was really only popular because of who he was sleeping with.

['N Sync]

I thought this would be an interesting turn: introducing a boy band into the mix. Well, technically they're a band, and in my opinion, extremely over-rated. It doesn't matter who's doing the rating here - the fact of the matter is that 'N Sync has been the most popular musical group at some point, topping youngters list as THE BEST OF ALL TIME, even. So... do you think they deserve this? Probably not!!! They're not that good, even at singing (assuming their songs were better...)!!! Yet just because you and I might think so, does not negate the fact that SO many people have worshipped them - even if they were young girls. Thus they have also been significantly under-rated in terms of their music and efforts just because of their fan base. Hence, them being simultaneously the most under and over-rated band.

[Michael Jackson/Jackson 5]

Okay, Michael is the King of Pop. But that's only because he was lucky enough to be the first. Sort of. I mean, he kind of sounds like a little girl and always has. His songs rocked, but he didn't write them. When he was little, he was singing about love before his balls even dropped. And when they did drop, you couldn't tell - at least not from his music. The truth is that he has no strength; I mean, he's no Andrea Bocelli! His pipes are seriously lacking. Yet he is so glamorized outside of his weird and creepy ways. Like I said, he's been dubbed the KING of Pop, and he's responsible for the best selling album of all time! He tops everyone's list as a fave. So what's the deal?

[Elvis]

He was famous for being gorgeous and for shaking his hips. His music was stolen from black soul artists! Then again, F that! He's the KING! See what I mean?

:: CONCLUSION ::

Even if you do not agree with my choice of bands, you must consider my points vs. Pro's. Thus, with all things considered, I have by far provided the better argument in NEGATION of the resolution. To win this debate, Pro must first prove that others (the general public - or at least other website admins) feel that TVU is both the most over-rated and under-rated band via some credible sources. Next, Pro must combat the ideology that it is not uncommon for something or someone to be either loved or hated with little room for grey. Finally, Pro must prove that TVU is both under and over-rated more than any band or artist I have mentioned thus far. Most importantly, he must convince you, the reader, that he is right.

:: SOURCES ::

[1] http://www.thesegotoeleven.com...
[2] http://www.listology.com...
[3] http://www.avrev.com...
[4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[5] http://www.listology.com...
[6] http://popwatch.ew.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Zerosmelt

Pro

Thanks theLwerd, u've made some decent points.

I want to clearly restate my resolution and distinguish it from what my resolution is not. My resolution is that of all the bands that are both overrated and underrated, the velvet underground are the most overrated and underrated simultaneously. I'm sorry if this wasnt entirely clear, i was doing my best. Let see an example.
Ex. We could say that the beatles are a band that is both overrated and underrated(if thats possible). In such a case they are massively overrated but just slightly underrated. Now in this situation we have a band that is far more overrated than TVU but not nearly as underrated. So this example does not disprove my resolution. In order to disprove my resolution my opponent must provide an example of a band that is more overrated than TVU and more underrated, At the same time.

My resolution is not that of all bands the velvet underground are the most overrated band and that of all bands they're most underrated band.< My opponent seems to have realized this so we're good.

1. Sure there is. I can show that masses of people think that TVU are amazing and that masses think they are not. And that the degree of their opinions in both directions is greater than any other band.

2. This proves my case that they are underrated. Although most of their fans are young ppl. This opinion of yours depends largely on what geographical location that you reside in.

3. Most of your sources are unreliable. Anyone can create a webpage or write an article of who they believe to be the most overrated bands and get it tagged as the first result in google. All you need to do is put ur link on tons of other sites. Websites do this all the time. If we are going to use sources, and we should, then we need to use appropriate sources. Now since we are debating what is over/underrated we need to know what masses of people think not necessarily what individuals who own websites think. Therefore we need to use music databases that have democratic methods of rating musicians. That is to say, the people themselves decide the rankings of each artist. Rateyourmusic.com is one of the largest of such databases in the world. TVU's first album is ranked (by users, thats important) number 1 for 1967 and number 4 of all time, including classical.

SOURCES :

http://rateyourmusic.com...
http://rateyourmusic.com...
http://rateyourmusic.com...
All of their albums received 5 stars according to AMG
http://www.allmusic.com...
http://www.allmusic.com...
http://www.allmusic.com...
and here are more sources from news articles:
http://www.nme.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://www.time.com...
http://www.besteveralbums.com...
http://www.ditto.net...
http://www.rhino.com...
http://www.jackfeenyreviews.com...
http://www.myguitarsolo.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

All the links above show that TVU is highly Highly rated as being at the top all these lists. Among both professional music critics and the general populous. B/c they are so widely, highly rated i conclude that they are overrated. To quote one music critic "For me, it's hard to imagine what rock and roll would be like had there been no Velvet Underground. In my opinion, the band's music is even more important than that of the Beatles. And may I remind you, that I am a great Beatles fan as well."
http://www.popmatters.com...
i think that its fair to say that they are very overrated ppl.
They are amazing, but not that amazing. Now I will show that they are underrated.

Allow me to quote the opening lines from the BBC article linked above:"
"Brian Eno once stated that, despite hardly anyone buying this album on its release, everyone that did buy it seemed to have formed a band. Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about one of the three most influential albums of all time (what are the other two? You work it out, dear reader). Without this slice of plastic there would have been no glam rock, no krautrock and no punk."

When they first appeared they didn't rise above 171 on the billboard charts.
http://www.allmusic.com...
Now they are ranked 13 according to rolling stone. (see link above.)
http://blogcritics.org...
they were an astonishingly unsuccessful band.

Further evidence that they are vastly underrated comes from a point that my opponent makes herself. Namely that so few people have ever heard of them. (point two) Lets look at the ramones shall we. Here is a band that wouldn't even exist without TVU. Perhaps they were never as mainstream as say zeppelin, hendrix or the beatles but they still had/have a wider audience than TVU. Unbeknownst to many of the hendrix and halen fans on this website there is actually much more to the history of rock and roll than just the mainstream bands. There is an entire universe of underground bands headed by TVU. In the history of the underground no band (except nirvana) has entered the mainstream more than the Ramones. They were basically a pop band that used punk riffs. (barely what i would consider punk at all.) The Ramones are much more famous with the masses than TVU for this reason they are NOT more underrated then them.

4.) I agree with your analysis but that doesn't actualy refute my resolution.
5.) I could address each band separately but i don't have sufficient characters and it would be unnecessary. All the examples you chose do NOT provide for a band that is more overrated than TVU and more underrated, At the same time. Sure we can accept that those bands are overrated and underrated. Some might be more overrated than TVU. None are more underrated however b/c they were all vastly more successful. Therefore you haven't disproven my resolution. As you must provide a band that is more overrated and more underrated.

Conclusion.
I have establish fair grounds for my resolution. For my opponent to prove me wrong she must provide an example of one band that is simultaneously more overrated and more underrated.
Danielle

Con

For clarification, I understand Pro's advocation very well and hope that the readers do too. I am arguing against the fact that TVU is *simultaneously* both the most under and over-rated band. Now on to a refutation of Pro's rebuttal...

1. Pro says that he can show that masses of people think that TVU is amazing and that masses also think they are not. He also feels that the degree of their opinion in both directions is greater than any other band. However, just because he CAN do something doesn't mean that he has. Thus far, Pro has not provided any evidence to prove this point.

2. Pro says that because TVU is not as well-known as some other bands, it proves that they are under-rated. However this is a logical fallacy. Simply because something/someone is largely unknown does not mean that this person or thing is under-rated. For instance, most of you probably don't know my Law professor. Does that mean that he or his teaching capabilties are under-rated? No. It means that you haven't been exposed to him or his lessons. Your ignorance to his existance does not mean that he is under-rated, and such it is with TVU.

3A. Pro suggests that my sources are unreliable because "Anyone can create a webpage or write an article of who they believe to be the most overrated bands" which is true. However, later on in this debate, Pro introduces RateYourMusic.com as a supposed valid source of rating bands/music for the purpose of this debate. He even goes so far as to say that RateYourMusic.com is 'democratic' because "the people themselves decide the rankings of each artist," but, uh, can't people do that with websites as well? Why does one have to vote on RateYourMusic for their opinion to be valid? And keep in mind that people can skew votes on that website just as easily as they can on this one (debate.org). Therefore if you're going to dismiss my sources, you have to disclude Pro's as well.

3B. However let's assume for a second that RYM was actually a credible source. Even so, I can dismantle Pro's logic using basic common sense. For instance, Pro notes, "B/c they are so widely, highly rated i conclude that they are overrated." So Pro is saying that just because people highly regard TVU, they must be over-rated. Once again, this is completely illogical. If 90 out of 100 people polled felt that Michael Phelps is among the best swimmers in the world right now, or that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest basketball players who ever lived, that does NOT make either of those 2 individals over-rated. It just makes them popular, or exemplifies how their accomplishments and talents are widely regarded in the public eye. In other words, simply because a lot of people feel that TVU is awesome does not make them over-rated. Maybe they really are as great as many people think they are.

3C. Just to reiterate a previous point, Pro goes on to provide a quote from 'a music critic' who prefers TVU over The Beatles. That is no different than any music critic's opinions provided from my sources.

4. Pro's next point is that when TVU first appeared on the charts, they did not rise above 171. Now they are tanked #13 according to Rolling Stone. So I ask this of Pro -- what does this have to do with anything? All this proves is that TVU was once unpopular, and now they are more well-known. At the very best, this proves that TVU was either once under-rated in the PAST, or perhaps more over-rated TODAY. Either way this proves nothing, as the resolution refers to a band that is *SIMULTANEOUSLY* both the most under and over-rated band.

5. Pro's 5th point is, "The Ramones are much more famous with the masses than TVU for this reason they are NOT more underrated then them." Once again - whether or not a band is well-known has absolutely nothing to do with being under or over-rated. Rather being under-rated means that something is not prasied enough for its quality - not the fact that it is little or unknown.

6. Pro ends his argument first by agreeeing with my analysis... which I don't really understand, because that would make me the undisputed winner of this debate, but I digress. Then Pro agrees that some of the bands I listed were more over-rated than TVU; however, states that none of them are more under-rated because all have had more commercial success. However just because something is commercially successful does not mean that everyone gives it just praise. For example, consider Heath Ledger's role in the film Batman: The Dark Knight. As we all know, this film was a HUGE commercial success. However many people feel that Heath's amazing performance was exaggerated by many for the simple fact that he had passed away by the time the movie had come out. Now many of us disregard this nonsense, however, you'd be surprised at how many people actually think Heath did just an okay job. To fans, the fact that Heath isn't being even MORE prasied shows that his performance was completely under-rated, despite the fact that it raked in big bucks at the box office.

CONCLUSION: Pro is incorrect with his conclusion when he states, "For my opponent to prove me wrong she must provide an example of one band that is simultaneously more overrated and more underrated." In R1, you'll noticed that I listed this option as only one of several ways for me to win this debate. However in addition, I can also point out the fact that there is no unbiased way of EVER determining if something is under or over-rated, meaning that Pro's assertation that TVU is both of those things is subjective and unsupported. Further, I ask that readers and Pro remember the true meaning of under and over-rated (perhaps these terms should have been defined...?), because neither of these things has to do solely with commercial success.
Debate Round No. 2
Zerosmelt

Pro

Thank you Lwerd. You make some great points as i expected you to. Obviously it is very difficult to definitly prove something is over/underrated. My job will be to provide enough evidence to suggest that this belief is substantiated.

1 . I have provided evidence. Apparently my opponent failed to review my sources. -Number 1 for 1967 and number 4 of all time
2. Con correctly pionts out this logic but fails to take into account the relationship between musicians and popular recognition (i.e being well known) Being an unknown lawyer has completely different implications than being an unknown musician. Knowning lawyers is not a fundamental part of most human's existence. Musicians however are very different. Music is a fundamental part of human existence by and large. (there are a few very small exceptions to this among very few indigenous peoples.) Popular recognition is in fact a method of understanding the ratings of a musician. Allow me to better clarifly this. Within a given circle of people if X is fundamentally part of that circle then popular recognition of (an) individual(s) within that circle is a method for evaluating said individual(s) rating. Within the circle of lawyers (and businessmen who need lawyers) the degree of popular recognition a lawyer has (to the people within that circle) does correlate with a merit rating, whether it is good or bad. In the case of music nearly everyone holds music to be fundamentally part of their life. So the circle of people is so large it includes basically everyone. So the popular recognition of musicans by everyone does correlate to a rating. Well known musicians are highly rated by virtue of being well known. In most cases they are overrated. People are generally aware of the fact that there are great musicians who are not well known. Such musicians are underrated in this case. (plz note i'm not saying that being well known makes a musician good, i'm saying being well known makes a musician highly/over rated. )

3a. Rateyourmusic.com is democratic as it is the ppl who decide the artists ratings. Just as this site is democractic as it is the ppl who decide who wins the debate. Ppl dont have to vote on rateyourmusic.com for their opinion to be valid. That website is just a means of collecting what people's opinions are. I was collecting people's opinions to use as evidence that many people think TVU are great. People can not skew the votes as easily on that website as they can here b/c there are hundreds of thousands of voters. Over 7000 for that one album alone and many many more accross the whole website. Its very unlikely that anyone has skewn the votes b/c you would have to make thousands of accounts.

3b. Thanks for pointing out this logical jump i was fully aware of it and had a feeling you might exploit it. (while hoping you wouldn't :P) This is were the debate is very difficult for me . I will address this in 2 different ways
>i - decide for yourself. these are two of TVU most famous songs.
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
this is the rest of the album that they are most acclaimed for.
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
http://search.playlist.com...
plz listen and tell me if you think that is the number 4 Best Album Of All Time. > RYM
or the number one according to NME and The Observer. 13 According to Rolling Stones.

>ii The ablum is creative but lacks talent. Lou Reed hasn't even learned how to hold a note as a singer. Clearly its overrated.

3c. It is exactly the same as your sources i wanted to be sure and provide sources like yours incase you felt my analysis of your sources was incorrect.

4. The main point of my argument was that they aren't popularly recognized today and they are rating more highly then they should be today. That point was a minor side note for more info.

5. see [2.]

6. This was inregards to "::POINT FOUR::" in your R1. I agree with your analysis that some people either love or hate different things. That if something is unique some ppl with praise it while others brand it as rubbish. This analysis however, doesn't address my point. It talks about my point, futher explains it if you will but it doesn't disprove it. My point still holds. You do not win the debate on this measure. The example of Heath: some people saying that Heath's performance was overrated doesn't make it underrated. As i've shown in #2 popular recognition (diff. from commercial success) does display how highly/lowly something is rated. (not necessarily how good it is, but how it is rated)

Re: CONCLUSION: I am not incorrect, my opponent must provide an example of a band that is more overrated and more underrated to prove me wrong. (now she may win the debate regardless of whether she does that but that is what she must do to prove me wrong.) Pointing out that there is no unbiased way of determing this does not mean you win the debate bc that was never included in the provisions of this debate. I never claimed that there was an unbiased way of determing this. There isnt an unbiased way of determining anything. I'm just saying that TVU are the most under/overrated band.and this is something we can determine with substantiated evidence. (it may require some bias in the sense that yes you must form an opinion about what makes music good.) That is the only bias and it isnt a bias that i ever claimed i wouldn't rely on.

Conclusion: According to points 2 and 3b i have shown that TVU are the most under/overrated band. Plz vote Pro.
Danielle

Con

Thank you, Pro, for this fun debate.

I would like to point out that there is still apparently some confusion regarding my previous points, so let me state them again. Pro begins by pointing out that his sources have described how TVU was rated both very low and very high according to the charts. I understand that. However my point was that they were rated very low in the PAST, perhaps when they were not as well-known. However even if they were known and were just simply under-rated in the past, that does not change the fact that the resolution is talking about TODAY (it says 'are' the most over-rated, not 'was' the most over-rated). Therefore the only opinions that matter are what TVU is regarded as in MODERN DAY, and Pro has already established that they currently top charts.

Now, the fact that they currently top charts doesn't mean that the band is over-rated. It simply means that they are being noted for their talent. In order for Pro to prove that this band is over-rated, he would have to prove that they are not as good of a band as people think they are -- NOT just the fact that a lot of people like them. So again, the fundamental flaw with Pro's argument is that so far he has only been talking about numbers and people's opinions. Nowhere in this debate has he talked about the quality of the music, which is essentially what the entire debate is about -- the band's talent and whether or not it is under-appreciated or highly exxgerated.

Next Pro points out that music is a fundamental part of human existence, and states, "Popular recognition is in fact a method of understanding the ratings of a musician" and I agree (to an extent). Although once again, ratings do not mean anything without some sort of idea of the music itself. For instance, if band XYZ was awesome yet had poor ratings, that would signify that the band was under-rated. The opposite would indicate vice versa. However Pro has not given us any basis of the band in order to determine whether or not they were in fact under or over-rated.

Here's an example of my point: Tom Green is not held in high regard as a musician and does/would in fact receive bad or low ratings. Now just because he receives those ratings does not mean that he is under-rated -- he truly deserves them! So Pro's problem here is that he has not established why TVU deserves either a good or a bad rating.

Similarly on this point, Pro goes on to say, "plz note i'm not saying that being well known makes a musician good, i'm saying being well known makes a musician highly/over rated." But once again that is flawed logic. Consider an artist like Beethoven. He is well known but not over-rated; his high rating is deserved.

Pro moves on to point out that he has used Rateyourmusic.com to "use as evidence that many people think TVU are great." However Pro has NOT provided evidence to show that TVU is over-rated, as in, their appreciation or admiration is not deserved. This is an important principle in this debate.

On his final point, Pro asks that readers listen to TVU and decide for themselves whether or not they feel that TVU deserves the honor of being considered to have the #4 best album of all time. However whether or not any reader agrees with this is completely void of any meaning. This debate is supposed to be about how well WE argued - not what readers happen to think of the music. Pro was supposed to have made better arguments -- not care what voters feel about the band itself.

Pro then goes on to point out why the album is over-rated (he says it's because Lou Reed can't sing). However Pro has not pointed out why this band is UNDER-rated, which is a huge advantage for me, the Con.

For Pro's main point of the debate, he notes, "The main point of my argument was that they aren't popularly recognized today and they are rating more highly then they should be today." However, while Pro provided that TVU is highly regarded today and at least gave one opinion or example as to why they shouldn't be, pro has NOT explained why or how they are under-rated, and if it is deserved. Saying that they are under-rated because they are not well known today is FLAWED and I have explained why several times. Just because some people may not know them does NOT mean that they are under-rated. It means that they are not as popular as they should be - that's all. Because in their ignorance, people are not passing judgment on the band. Nobody is saying "TVU sucks because nobody knows who they are..."

In regard to Heath, Pro says, "Some people saying that Heath's performance was overrated doesn't make it underrated." No, but the fact that Heath isn't as highly praised as he should be amongst critics, to me, makes his performance under-rated (I've already explained that I thought it was brilliant). However I do believe his performance was over-rated when I hear that some claim it to be the best villainous performance of all time (because I can think of other paramount examples, such as Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs).

So in my example with Heath ledger, I have explained both why and how Heath is simultaneously under and over-rated. But with TVU, Pro only explained why the band is over-rated. His saying that it's under-rated because it is not as popular as it should be does NOT make any sense. Not popular does not mean that people are not giving the band enough credit. Yes, some ratings are based on popularity but ratings do not always equal reviews or opinions. For instance, the #1 best selling album may not be what I or many others feel as the BEST album. It just happens to be more popular among the masses.

In conclusion, Pro attempts to once again make the claim that I must "provide an example of a band that is more overrated and more underrated to prove me wrong." That is simply not true. Rather it is Pro's burden to prove the resolution to be true, and for me to prove the resolution to be untrue. I have proven that the resolution is untrue because I have proved that it is based on opinion, and also by pointing out that Pro has provided no evidence to make this subjective resolution have any substantive, factual merit. The fact that I provided numerous bands and actually incorporated reasoning as to why each of them is simultaneously under and over-rated, especially moreso than TVU, is just a bonus :)

Pro agrees that his case is riddled with bias, however, in that instance it was his burden to provide more analytical reasoning in addition to just cited sources of what other people think of TVU. However Pro has not fulfilled this burden in the least and therefore you should vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by crushilista 4 years ago
crushilista
"Sure they pioneered grunge, but let's face it - grunge kinda SUCKS! Would this band have really been as big had not Kurt Cobain killed himself? Huh? Huh?" They were the biggest band in the world at that time, of course they would have been popular. Jesus christ.
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
I mean, yeah...I completely agree. It's kinda hard for them to be the most overrated when a fair amount of people wouldn't even know who they're "rating."

Most underrated, though? Maybe.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
They may be great, but they're not simultaneously the most under and over-rated.
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
Haha, it amuses me that I stumbled across a debate regarding the Velvet Underground while listening to...well, the Velvet Underground.

They're greatness.
Posted by rockandrollgirl_1971 5 years ago
rockandrollgirl_1971
theLwerd...you are very confident, however you are wrong in saying that TVU cannot be proven the most underrated/overrated band. It can be proven...I myself am a fan of TVU, and well as The Beatles, and The Kinks. Therefore I agree with Zerosmelt.
Posted by Zerosmelt 5 years ago
Zerosmelt
Edit *point number TWO*
Posted by Zerosmelt 5 years ago
Zerosmelt
lwerd i just want to say that i understood your points... i was arguing that they werent underrated just in the past. In point number too i showed that they are unknown and that fact makes them underrated, today.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoe - why reluctantly?

1. It is possible to debate (and win) subjective resolutions. Myself and others have done it successfully. Additionally, I could argue that morals are subjective, and Lord knows that is the foundation of most of the debates on this site.

2. Pro has over 2,000 characters remaining at the end of the round for which he claimed he "wouldn't have enough," therefore we can assume that he was just being lazy. That's not my problem. Further, we both have equal amount of characters that we can each use per round. Sometimes it's a huge challenge to adhere to the character limit, however, a in most cases a good debater can work around it. I managed to respond to all of Pro's arguments AND make that list of my own, so...

Anyway thanks for the vote - I appreciate it :)
Posted by PoeJoe 5 years ago
PoeJoe
I reluctantly voted CON. As it was a debate on a subjective resolution, it would have been hard for anyone to fulfill the burden of proof. Also, PRO's lack of characters disallowed him to counter all of theLwerd's examples. Oh well.
Posted by Katerina 5 years ago
Katerina
TheLwerd,Of course it is impossible for one person to play all the instruments at once, it would make me a fool to make such claim. I also understand that this particular topic isn't about M.J at all. I guess my fondness for Michael got the better of me when I seen you discredit him as a song writer and I couldn't resist the urge to prove you wrong. You also mention a voice as an instrument which M.J is using in composing, he is a brilliant beat boxer too but, let's not go there and just close this topic before you get completely annoyed with me for being such a know it all FAN xP
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 5 years ago
Vi_Veri
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 5 years ago
theitalianstallion
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 Miserlou 5 years ago
Miserlou
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by mickeyhess 5 years ago
mickeyhess
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 5 years ago
Zerosmelt
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 PoeJoe 5 years ago
PoeJoe
ZerosmeltDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23