This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous
Debate Rounds (4)
if you disagree then please give us examples and argument not just assertions that I am are wrong
show us that you have read the poem by giving us examples from the poem -as I have in the above
The resolution places the onus probandi on my opponent, please take note that according to the rules of logic we deduce from the resolution that the Spirit of the Motion suggests that the 'poem' is very humorous for everyone. When all, or some is not specified we take it to be 'all'. Since the resolution does not same: 'Many people find it humorous' or 'Some find it humorous' shakuntala has taken upon him an immeasurable burden. Personally I did not find any part of the poem even mildly funny, I found it gross. Before I begin however, let us consider some fundamental meanings:
1. Humorous: Causing laughter and amusement, being comical; having or showing a sense of humor.
2. Very: In a high degree.
Now what needs to be shown is that this 'poem' is extremely funny for all sorts of members. Since shakuntala has not provided any arguments, and the onus rests upon him I win this debate here and now; I will still provide some counter-arguments.
A1: There Is a Subjectivity In The Works of Literature:
Of all the human disciplines, the field of literature is the most subjective. While some believe Goethe to be the greatest, others believes Shakespeare to be so, and some others believe Marlowe to have that prize. In Literature there is really no say. Let us discuss then one of the most famous works ever: The Merchant of Venice. This story focuses on the Jew, Shylock who loses everything for he tried to trick a Venetica: Antonio. When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where everyone enjoyed laughing at the misfortune of the Jew, who lost his house, his daughter and all his business. Over time however people have realizes that the play is extremely biased against Shylock, and what happens to Shylock is greatly saddening. The comedy was now seen as a tragedy, and a new name viz. tragi-comedy was given. Also while the style may be in a comic way, some people still find the play offensive. I wish only to show that shakuntala's play may be disliked by people, he need not prove that his style is comic, he needs to prove that people find it funny.
This same subjectivity applies to the above poem. I will quote lines and show how I, and a number of other people may be offended by these lines. I mean the poem is verbal porn.
'flaccid cocks eye gleaming with semen drop like liquid pearl' I for one do not find the imagery of male penises dripping semen very funny, I find it disgusting. Or 'the girlies their legs did spread and knees to breasts did bring as their cunnies did splay wide like gigantic tropic blooms' I realize this may be offensive to many people, including me. At best this is erotica, how is it even midly humorous. I certainly find no cause for laughter, and therefore the poem cannot be 'very humorous'.
A2: It Does Not Possess Any Form of Comic Relief, Any Certain Plot, or any fantastic Jokes:
The entire poem is devout of comic relief or any form of intellectual literary devices. I realize English is not my first language, but I did not understand half of that poem on the first read, esoteric words have been jumbled together to form a perverted attempt at art.
There is no clear line other than Puck examining naked girls and then 'ram and fvcked and cum' in them with 'great hardness and passion'. There are no jokes, and so this poem is hardly entertaining.
I did not have much to go on because Proposition while possessing the onus never presented any arguments. I have above shown that there is a subjectivity to literature, and in any case shakuntala's poetry is extremely offensive. The resolution collapses.
 Introduction to Logic, by Harry J. Gensler; Syllogistic Logic:
 Oxford Dictionaries:
 The Merchant of Venice: A Comedy? The Question of Genre In the Play:
 Merchant of Venice: Tragedy or Comedy?:
you make some good points
"Motion suggests that the 'poem' is very humorous for everyone"
and as you say
"The resolution places the onus probandi on my opponent,"
yes I accept that
which all I can say is you have given an example yourself that proves my point -as you seem to contradict yourself
1) you say about "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing at the misfortune of the Jew"
NOW YOU SAY EVERYONE FOUND IT HUMOROUS SO I ASK YOU TO PROVE THAT- JUST AS
you want me to prove that the poem MND is very humorous for EVERYONE
you say because you did not find the poem MND humorous then my claim is dis proven
I could say I bet there was Jew that did not find " Merchant of Venice" humorous so then that would disprove your claim
if you can make a claim that "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing .."
then I can make the claim that the poem MND is very humorous- even though you did not laugh
"The Merchant of Venice" was humorous and perhaps for some still is
so I can say the poem MND is very humorous
yes the poem might be porn
but that does not mean porn cannot be humorous
you seem to me very serious and seem to think that sex cannot be humorous - if you believe that then you are missing out on a lot of fun when you have sex
you say the poem is porno-as a put down- because it deals with cocks and cu.t
but you then when you have sex must see that as just a porno thing as you must get aroused which must mean by your views that you are watching porno or doing porno act
The first thing that I would like to talk about is the burden of proof analysis that has been discussed by shakuntala. He admits that he necessarily needs to show that the poem is universally, and necessarily funny and comical for everyone. He admits that the onus is upon him to prove such a claim. This is strange because he has provided absolutely no positive material to make his case. He simply goes on and tries, miserably, to debunk my argument. This must be taken into account.
His first refutation is a semantics game. He states that I said there was a time when everyone liked the Merchant of Venice, I meant that nearly everyone, but I shall accept this mistake of mine. We are not debating the Merchant of Venice so there is really no need for me to try and prove that the Merchant was unanimously liked. I shall even concede that I should have used a better word than 'everyone'.
Ladies and Gentlemen, respectfully sheweth, please note that my opponent has successfully shown that there is a possibility that the Merchant of Venice was not unanimously liked. This just proves my point regarding subjectivity I myself stated that it had mixed views also.
He seems to also assume that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same. Since they are separate identities it seems unfair to carry the analogy this far as shakuntala has done. My point was subjectivity, my argument, which may be found, was exactly what shakuntala has shown. I was wrong to say everyone because people had subjective opinions, just as they would with this poem. Since literature is subjective this poem is not very humorous.
My opponent has also not tackled my point regarding how it does not have comic relief, and does not use comic literary devices. On both tiers he has failed. I also once more remind the voters that not only did he not attack my subjectivity thesis, he also forgot to present a positive case.
All I can say is that I want to die a virgin, and that is again your subjective opinion. He also accepts there are people who dont find what Dean has written funny. He accepts it is porn, which is hardly funny.
"His first refutation is a semantics game. He states that I said there was a time when everyone liked the Merchant of Venice, I meant that nearly everyone,"
my demonstration was not a semantic one but an empirical one
ie that you stated as a fact that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous
you now say that you where wrong to say every one but you did present that claim to refute my claim so i am allowed to use your claim in my defense
"We are not debating the Merchant of Venice so there is really no need for me to try and prove that the Merchant was unanimously liked"
but you used the "Merchant of Venice" in your demonstration to prove my position wrong
therefore i am entitled to critique your arguments
and your claim showed that if you can make a universal claim then so can I
"Ladies and Gentlemen, respectfully sheweth, please note that my opponent has successfully shown that there is a possibility that the Merchant of Venice was not unanimously liked. This just proves my point regarding subjectivity I myself stated that it had mixed views also."
con did say
as a fact that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous
your claim showed that if you can make a universal claim then so can I
"He seems to also assume that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same"
You are wrrong I did not assume anywhere that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same
"He accepts it is porn, which is hardly funny"
fact is porn can be funny- a humor that con can never see due to his dislike of what he says is disgusting sex
but to the REAL point con
I took and most people would take your claim that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous
as a rhetorical statement
this claim is rhetorical
""I"m so hungry I could eat a horse."
and that is what my claim "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous is ie it is a rhetorical statement
"A rhetorical statement can also use other devices such as hyperbole and anaphora to construct a more persuasive and powerful argument. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration in order to make a point, such as a common phrase like "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse."
so again my claim that
A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous that claim is a rhetorical
just as your claim that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous would be taken by most people to be a rhetorical statement
I want to remind the voters something. The onus is upon my opponent completely, he has presented absolutely no positive arguments, so even if he refutes my case, he would still lose because he has not justified his yardstick.
I want to make one more thing clear, while arguments use rhetoric, resolutions are meant to be taken literally. If everyone started adding 'context' to resolutions then the debate would go no where. So keeping in mind the definitions we have accepted in round one, we know that at the very least shakuntala has to show that his poem would induce great amounts of comic or laughter. Has he provided any arguments for this? He has not.
Onto the first contention, my wording may have been incorrect but even I stated that the Merchant of Venice got mixed views, and that is why it is a tragi-comedy. I made the mistake of using the word 'everyone' but I clearly justified it. I should remind you that while this is being used shakuntala has not once actually attacked the argument: the subjectivity of literature.
My opponent says porn can be funny, that is disgusting. Well the operative word is 'can'. My opponent is constantly arguing that he need only show that a significant part of the population find this funny. He has never shown this.
My opponent also leaves my argument about how the poem is esoteric and contains no comic devices. He does not fulfill his own condition of quoting parts of the poem as I have done. If anyone finds my post funny its because I overdosed by Nobilovol by mistake and my blood pressure is 90/65. Hallelujah!
"The onus is upon my opponent completely, he has presented absolutely no positive arguments,"
I point out that my claim was rhetorical-and thus does not require proof
just like this is rhetorical
" "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse." - and does not require proof
This is an arts debate -and not philosophy or logic - and thus should be discussed from a literature perspective Con did not see or understand this and carried on as if was a philosophy or logic debate
I thank you
Let me first start by stating that a resolution cannot be rhetorical, and otherwise was never argued by my opponent. The resolution is different from the argument which is actually called rhetoric. Secondly if shakuntala's 'claim was rhetorical-and thus does not require proof', why start a debate? Also rhetorical statements do need proof, and since my opponent admits that he provides no proof, and provides no argument to the belief that he need not provide proof I win.
Even if this is an arts debate, or literary debate there are concepts such as comical devices which could have been used. No evidence of any such thing was given. No defense against my subjectivity thesis was given, no argument against how this is pornographic and even inappropriate for debate.org was given. For all these reasons I beg to oppose.
The resolution collapses.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Admittedly, this is an inherently subjective subject. To say something is "hilarious" is to mean that it is hilarious to you and certain others, but not to everyone. Not every person is going to get the same joke and appreciate it. Given that, the goal here was for Pro to show that there are objective reasons to appreciate the humor found in this poem, such that there is a higher probability that more people will find it subjectively funny. So when Pro tells me that this is "rhetorical," and that he doesn't need to present a positive case when he accepted the inherent burden of proof is a major failure on his part, and sufficient reason alone to find in favor of Con, though Con did present sufficient reasons why it's unfunny, however much I may find personal disagreement with them. Sources go to Con as he was the only one to use any in support of his statements. Con also gets S&G due to the conspicuous misuse and disuse of capital letters.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.