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

This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 59738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This love poem is better than Shakespeare's sonnet 147 in conveying real passion emotion and love

if you are not going to read the poem then there is no point debating
Sonnet 147
by William Shakespeare

My love is as a fever, longing still
For that which longer nurseth the disease,
Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,
The uncertain sickly appetite to please.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I desperate now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now reason is past care,
And frantic-mad with evermore unrest.
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed,
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as Hell, as dark as night.

Shakespeares talks of his love being a fever yet we do not feel this fever his fever is just of the mind Deans lines convey clearly the pssion of love we feel we hear that passion
Take these lines from Shakespeares
"And frantic-mad with evermore unrest.
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are"

Again Shakespeare talks of frantic thoughts and discourse of a madman yet this is just words his lines do not convey any frantic or mad discourse "all just words and intellect
Yet take Dean lines
"Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved and make my heart to thud and my veins to sing with thy lips make my ears ring with the love thee does to I"

Clearly we hear the heart soul of longing of love

Shakespeares lines are lifeless dead nothing of his heart comes through only his mind is talking he is not speaking from a heart of love but only from a mind that intellectualizes love


Warning: Graphic language (due to mature topic).

Hi shakuntala, and thanks for the opportunity to debate!

My opponent has offered an awful, erotic poem written by Colin Leslie Dean, according to the blog that my opponent has introduced, as being better than Shakespeare's sonnet 147. It is unclear whether the criterion of the debate is overall quality or on "real passion emotion and love."

Thankfully, Shakespeare's sonnet is superior in all these criteria. However, I still ask that my opponent clarify regardless.

I should point out that the entire text that shakuntala has written is WORD-FOR-WORD the text of the blogger.

Pro claims that Shakespeare, in approaching love "intellectually" is Apollonian (which is bad), compared to the less intellectual approach, which s/he claims is therefore Dionysian (and this good). I find this analysis to be overly-simplified.

The identification of Dionysian and Apollonian elements in literature (and life) came from Neitzsche in his Birth of the Tragedy. In this book he claimed to have found a tension of Apollonian (The Greek god associated with medicine and other intellectual pursuits) and Dionysian (the Greek god associated with drunkenness and revelry) within early Greek tragedies. Importantly, he emphasized the tension of the combined elements: the Apollonian craft constructed a Dionysian undercurrent of passion. The Apollonian construct was necessary for the purposes of identifying situations, whereas the Dionysian emotive undercurrents issued a gothic-like passion in which one transcends one's context and even identity. That is, one loses one's conscientiousness, one's self-reflectedness, one's self/other divide. Hence, the Dionesian form is more like the union of the self with the context (such as being irrationally moved to anger in a scene, forgetting oneself). The Apollonian on the other hand categorizes and identifies, and is in fact quite reflective. Neitzsche did not criticize the later Greek tragedies for being Apollonian, but for being ONLY Apollonian. The Apollonian element is important for understanding the forms and features of a situation, but if successful can lure the audience into a state of unreflective passion. [,]

Like the later Greek plays that Nietzsche describes as being the downfall of tragedy, Pro's poem similarly suffers from an overdose of the Apollo and a deficit of Dionysus. The Pro's poem is in fact entirely reflexive, and extremely forced. I feel sorry for the narrators of the poem--they are obviously forcing themselves to feel. Instead of actually having passionate sex, the narrators are constantly commenting on what they are doing, and how much they love each other, treating the present as the past. This is the opposite of Dionysus: instead of taking pleasure in sex, they are trying to muster pleasure in the thought of the fact that they are having sex. They are like the annoying people at a party that are constantly reminding people of what a good time they're all having. In making the sexual language explicit, it is the naughty words themselves that are erotic, and not the passion of the audience (which the audience must approach themselves--Dionysian passion can never be forced). Thus, Pro's linked poem is entirely self conscious (Apollonian) and not Dionysian.

In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is a paradigm of a Dionysus/Apollo dialectic. Shakespeare uses humor and unexpected language constructs to surprise the audience into a state of un-reflected passion. Instead of saying "I want to have sweet sweet sex," which is designates a certain kind of emotion but is hardly Dionysian, Shakespeare says "My love is a fever," an Apollonian construct that leads to a kind of perplexity, and out of that that perplexity comes a moment of understanding in which the reader is swept away with the narrator in a passion for the disease. The reader loses herself at the humerus image of Reason as the angry doctor, and the narrator as the irresponsible madman, not taking the dosage of sobriety from love's high. I picture the words coming stammering from the lips of one inches away for her lover, and briefly forget that we are different people. Hence, Shakespeare's sonnet is both more intelligent and also more genuinely emotive in a Dionysian sense than the crass sex un-metered, un-rhymed line-by-line. (Don't forget that the Dionysian does not exclude intelligence--After all, all of Nietzsche's works are incredibly intelligent). Whereas Pro's poem tries to calculate and hold captive love, Shakespeare's sonnet wonders at it (and evokes it).

Reduction of love:
Despite the couple's constantly reminding themselves that they are in love, it is clear that in Pro's poem the couple's relationship is with each other's body parts and not each other. Unlike Shakespeare's sonnet that address the person, the "lovers" address each other's genitals, as well as other body parts as they relate to sex. By the end of Pro's poem, we do get a clear picture of the combatant's physiological arousal, but honestly with less crass language I could find these same effects in an anatomy textbook. We get no feel for the wrestlers' emotions (hopes, fears, embarrassment, familiarity), their internal states, their passions. Love, in this case, is nothing more than two people stimulating each other's privates.

Pro's poem is hardly a demonstration of love, or even emotions. It equates love with sex, something that is obviously untrue. Supposing a friend asked about love, or a child. What is a better depiction of love: "Lick up the dew... from my c***'s hole" (Pro's poem), or "love is a fever."? While the former lists the basic movements involved in some sex, Shakespeare's narrator address a person, not a pleasure-utility robot. Under Pro's depiction of poetry, one in search of love should leave one's kids in search of better sex potential. Whereas Pro's poem reduces the Beloved to a mere sex toy, Shakespeare's descriptions raise the individual, casting the Beloved in materials that showcase the Beloved's qualities. Shakespeare actually speaks to how the person is feeling (out of control, partaking in guilty pleasure, humbled, keen, dazzled), and not merely how one's genitals look.

Normative genitals.
Pro's poem restricts its love to a preoccupation with certain genitals--the poem then is only inclusive of "love" (intercourse) for cisgender, heterosexual or bisexual men and women with normative genitals. There is no room for queer relationships and Trans* bodies, including intersex, agender, lesbian, disabled, old, etc. individuals. By being preoccupied with only normative bodily functions, the author fails to acknowledged actual love, which is surely experienced by queer, Trans*, old, and disabled persons.

In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet allows any sort of human to take the position of either the lover or the beloved. This is a signal that Shakespeare has described love more completely and usefully than Pro's poem. In the sonnet, the focus is on the relationship between people, which is something that fits in an inter-sectional conflagration of narratives (consider how the old unsighted gay intersex generfluid male with no use of genitals fits into the story flawlessly), rather than merely the straight, young, cisgener, and able individuals.

Pro's poem (unlike Shakespeare's) reduces people to the sum of their sexual body parts, which is a kind of objectification. Calling that objectification "love" is a highly fallacious understanding relationships that is at the root of sexism. People are more than their body parts' utility in sex, after all, and love is between people. Thus, Shakespeare's sonnet better embodies love.
Debate Round No. 1


hi con

con says
"In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is a paradigm of a Dionysus/Apollo dialectic. Shakespeare uses humor and unexpected language constructs to surprise the audience into a state of un-reflected passion. Instead of saying "I want to have sweet sweet sex," which is designates a certain kind of emotion but is hardly Dionysian, Shakespeare says "My love is a fever"

just by saying
"My love is a fever"does not convey any experience or emotion of that -just an intellectualization as con says "Apollonian construct"
but dean poems does convey fever-is Dionysian

""Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved "
you can hear feel the passion in these lines
where as all you get from Shakespeare is mere intellect mere words

con says
"The reader loses herself at the humerus image of Reason" exactly my point all Apollonian

where deans line take the reader on an EMOTIONAL experience due to the passion of the lines

con says
". By the end of Pro's poem, we do get a clear picture of the combatant's physiological arousal,"
my point deans poem takes you into the people minds makes you feel their arousal-
Shakespeare is in the head you feel nothing emotional from Shakespeare only intellect all Apollonian

con says
" but honestly with less crass language "
crass language has nothing to do with any thing in deans case this language conveys the passion the emotion
Shakespeare's language conveys no emotion only words

con says
. We get no feel for the wrestlers' emotions (hopes, fears, embarrassment, familiarity), their internal states, their passions. Love, in this case, is nothing more than two people stimulating each other's privates."

you are wrong how much passion and state of he mind is these lines
from dean
"I be fainting with the longing of thee for me
I be fainting with my longing for thee oh come beloved I sigh into a swoon do I sigh upon the sweet lips of thee my sighs are as butterflies winging upon golden light
my sighs are as the cooing of love doves in flight
my sighs are as the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds scented meadows"

we hear feel her longing for her lover we enter right into her mind
but Shakespeare lines
"MY THOUGHTS and my discourse as madmen's are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed,
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as Hell, as dark as night."

he mentions his thoughtss but gives us no experience of what he is thinking no passion no emotion he only tell us his thoughts a -are of a madmans he

again this Shakespeare
"my discourse as madmen's are,"
conveys nothing of his madness except just telling us

but deans words convey her emotions
we hear feel see her sighs
"my sighs are as the cooing of love doves in flight
my sighs are as the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds scented meadows"

I could go on all I will say is my examples show why deans poem is better than Shakespeare's

any one who read both poems would immediately see hear the passion emotion
Shakespeare just words just dead language convey only intellect ideas- all Apollonian


Thanks for the response.

Pro has dropped nearly all of my analysis, making my arguments less of a debate than a one-way conversation. For one thing, Pro dropped that his first round was plagiarized, being without quotes and yet word-for-word the written text of the blogger.

Criterion: (overall quality)
I asked Pro to provide a criterion or criteria on which to evaluate our debate. Having failed to provide one, I recommend that the two poems be evaluated in terms of overall quality. This criteria can include ethics, grammar, prose, ability to convey emotion, or none of the above. The winner of the debate will be the one best able to convey that their designated poem is superior in terms of overall quality.

Pro has dropped my entire history of the concepts of Dionysian and Apollonian. Like I stated (and cited) before, the two concepts stem from Nietzsche's _Birth of the Tragedy_.

Also dropped is the fact that something can be intellectual AND Dionysian. In fact, Nietzsche suggested that works that contain both intelligence and rapture are superior than the two separated. (It is important here to distinguish between the "Dionysian man" and the Dionysian elements of literature. Nietzsche has not suggested that only the Dionysian element should be incorporated in a work of art). Thus, Pro's complaining that Shakespeare's work is too intellectual is irrelevant, because that neither necessitates the Apollonian nor excludes the Dionysian. Furthermore, the most emotional works are often the most intelligent.

Pro has also dropped the fact that the key feature of the Dionysian/Apollonian dichotomy is not stupidity vs intelligence, but unity vs separateness. I pointed out that the explicit text of Dean's poem actually mediate the passionate experience. Liken the explicitness of the text to saying "sex sex sex sex." In this case, it is not actually the experience of sex that is invoked in reading this phrase. Instead, the word "sex" replaces the mental emotion in the reader as the object of arousal. Similarly, the "lovers" in Dean's text are constantly commenting on the fact that they are, indeed, having sex. Thus, not only does the poem's explicit language distract from the possibility of Dionysian emotion/passion, but the "lovers'" constantly reassuring themselves that they are having sex is entirely Apollonian, and furthermore prevents excludes all of the emotions that the author is apparently trying to convey.

Pro's poem uses metaphors that are tired and cliche--doves, dew, "ghazel." In contrast, Shakespeare lived in the 1500s, and invented many of the metaphors that we now consider cliches. Pro's poem is but an imitation of the many that came before Pro.

Pro's metaphors are scattered and inconsistent. One moment the lover is a dove, the next dew, and the next a c*** hole. Shakespeare's metaphors all served a central cause--in contrast, Pro's themes are useless (they did not create any sort of lasting illusion for the lover). To illustrate, imagine a person with all of the metaphors that Pro's poem gives put together. That person would be a garbled mess.

Pro claims that Shakespeare's short sonnet does not describe the author's madness. However, the point of the story is not the madness, but love. Love is described as being a kind of madness. Had Shakespeare continued to describe madness, he'd have gotten off-track.

Pro's poem uses a very simple construction--s/he first identifies something that happens in sex (sighs, licking, etc.) and then compares it to something pretty, i.e. "the cooing of love doves in flight," "the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds [sic] scented meadows." There is nothing especially interesting or skillful about putting two pretty things together. It does not serve a central understanding, nor does it give a consistent perspective to the audience.

Furthermore, Dean's poem uses "Thee" and "Thy" and "Thou," not for any particular purpose, but simply because the author wants to sound fancy (i.e. Shakespearean or like the King James Bible). Having "thee" juxtaposing "c*** hole" reveals the insincerity of the author's language. In contrast, Shakespeare's words are sincere and consistent, producing a central image that is intriguing and elicits a Dionysian passion.

I have caught spelling and punctuation errors in Dean's poem, including spelling gazelle incorrectly and writing "worlds" instead of "worlds' " or "world's." There is no consistent meter in Dean's poem, nor does s/he stylistically remove punctuation. I can only assume then that this is an oversight, which is inexcusable if one wants to compare oneself to the greatest English writer who ever lived.

Shakespeare said much more in a few lines with an extremely stringent rhyming scheme and meter than Dean managed in absolute free form and many lines. Shakespeare's skill is obvious.

Objective skill:
William Shakespeare was ranked in the top ten of "10 best writers according to critics," "10 best writers according to readers," "10 best poets (first place)," and "100 best writers of all time (5th place)." ( Dean managed none of these feats.

Here, William Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer in the English language:

Dean has none of these qualifications. If we are to judge overall quality, then, it is apparent that according to inter-subjective analysis that Shakespeare would win.

Only straight, cis, able, young
Dean's project is obsessed with certain active genitals. It is apparently only interested in young, straight, cis, heterosexual couples. This, obviously, is not the paradigm of love. Dean's exclusion suggests that only certain people can fall in love, which is obviously untrue. In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is possible for nearly every human, and thus is closer to actually exemplifying love.

Pro completely dropped my analysis on objectification--love and people are reduced to the sum of their sexual parts. This is an awful reduction, and dehumanizes other people and perpetuates myths surrounding sex--that sex is the same as screwing, and love the same as sex.
Debate Round No. 2


con says
Pro has dropped my entire history of the concepts of Dionysian and Apollonian. Like I stated (and cited) before, the two concepts stem from Nietzsche's _Birth of the Tragedy_."
that history is irrelevant just as grammar punctuation etc

You have chosen to ignore my analysis of both poems- and just give us history and English lessons

you give no examples from sonnet 147 to show how why they are more loving than deans
all you give is what someone teaching English would give to a class
your position is that sonnet 147 is a better love poem than dean-so PROVE that assertion

so stop giving English lessons and back up you con position with analysis of both poems with examples
if you cant prove your position with examples and analysis then I must in the debate


Thanks, Pro.

Unfortunately, my opponent has dropped virtually all of my points that I made, as well as most of their own. My opponent says that instead of providing textual examples (which I did), I only taught History and English to Dean. My opponent claims that Dean's poem is superior to one written by the greatest poet who ever lived. It would be a shame if he had to be taught history, English, and spelling by a DDO debater.

Criterion (overall quality)
My opponent claimed that the literary inferiority of Dean's poem is irrelevant to the debate. Let's review: In round one, my opponent failed to say what the debate was about. I asked my opponent directly whether it was about love, or overall quality. My opponent failed to answer. I then wrote that the debate should be considered the overall quality of the poem.

Thus, not only is my opponent wrong that the overall quality of the poem is irrelevant, s/he apparently has not read any of my arguments all the way through since round one.

Apollonian/Dionysian (history lesson)
My opponent claimed that my history of the Apollonian/Dionysian distinction is irrelevant, failing to notice that the history had a point--it showed that the Shakespearean sonnet had the appropriate blend of Apollo and Dionysus, thereby earning Nietzsche's hypothetical approval; in contrast, Dean's poem is merely Apollonian.

My opponent also dropped that the Shakespearean sonnet's implicit language is more provocative of emotion, especially love, in the readership (such as by invoking memories) than Dean's poem.

Reduction of love (relationship lesson)
My opponent failed to distinguish between love and arousal. S/he claims that the genital-focused verses are love, when in fact they are merely physio-chemical arousal--something that even rape can accomplish--though obviously the latter is thoroughly horrifying and causes immense/traumatic suffering. Pro dropped these points.

Spelling/grammar (English lesson)
Dean's poem has atrocious grammar and spelling, as I pointed out. If I looked at a resume with bad grammar/spelling, I would assume that the author would show the same carelessness under my employ. Dean's work is being compared to the greatest poet of all time--if he cannot even spare the effort to spell correctly, how can he be expected to be in the same league (so to speak) as Shakespeare? This does not mean that Dean's poem is bad--is just isn't anything close to an all-time classic. Pro dropped these points.

Style (English lesson)
Dean's poem is simplistic (even in the one and only quote that Pro provided)--simply comparing sexual phenomenon to beautiful things. These things are not even consistent, making the whole point of metaphors and similes useless. Dean might as well drop the Shakespearean pretense and blog about his sexual experiences directly. The 'thee' and 'thou' confuses me, firstly because this is a contemporary poem and secondly because they are next to phrases like "c*** hole."

Objectification (life studies)
Women are more than mere "c*** holes." Men are more than mere polls. The equating of love and genital activity in Dean's poem reduces people to mere sexual objects. Dean's poem reflects a messed-up idea of love. In contrast, Shakespeare's poem approaches the whole person, not their parts.

Objective standards (comparative literature studies)
I showed critical listings of Shakespeare being among the most influential writers, and being in fact the greatest playwright and greatest poet in history. Most people would obviously disagree with Pro: They would find, instead, that Shakespeare's works very effectively articulate love. In contrast, Pro has not been able to show any such critical acclaim for Dean.

Only cis, straight, able, young people (women and gender studies)
Dean's depiction of working straight sexual bodies as the essence of love fails to recognize anyone who is not cis, straight, able, or young. (That is, trans*, queer, disabled, or old people). Love is not limited to heterosexual sex. Shakespeare, who may be been bisexual or gay, reflected this fluidity of love in his works. Dean, on the other hand, does not. Pro has constantly dropped this point.
Debate Round No. 3


hi con
Even if you think sonnet 147 is a better love poem than deans in terms of this debate you must be objective and base your voting on objective criteria ie the proof given for ones position

well in conclusion

Con has only given assertions without ANY examples with analysis from dean or Shakespeare to back up cons position that sonnet 147 is abetter love poem than deans
1) con has given no examples with analysis from sonnet 147
2)con has given no examples with analysis from dean
all con has done is give us a history lesson and English lesson

con has not even told us why deans lack of punctuation makes it a bad love poem Con has only told as that it is bad English--I could say the lack of punctuation adds to the intensity of the emotions conveyed in the poem When people are angry they do not stop and punctuate their expression what we get is a long continuous expression The same effect is conveyed in deans poem by lack of punctuation

all con has done is give assertions about deans poem
con has not even told us why sonnet 147 is a better love poem

1)I have given examples with analysis of deans poem to show that it is more of a love poem than Shakespeares -ie fits the definition better
2) I have given examples with analysis of sonnet 147 to back up my position

Therefore I should win the debate


Hi everyone!

Pro claimed last round that only s/he provided any examples and analysis on Dean's and Shakespeare's poems. This is obviously untrue--I have repeatedly offered in-depth examples of problems with Dean's poem and boons to Shakespeare's sonnet. I have indeed brought out examples of text, and even offered explanations of Dean's text. This will be made crystal clear in this conclusion.

Furthermore, it is Pro who failed to offer any analysis on why Dean's poem is more loving or emotional. At first Pro claimed that Dean's poem was Dionysian and Shakespeare's was Apollonian, and thus Dean's poem is more sincere and emotional. I have shown that to be completely wrong.

If Pro gave additional reasons for why Dean's poem is more emotional and more loving than Shakespeare's poem, then why didn't s/he identify those reasons last round? Moreover, why did Pro drop every point that I made claiming the contrary?

Pro claims that I gave no examples from Sonnet 147. True, I did not quote it much, but that was because the entire sonnet is short and can be seen in round 1. That does NOT mean I did not offer examples, however! I pointed out that the madness/illness of the narrator describes the juxtaposition of rapture and helplessness in an anecdote that was CONSISTENT, as well as humerus. I pointed out that wit of the sonnet offered a respite on self reflection, allowing one to empathize with the narrator wholly--an ideal tension of Apollonian and Dionysian. I suggested that the love of the narrator was toward the beloved's whole self, and not the sum of their sexual parts/potential. Did I really not give any examples from Shakespeare's work?

Pro claims that I gave no examples from Dean's poem. I believe I pointed out how the focus on the sexual parts were distracting and insincere, making it impossible to empathize fully and thus remaining in the realm of the intellectual Apollonian (which is bad). I pointed out how the style of the poem was long and scattered--different incompatible metaphors were used every line, making for a confusing overall picture. Various body parts are given different characteristics that together make nothing interesting but fancy-sounding fluff--is the female a butterfly, an opera singer, a dove, dew, or a "ghazel?" Or is she a "c*** hole?" There is an incompatibility of metaphors in Dean's work, which ruins the whole point of making metaphors. Thus, Dean's poem attempts to be fancy, but actually sounds insincere. Observe the overuse of "thee" and "thou," etc.

"Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved and make my heart to thud and my veins to sing with thy lips make my ears ring with the love thee does to I"

How about a more sincere version, without a confusing overdose of "thee" and "thou"?

"Offer me your bare soul on my skin, your soul that floods my eyes and pounds my heart and courts my ears and inspires my soprano veins to song" (--me).

Pro's one argument against Shakespeare is that his sonnet is too "intellectual," when in fact Dean's poem attempts the same thing. Did I really give no examples?

Reason to vote for Shakespeare:

1. Pro's whole first round was plagiarized.

2. Dean's poem was Apollonian, which Pro claimed was bad.
3. In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet contained Dionysian elements, which Pro (and Nietzsche) claimed is better.
4. Shakespeare's sonnet is able to provide passionate emotion, which Dean's poem fails to do.
5. Shakespeare's poem provides an insight into the emotional state of the narrator, and not simply their arousal (unlike Dean's).
6. Shakespeare's metaphor is consistent and depicts the love of the narrator clearly, without being mediated by self-reflection (unlike Dean's metaphors).
7. Shakespeare's poem is intellectually superior (by Pro's admission, more or less).

Reduction of love/Objectification
8. Dean's poem is preoccupied with physiological arousal, and aroused body parts. This is lust, not love, and yet Dean equates the two.
9. Equating love and arousal is obviously wrong and quite dangerous. Rape can even be physiologically arousing (body parts still do their function during rape), but it is nonetheless awful and evil and painful and traumatic.
10. Dean objectifies the woman in his poem, making her nothing more than the object of and potential for sexual affection.
11. Shakespeare's poem is an ode to the person, and not their body parts.

12: Dean's poem has no clear theme, but Shakespeare does (guilty love as an illness, the narrator as the foolish patient).
13. Dean's poem overdoses on 'thee' and 'thou' for no apparent reason.
14. Dean's metaphors are inconsistent and don't add anything except for perceived fanciness.
15. Shakespeare managed to say more in a few short lines with stringent meter and rhyming scheme than Dean managed in free form.
16. Dean's metaphors are cliche, whereas Shakespeare's lines still seem novel after 400+ years.

17. Dean made some spelling and grammar mistakes for no apparent reason. Pro suggested that was because the narrator was in a hurry, but in fact the narrator is supposed to be engaged in slow and sensual sex. The poem is not supposed to be rushed. However, it could be that the author was rushed, which is inexcusable next to the greatest poet of all time. Dean spelled, for example, gazelle wrong, and frequently forgot apostrophes (which does not affect the meter, although Dean did not use meter).
18. Shakespeare did not make any spelling or grammar mistakes, with every syllable being carefully measured.

Objective skill:
19. Obviously, Pro and I are biased in our evaluations of the skills of Dean and Shakespeare. Therefore, we must rely on third parties.
20. Shakespeare is widely considered the greatest poet of all time.
21. Pro failed to show a single person besides her/himself who even liked Dean or his poem.

Cis, straight, able, young
22. Dean's poem describes love as being inextricably connected to one's working sexual body parts, in a heterosexual way. Thus, queer people, trans* people, intersex people, disabled people, and many old people would be incapable of love within Dean's work.
23. Shakespeare's sonnet opens the door of love to most everyone, and thus better accesses love.

Shakespeare's work is better written, more emotional, more loving, more intelligent, more engaging, and more critically-acclaimed than Dean's poem. Pro also plagiarized the first round.

Last thing:
Dean's poem isn't bad. It really isn't. However, when one claims that an amateur poem is better than Shakespeare's, one should expect to acquire some critical "bruises" along the way.

Thanks for the debate, Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I suspect that Pro did not plagiarize, and that he is instead spamming his own poems. However, within the context of this debate, a charge of plagiarism was made, and then dropped and, frankly, given the nature of Pro's consistent spamming of the debate section with what I suspect are his own poems, I am disinclined to be sympathetic. As to arguments, it was quite clear that Pro was out of his depth regarding the literary analysis of the two poems, and as Con noted he didn't really address Con's case in any substantive fashion. Fundamentally, "better" is rather subjective. But Con's grounds were "better" subjective grounds, so as far as I'm concerned the win quite clearly goes to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.