The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Arts
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 35965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

shakuntala

Pro

This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary it is Neo Dada
Anti-poetry is the dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules.

Aesthetics-Of-Anti-Poetry-Manifesto-Poetry-Criticism-By-An-Anti-Poet

http://www.scribd.com...

quote
". Over throw the coteries of the politically correct bourgeoise. Smash break rupture language. Down with middle class speak. Down with poetry. Rise up Anti-poetry.

Anti-poetry proclaims the freedom of the imagination over and against rigidity conformity and the straight jacketing of the mind by the tyranny of language. Anti-poetry is poetry that breaks the arbitrary conventions of poetry for a particular historical period

It is revolutionary as it brings new ideas and inspirations to an ossified and atrophied medium. It is avant-garde as it leads the way into new unexplored regions of creativity and ways of seeing thing

Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry is its iconoclastic use of language. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry for all historical eras is it abusive relationship with correct notions of language use "
"
Duncan

Con

Now, this explains a lot. You have lost a string of debates regarding poetry, so now you begin a debate supporting anti poetry, which I've known as the "modern art" of poetry, or the poetry for hipsters. Clearly you have lost the ability to see objectively, as anti poetry as described in your source attacks the idea of putting overly long or fancy words in a poem, and still you follow conventional writing yourself, using long words just to sound smart. I quote you;

Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry is its iconoclastic use of language.

Was that necessary? Or was it just to sound intellectual? Your double standards won't stand well in this debate, and onto the actual debate topic,

Revolutionary; radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

This style does not seem innovative or new at all. In fact the frequent use of the word hitherto in the source (used 18 times) as well as other shakespearean examples of language, this is in fact a very old style, not radical at all, and rather, rebellious. The difference between a rebellion and a revolution is that a revolution is a victory, a change. This is a weak and pompous attempt to disregard all the skill in poetry and as we go further in, replace the idea of creating imagery and using words in different contexts to create texture for a poem, just deliberately misspelling words in an attempt to appear artistic. Also, on Neo Dada, an idea that is 100 years old cannot be new or innovative in any way. This is just a rant of a style made by those who cannot understand or follow the basics of poetry. You see, there were revolutionary poets who broke the conventional rules of poetry, but they were also poets like Emily Dickinson, masters in their field and held as such for decades. Shame on you to compare this to the work of old masters, to say that they enslaved with their language, despite using it to call for freedom.

Here is an extract of the source you listed.

XII
Through out the dell I followered her about
Hiding hear pearing there in out every where
Behind tree within bush I did my love pear on
All day long hiding on her I leared upon.

The only value given is by the anti poets themselves, that by misspelling the word, it changes the quality of the poem somehow. But even that is not new. This is another cookie cutter slab of unorthodox writing that you have slapped into a debate, and I bet you'll call this a sham and try again should you lose. As always, burden of proof is on you, Proposition.

Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

Pro says
"Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules"

so
con says
"As always, burden of proof is on you"

you have given my proof yourself

"XII
Through out the dell I followered her about
Hiding hear pearing there in out every where
Behind tree within bush I did my love pear on
All day long hiding on her I leared upon."
Duncan

Con

No, you can't just paste it there; you have to explain WHY it is revolutionary. This is not evidence, that's just what I pasted earlier to show how this wasn't a revolutionary idea. The Jury is still out on whether you're just a troll debater. Until then, better actually submit some proof- you know what?

Proof; Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Yeah, your proof has to establish a truth, not just sit there.
Ok, waiting for your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"No, you can't just paste it there; you have to explain WHY it is revolutionary
'
I have said WHY

to repeat
""Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules"nd con supplied the poem that is an example of that

so
1 i have told you what anti poetry is and why it is revolutionary
2) con has given an example of poetry that I say exemplifies that

con disagrees
1 but does not gives us an argument why
2 con supplies the poetry example that use to show my point
3 con does not tell us why that example does not show my point
4 con rubbishes the theory of anti poetry
but
as the authors says
"Hitherto poets have sort the approbation of the establishment Anti-poets seek its reprobation; for then the Anti-poet is a success"

thus I should win
Duncan

Con

This rebuttal is solely for the voters as it appears that you are incapable of understanding my argument. The topic for this debate is the idea that this is a revolutionary theory, ie; innovative and radical. However, the idea itself dates back to 1915 at the latest, which means that it is older than most human beings now. This is hardly innovative, and the style itself is bland, and involves mispronouncing words, nothing more. But that does not influence the topic. It is not revolutionary because it is not a radical or innovative concept anymore, and any further analysis on the poem is simply an attack on your poor understanding and appreciation of poetry. If you'd like to defend the quality of the poem or poet in question, by all means, send me a personal challenge; I will gladly accept. Until then, I'll sum up my argument.

This style is meant to be revolutionary and new, but in fact dates back to the first world war and despite attacking the old masters of poetry and calling their overly complicated language enslavement and tyranny, it uses that very same pompous and middle class language it hates so much. I dub Anti Poetry "Poetry for Hipsters", and will name it as such even if you challenge me again on it. This is more of the same, but lesser in quality, and tries to compensate for that poor quality by sayin that it is supposed to be like that, as a stand against good poetry. This debate is over, but if I catch you putting this debate up again, by Kavanagh's sake I'll just take it on right away. Until then, by all means, send me another debate on poetry, I can't resist a challenge.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.