The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
oculus_de_logica
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 56731
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

The National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean via Gamahucher Press for preservation
http://pandora.nla.gov.au...
colin leslie deans work is considered by the National Library of Australia to be of cultural value

note the guidelines says
http://pandora.nla.gov.au...
"In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection"
"recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge"
be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia "

"4.1 Australian content

4.1.1 To be selected for national preservation, a significant proportion of a work should

be about Australia (7); or
be on a subject of social, political, cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia and be written by an Australian author; or

be written by an Australian (8) of recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge.

4.1.2 It may be located on either an Australian or an overseas server. Australian authorship or editorship alone is insufficient grounds for national preservation. In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection
oculus_de_logica

Con

Welcome to this debate which will, if it will not diverge from the normal debates against the instigator, be composed entirely from actual logical arguments from Con while Pro will repeat the same debunked argument again and again. Sorry, this will be the only time I've intentionally shown bad conduct in a debate. With that out of the way, let us start.

The resolution resolved is:
Those who previously ridiculed Colin Leslie dean for his poetry now look ridiculous.

BoP is on him to provide examples and evidence of that sort and it is on me to debunk them.

The main argument of Pro is the following statement, summarized and paraphrased:
“Because the national library of Australia has selected Dean's website for archiving due to
aforementioned guidelines that means that It has to be good and thus those that said it is not look ridiculous.”

The last part of the sentence is based on the fact that not many have said that Dean's poetry is of any significant or notable quality. Just Google his name and/or use a DDO search box. You'll find those comments fairly fast.

Now, let's read over the guidelines: where the guidelines lists what a “publication” Is and what types of publications are eligible:

“Any document that would formerly have been published in print”
Substantial literary works”
and as formerly noted: cultural projects.

What my opponent is assuming is that his work is being published for it's quality and/or poetry only. If this would be the case then the resolution would at least have a possibility to be true, but it's never as simple as that.

What many don't actually realize is that Dean is a published author. Self-Published, mind you, but still has had his work published in print. The books he has written are, as well as having been printed, available on said site and thus he has shown that he has documents that formerly have been published in print.

He has written an incredible amount of books and poems and thus his works are “substantial” not by their quality or actual content or impact, I couldn't find his work cited anywhere outside the self published sites and his own user accounts, but by the shear number of them. A lot of authored books that have shown to be printed are substantial. Thus it is eligible trough this method.

The third one is where semantics are involved and is a material for a whole other debate: so I'll just run quickly trough it. “Cul
ture” is the key word here: so let's define it.

Culture: G2;kA2;lt@3;ə/

noun:
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

SO, anything that can be considered art of some form or a signal of human intellectual achievement can be considered to be “Of cultural value”. Note that there is nothing in that definition of a required quality of said culture, it just needs to fit the definition. A bad artwork, say, a painted garbage bin with a price tag on it, can still be “of cultural value.”

as the first argument went my opponent has assumed two things:
A) His website was selected for it's poetry solely.
B) His poetry is good
C) B results in the resolution being affirmed.

A is, as already covered, highly improbable. On Gamahucher we have a large range of publishing including Philosophy, Religion, one book under “fiction” and so on and so forth. Assuming that the press was selected because of poetry and not mathematics or philosophy is absurd. Because there is no guaranty that the poetic section of the press had anything to do with the election process it is impossible to use this argument effectively in support of the resolution.

B is irrelevant, for we see that being of “cultural value” does not equate to “Of great quality.” Dean's poetry is still Australian poetry and thus it is part of the culture of Australia. It, as all poetry, is a form of art and shows the intellectual properties of the Australian author.
Dean is a poet, Poetry is an art form and art is culture.

However, it is not a requirement that it is good, and even if A would be true B most certainly is a breaking point. Because Pandora did not, as far as I am aware of, give out an exact reasoning in support of the archive of the press we can not know if the quality of the published books was a factor: seeing how every single one of them was littered in grammatical errors in places where they shouldn't be considering the formality the author wished it to have we can deduce the reason. Quality was not a factor.

Because quality is not a factor when measuring if something is “of cultural value” the argument that because it is of cultural value it must be good is mute.


Now, A is negated, B is debunked and C was interlinked to B and thus is negated as a side-product. The resolution stands unproven and my opponent needs to have better evidence and reasoning than Pandora's archiving system.

Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"BoP is on him to provide examples and evidence of that sort and it is on me to debunk them"
2 points
1 the debate is addressed to those who ridiculed deans work-so they know who they are- if you are one then it is addressed to you to if you are not one of them then should not have accepted the debate

2) con says
" not many have said that Dean's poetry is of any significant or notable quality. Just Google his name and/or use a DDO search box. You'll find those comments fairly fast"

on this point con has just undermined his own argument by giving extra proof as to those who have ridiculed deans poetry

con says
""Any document that would formerly have been published in print"
"Substantial literary works"
and as formerly noted: cultural projects"

here con is talking about :"Any document that would formerly have been published in print""

con is talking about something different as
iin the case of dean NLA has preserved deans online site online not his printed works
quote
" In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection"

con says
"What my opponent is assuming is that his work is being published for it's quality and/or poetry only. If this would be the case then the resolution would at least have a possibility to be true,but it's never as simple as that

here con is trying to be clever and find reasons to undermine the fact that the NLA regards deans work of value
the NLA guideline for online sites is clear
"
" In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection"

also again they regard deans work of value
"4.1 Australian content

4.1.1 To be selected for national preservation, a significant proportion of a work should

be about Australia (7); or
be on a subject of social, political, cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia and be written by an Australian author; or

be written by an Australian (8) of recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge"
con is just trying to find reasons to devalue what the NLA have said is of value

con says
""Culture" is the key word here: so let's define it."
and
A bad artwork, say, a painted garbage bin with a price tag on it, can still be "of cultural value.""

again con is just trying to find reasons to devalue what the NLA have said is of value
the NLA giudline is clears
""In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection"
"recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge"
"be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia"

con can you see the words cultural, ..significance

con says
"as the first argument went my opponent has assumed two things:
A) His website was selected for it's poetry solely.
B) His poetry is good
C) B results in the resolution being affirmed. "
resolution being affirmed
again con is is just trying to find reasons to devalue what the NLA have said is of value

the fact is the NLA find deans work of cultural value
""In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection"
"recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge"
"be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia"

cons point
A if CON IS SAYING the NLA does not consider dean poetry of value but just his other works then con HAS TO PROVE THAT CLAIM
B in debate topic I have not assumed poetry is good again con is misrepresenting my claim what i am assuming only is it is of cultural value

the key word in the debate is ridicule the debate is about ridicule not good
con likes giving definitions so here is mine

rid"i"cule
[rid-i-kyool] Show IPA
noun
1.
speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
Synonyms
1. mockery, raillery, sarcasm, satire, irony. 2. banter, chaff, rally, twit, burlesque, satirize, lampoon. Ridicule, deride, mock, taunt imply making game of a person, usually in an unkind, jeering way. To ridicule is to make fun of, either sportively and good-humoredly, or unkindly with the intention of humiliating: to ridicule a pretentious person. To deride is to assail one with scornful laughter: to deride a statement of belief. To mock is sometimes playfully, sometimes insultingly, to imitate and caricature the appearance or actions of another: She mocked the seriousness of his expression.
c debate is not about resolution being affirmed, debate is about pointing out that Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous
debate is about con showing why Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry DONT look ridiculous
oculus_de_logica

Con

Okok, a lot of stuff to cover and a lot of things that just don't fit in this debate. that need to be refuted and corrected.

Pro firstly notes that this debate was addressed to those that the resolution is aimed at. Nowhere did he mention this nor imply and as so, even if this would be of relevance to the debate it would still be illogical to assume that position now. Even if I was not intended to accept the debate there was no way for me to know that beforehand.

Secondly he said I undermined my own argument by pointing out that his works have been ridiculed. Note that the resolution does not include that and all logical interpretations of the debate would find the fact irrelevant. Pointing out what was given is not undermining the argument for there is no disagreement between pro, con and the resolution that Dean's work is ridiculed.

He then points out that the website is online as opposed to in print. I concede to that sentence alone, as it isn't a part of the debate. The fact is that the guideline mentioned: “Any document that would have formerly have been published in print. The current status of the content is not of relevance, but the fact that it has, or had the opportunity, to be published in print. Taking a random title from the press and searching for it we'll find that it is indeed published on print and is held in 5 libraries in Australia “on book” [1] This shows us that the content has formerly been published on print in part, and thus the entire online collection fits under this guideline.

He then quotes the guideline that content is a pre-eminent factor. Note that it said “content”, not “quality”. The content might all be there, and it might all be culturally valid, but it can still be lacking in quality. I'm sure that you can go down to your local library and find a title that you, for any reason, find to be of sub-par quality, yet it still is published and it still is a part of the culture it was published in.

Next pro accused me of trying to be clever and undermine the NLA decision. Nowhere did I imply that the decision is wrong or that they don't deem the press itself to be of value. HOWEVER the instigator is trying to point out that those that ridiculed Dean's Poetry look ridiculous now. Not the Philosophy titles, not the fiction, not the literary criticism, the poetry. The poetry section is maybe just under a half of the titles, accurate numbers vary due to a lot of overlapping of titles in the sorting system. It is a big chunk, but it has not a large enough chunk. The archive did not specify an exact reasoning on why it was archived and the guideline gives only a vague, well, guideline that only shows us what an archived site should have and not what it has to have. We can note that in the section quoted by my opponent on what a site should have they used vague wording with a few meanings which basically boiled it down to “Has to be an Australian title that isn't a data report from a company.” The quality of the poetry in the press was not mentioned and we have no reason to believe that Pandora thought that said poetry was of great, good or even acceptable quality. Thus the Pandora argument my opponent is clinging on is not solid and does not act as proof that it was ridiculous to ridicule the poetry itself. It stated that it should be of cultural value and as I already explained, if something is of cultural value it does not have to be of great quality.

The dictionary definition of cultural is not an undermine, and the word “significant” is, as always, both vague and a guideline. Dean has published a lot of titles outside of poetry that might fit the definition “to be of cultural, religious and scientific value” and as such might have justified the archive. What Pandora said in the guideline does not have to actually be applied in full to the press and as such
the quality of the site does not have to be as long as it is somewhat true to them.

For instance: There are, in the archive, numerous websites that are not of great quality but are none the less archived.
We have Gothic.net.au [2] (a working version is available trough the archive. The website itself is nearly empty and could be remade in Ms. Office word without effort and thus is not of any quality. Yet it attempts to provide information on the Gothic culture in Australia and is thus archived.

Also archived is oxygen.org.au/ [3] which is little more than just an overly colourful anti-smoking ad with emphasize on flashy colours, flash games and a layout fitting for a Myspace page. It is arguable if this has any cultural impact on Australia but yet it is archived, most likely on the ground that it is indeed Australian.
The Press is just another example of this: because Pandora does not give an exact reason for why it archives certain titles we cannot make assumptions that it has the be because of something akin to “<insert guideline clause here>”[sic]. When you find the Cultural significance of the game “smokes and ladders” let me know.

Next argument Pro provides is more or less the exact same one. A small twist is that he tries to put the Bop on me that the NLA archived the press due to the other titles in it. The Bop is in best case on him in this matter since he is saying that the poetry is the only reason that the press got archived. I say that collectively the works have a cultural value for the fact that they are an art form and/or an attempt to show human intellect, albeit poorly spelled and the effort of the site to offer all the content for free is a large factor in the decision. If he wants to single out the poetry in order to affirm the resolution he has to prove it.

In response to the B part of my three step analysis of the first argument he states that he did not assume that his poetry is good. This is a fallacy, for his poetry have in a majority of cases been bashed on because they are not good: and they don't look ridiculous because they where bashing something irrelevant to your argument. As such you where assuming that your work is good, OR, conceded that your entire first round argument was invalid and not important to the debate. Cultural value, once again, is not equivalent to good.

Next he defines, for no reason, the word “ridicule”, along with stating that the debate really is about ridicule. This again is not true. The debate is, word for word,, “Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous“.

This is equivalent to saying „Those who bought Ice cream are now sad.“ The topic of that debate is the reasoning why they are sad and how it correlates to the bought Ice cream. The act of buying the Ice cream is not important

nor up to debate, it is affirmed by the resolution itself that they bought said Ice cream. That is not up to debate.

For his final trick he said that the debate isn't about the resolution being affirmed. Affirming the resolution means proving that the positive pole [pro] is correct and not Con. The debate Is nothing but about affirming and negating the resolution. My opponent wants to prove and show that those that ridiculed Dean are ridiculous, but he has not proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. The resolution so far is negated, not affirmed, and thus my opponent so far has failed in providing us with unrefutable evidence for his case.

1]http://trove.nla.gov.au...

2] http://nla.gov.au...
3]http://nla.gov.au...

Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

The debate is simple now
I claim those who have ridiculed dean poetry look ridiculous because the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value

Con himself has given evidence to show those who have ridiculed Deans poetry

As con has taken the con position because he argues that those who ridiculed deans poetry do not look ridiculous
All con has to do is prove the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value

If con canot give evidence as to why the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value then I must win the debate
oculus_de_logica

Con

Yes, pro is actually correct. The debate is simple. Which is why I'm amazed at how he managed to completely misunderstand his own debate and argue for the wrong thing.

In order to get my point clearly across I'll set up each and every main argument I have up separately, and a more detailed version in the second half of my round. Note that, as predicted, I'll be repeating myself a bit because the message isn't getting trough. In order to win my opponent must prove and show that each and every clause here is incorrect, just like some form of a contract. He cannot win if he fulfilled none, some or most of the clauses here in detail, he must irrefutably disprove ALL clauses. No exception.

  1. The NLA never >directly< stated that the press was archived because of it's cultural value. Just as the Oxygen site most certainly is not of cultural value the press might have been selected for the prime reason of being Australian.

  2. Even if 1 was false it does not have a correlation to the fact that the poetry was ridiculed. The poetry has been ridiculed for lacking general quality, not because it is not of cultural value.

  3. The fact that Dean has been ridiculed for his poetry is not a part of the debate. Neither party was arguing that the poetry had not been ridiculed and thus this is mute.

  4. The opinion of an archiver does not mean the opinion of a larger crowd is ridiculous.

  5. The NLA was archiving the website itself, not the poetry. Just as Oxygen was not archived because it had flash games. The poetry was ridiculed, not the website, and thus the entire NLA argument is on bread feet.

  6. The NLA archives thousands upon thousands of websites a year. They are not all of great quality nor of cultural value.

  7. A guideline is not a set of requirements or hard-lined rules (should =\= has to)

  8. and archive is not a pedestal nor should it be treated as one.

In addition to the obvious fact that pro is a one trick pony that has not provided a single argument beyond some vague guidelines [invalid, see 7. below] and the archive decision [invalid, read the entire debate up to this point] he is also failing to even connect his argument to the resolution.

Let's just run trough this:

1: the NLA decision was not, as common with these archives, made by a high standing scholar at the library. All archives that are not suggested by a member of the general public (say, the publisher) are archived by general staff that can make an arbitrary decision to archive said title for unspecified reasons. Because they do not specify the exact reason it is impossible for us to know if they archived it because of it's quality, it's cultural value or simply because it is Australian. The last one seems the most likely at the moment, I'll get to that in argument 8. because we can't prove that the cultural value was the reason we cannot use it as a solid argument, pro has to have an alternative in order to affirm anything. He has to prove that the archive was referencing that specific guideline clause, and was not an arbitrary decision of the archiver.

2: In most comments that criticize Dean's poetry, something they have full right to do, their own opinion and right to state it outweighs NLA's 'opinion', they are attacking the general quality and lack of it in Dean's poetry. In order to “look ridiculous” they must be proven wrong, or their opinion shown to be invalid. Since their opinion is interlinked to quality Pro must show that the quality of said poems are good enough to invalidate the subjective opinion of the masses. But because I've shown that being of cultural value is not equivalent to being of high quality he cannot make the link between. Art can be poor and yet be of c.value. Thus, even if 1 is affirmed, the NLA's decision to state that the press is of cultural value does not mean that the poems hosted on that site are of good quality. The two events are unrelated.

3. This is pretty clear, but I'll refute it anyhow. Pro seems to think that the fact that his work is in fact ridiculed is somehow relevant as an argument or rebuttal in this debate. It isn't. It is a part of the resolution that is essential for the debate to take place. It is a given fact, it isn't anything that even should be discussed.

4. all right, here is a hard fact that 1 touches a bit on. There isn't a specialized commity, there isn't a high standing scholar, you don't need specialized training to find titles to archive, you don't have to read every single last content on a page, you just have to work for an archiving partner and click a little “approve” button (simplified.). as such the opinion of a staff member is not to be held in higher regard than the opinion of the general public. Because of this the unproven opinion of an unknown man is not enough to disprove the opinion of a mass crowd.

5. The Pandora archive clearly states: “Gamahucher Press was selected for preservation.“ Not “The Poetry on G.Press was selected” or “G.press was selected for its poetry.” Because the debate was supposed to be discussing the criticism of Dean's Poetry pointing at a site archiving a website that happens to host said poetry without any mention of it won't actually work as an argument without a further connection.

6. Now, here is a seller. There are thousands of websites on the NLA website archive. Assuming that they are all of great, good or even average quality or value is absurd. Because none of the websites are ranked, rated or given a review upon being archived stating that the website and the content it hosts is good for any other reason than being Australian and are therefore immune to criticism is ridiculous. The press is no exception. It can be a poor website and be archived, it does not make it immune to criticism and/or any better than other content. More on this in 8.

7. So far my opponent has been citing guidelines. Guidelines, as the word implies, are not rules. The archivers should be following them, but reading over the file we find a lot of words like “should”, ambiguous, vague words that imply a choice, not a requirement. The archivers can archive websites for reasons not specified in the guidelines, they are alone on choosing what follows a guideline and what now and they can bend the guideline. As such, without a specific review, Pro cannot point at a guideline and state: “THIS APPLIES 100% TO ME!”. It doesn't, we can't prove that, and thus can't use that. Connecting 6 and 7 reading over the websites at the archive we see that a lot of websites look like having been archived for the prime reason of being Australian. Nothing else. No culture, no arts, no nothing. Just nationality. The press might just be another of those.

8. it is an archive. Nowhere does it state that the archived websites are special or good. They are simply storing and preserving them as they are a sign of Australia and Australian culture at this time and era. The press is Australian, and is archived so it will not get lost. It is a small part of culture in Australia at this point, and along with thousand other websites, it isn't special. It's just being stored, not promoted, not elevated. Just as I write a bad book and it is stored at my national library just for existing so can a bad website be archived just for existing.


in conclusion
Yes, the website was archived. Yes, there is a clause in the guideline that states that, among many other possible ways, being of cultural value should be a factor, but that still does not mean that critics are wrong in their judgement of Dean's poetry. It still is not good poetry. It is art, it is a cultural value, but, it is still bad poetry. They don't look ridiculous because the website is archived, and pro has offered no other arguments. He has not actually connected the argument and resolution and unless he answers and proves all 8 points I mentioned he has no chance of affirming the resolution and winning. People have a free voice, and if they ridiculed something that does not make them wrong in any way. It is a free opinion.

Debate Round No. 3
shakuntala

Pro

to sum up
con has given proof of those who have ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry
1)
I have given proof that the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value-thus those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous-
I have proven my claim

2}
con has not given proof that the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value
thus con has not demonstrated his con position which is
Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry DONT look ridiculous

Thus I must win
oculus_de_logica

Con

Would it have been to much to ask if you had just attempted to refute my case, explained why it was wrong or, you know, actually read what I was saying?

I can just go trough this line for line....

I have given proof that the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value-thus those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous-
I have proven my claim

read clause 1,2,4,5,7,8.

There are, once more, a few issues with this argument.

You have not proven that this is precisely what the archiver, on behalf of NLA, stated. You've proven that there exists a guideline that recommends that, among other guidelines, that archived websites should be of cultural value if it fits no other guideline. The archiver did not give a review nor a statement on the archive of the press and you can not prove that the archived happened because it was considered to be of cultural value as opposed to being archived for being Australian or offering the content for free. Because of this ambiguous nature this is a fallacious argument.

The archiver is not required to follow the guideline, as shown countless times if you bother to read trough the websites that are archived. Oxygen for instance is not of cultural value and has no redeeming quality aside from being Australian, it does not fit the guideline. Yet it is archived. The press thus has no guaranty of having been archived for anything the guideline stated and thus the guideline argument is fallacious.

The archive was not performed because of the poetry. The content is not being reviewed, the entire website is. Just as you don't say that a film is great because of a single scene neither is the website of cultural value because of a few poems. Thus linking the archive to the poetry is fallacious, or at least won't hold up on its own.

I've demonstrated, and not been refuted on, countless times that cultural value is not the same as being good. Something can be bad and still be of cultural value. So even if this was the stance of NLA using “cultural value” to invalidate the general opinion that the poetry is “bad” is a fallacy, the two are not interlinked.

In addition to the other already discussed and unanswered arguments in the debate I put forth, but this will do for rebuttal. Pro did not fulfil the burden of proof in his single argument nor answered any of my 8 points I brought up.

Now, the other point:
2}
con has not given proof that the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value
thus con has not demonstrated his con position which is
Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry DONT look ridiculous

I don't know why I'm even replying to this...
First off, again, in next to no way is the (unproven) decision that the
entire website is of cultural value affect in any way the fact that the poetry is bad or of not any quality. Thus this won't be sufficient to affirm the resolution and thus I do not need to debunk it, albeit I already did. Because the resolution was not affirmed by the Bop holder (pro) it is negated by default.

I have demonstrated the position numerous times, I noted that your only argument has little to do with the resolution. I stated that if a large crowd share a position or opinion the opinion of a single other member is not enough to invalidate said group. I stated that the ridicule is just and the poetry is not good in general. I have upheld my position to great detail, I've refuted each and every point Pro could think of, which where not many, and I've made a solid case. Pro has not and at mostly dropped my arguments without reading them it seems

So, let's sum this up:

The NLA did not give a reason for the archive nor did the archive remark on the quality of the poetry in any way. Thus any criticism on said poetry is valid and the critics themselves are not ridiculous.

This one line is enough to answer the entire case pro put up, and yet the 32.000 characters I've spent fighting that single strawman argument just seems to fly past pro. To conclude, pro had a single argument and no effort put into the case. I refuted the argument and as predicted he just tried to use it again and expect it to change meaning. I refuted it again and now, 5 rounds later, my opponent still hasn't put up a half-arsed debate nor fight. I don't complain, it is good practise for me, but I would have wished that he at least tried to think outside his limited little box and make better, more versatile arguments. His case has been defeated, I thank him for at least trying.

Au revoir, et Merci.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by alexmiller887 2 years ago
alexmiller887
oculus? Wanna take this one?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
shakuntalaoculus_de_logicaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Made better arguments, refuted Pro's arguments. Pro could not show how C L Dean's works being taken into the Australian archive meant those who criticized him look ridiculous. I think it was Steinback who won the Nobel Prize and people still criticize him.