The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

is this a great example of narcissim in poetry

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 3 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 49843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

shakuntala

Pro

I ague that this work is a great account of narcissism in poetry
http://www.scribd.com...

this is the preface
Preface
The exquisite love of self
To adore to worship to idolize self
The captivation of self by self
Oh that ecstatic gaze upon the beauty of self
To luxuriate in the sublime gaze focused on self
To love self
To merge fuse self into self
In its adoration of itself in its rapturous gaze of its self self sucks itself up into self disappears into itself into a singularity extinguishes itself
Raisor

Con

This debate is just an attempt to astro-turf and promote the author of the above cited poem.

I will not repeat the name of the author of this poem (although I am 95% certain my opponent will) because I don’t want to boost the number of webpages the use the name. I will just refer to him as “author.”

If Pro types out the author’s name in this debate, the judges should automatically give Con a full 7 point vote. Everyone can look at the linked Scribd source to see the author’s name, the only reason Pro would post it in round is self promotion.

DO NOT INDLUGE PRO’S SELF PROMOTION: IF PRO POSTS THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR IN THIS ROUND, VOTE ALL 7 POINTS TO CON.

1) The title page lists the author of this poem as “Australia’s leading erotic poet.”

2) … but this author is virtually unknown, with no professional reputation or discussion of his work. A brief google search of his name reveals that this author has no major published works, no Wikipedia page, nothing.

3) The author DOES have a discussion page on Wikipedia that notes he is trying to self-promote

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Note that the username of the individual defending the author is the same as the name of the poster linked by Pro on Scribd and of the “publishing company” the author uses.

4) The author has spam across multiple website trying to stir up controversy about his poetry and “philosophy.” This debate is just another attempt to spam a website in a blatant attempt at self promotion.

5) Also, the poem sucks. It is a huge run on sentence that repeats itself. It is boring and uses uncreative language. He keeps forcing self-reflexive language in awkward ways, e.g.:

“I glory in the adoration of me into this mirrored glass I see the beauty of I”

What? “I see the beauty of I?” Barf.

The poem is just a word vomit of adjectives strung together with no attempt at lyricism or well-crafted imagery:

“slivers of light
dancing interfused like a curtain of
black gauze oh that canopy of night “

How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, it certainly doesn’t convey any poetic image.

This poem is just full of barf and terrible.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

so far con has not discussed whether this a great example of narcissism
in poetry

all he has doe is bag colin leslie dean

al con says is
\
"The poem is just a word vomit of adjectives strung together with no attempt at lyricism or well-crafted imagery:

"slivers of light
dancing interfused like a curtain of
black gauze oh that canopy of night "

How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, it certainly doesn"t convey any poetic image."

reply
1) con says
How do slivers of light look dance like a curtain of black gauze"

slivers of light refer to the lightfalls of jet black ink

the full quote should read

"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost o"er me slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze"

now you see the slivers of light refer to the
"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost "

con says
", it certainly doesn"t convey any poetic image.""

the image is vivid and lurid it is the image of black light- dancing something to get your mind around

now back to the debate
here is another example of narcissism in the poem

"the shuddering pulsations of my rippling flesh oh my beauty captivates I my beauty sends I into consuming fires of delight I dissolve into an overabundance of bliss I burst into spasms of overabounding exuberance as I luxuriate in the presence of I oh give me those lips that I can kiss into insensibility give me the lips that I can enter into my beauties sublimity oh my flesh quivers my veins ripple with rapturous intensity give me those lips give me those red puffy lips of spongy heated flesh give me those lips that I can feel the love of my beloved pour from those lips all the beauty of I into I
Raisor

Con

PRO TYPED THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR – STOP READING THIS DEBATE AND VOTE CON

Just as I predicted, Pro couldn’t resist typing out the name of the author. Why? Because Pro IS the author- he wants to self-promote and boost his web presence. Don’t believe me? Check out his history- all his debates are about his own writing, trying to pass himself off as a widely known and popular author. He even has a debate regarding whether or not he is a “shameless self-promoter.”

Pro doesn’t even deny this!

DON’T LET PRO ASTRO-TURF ON DDO: GIVE PRO A SEVEN POINT BALLOT

Conduct – Pro is misrepresenting himself and trying to manipulate the website for personal gain.

Sources – Pro’s source claims the author is “Australia’s leading erotic poet” when the author is an unknown hack.

S/G – Pro uses poor punctuation and cumbersome line breaks.

Argument’s – Pro is a hack poet, his poetry is AT BEST mediocre, certainly not “great.” I find it barfy.

This poem sucks.

The poem is not a good account of narcissism- a true narcissist is unaware of the irrationality of his own self-absorption. This poem is painfully try-hard; it strains to show how self absorbed the subject is. In trying to describe a narcissist, the author creates a caricature. This poem is about what someone trying to write about a narcissist thinks a narcissist is. It is over exaggerated and not at all a “great account” of a narcissist. Contrast this poem to a work like “A portrait of Dorian Grey,” where narcissism is subtly and realistically conveyed.

I will respond to Con line-by-line:

"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost o"er me slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze"

now you see the slivers of light refer to the
"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost "


Ok so how how can something “jet black” be a “lightfall?” Light is the exact opposite of jet black. This is classic mixed metaphor- a trademark of bad writing.

Frost doesn’t flutter- frost develops on stationary objects over night.

Even if “slivers of light” refers to a “lightfall of jet black,” the line makes no sense. So this lightfall is black like gauze? I have never seen a black light that looked like or reminded me of gauze. I have no idea what image the author is trying to convey. Is it a shimmering black object? Because gauze is not shimmer-y. This poetry is awful.

the image is vivid and lurid it is the image of black light- dancing something to get your mind around

I can’t get my mind around it because it is stupid. What is black light? Are you talking about the purple light that makes things look neon? Is that the dancing light?

Listen dude, people share their poetry on this website all the time. Just be honest about it- don’t be slimy and try to trick people into thinking your stuff is good. Post it honestly and engage in actual discussion about your work. If your stuff is good people will respond to it. If it isn’t they will react much more constructively than I am- you will get real feedback to improve your stuff and you will be treated like a member of the community.

But if you act like a self-important skeezball don’t be surprised when people treat you like one.

Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

my reply
1}

con says
"This poem sucks.

The poem is not a good account of narcissism... This poem is painfully try-hard; it strains to show how self absorbed the subject is. In trying to describe a narcissist, the author creates a caricature. This poem is about what someone trying to write about a narcissist thinks a narcissist is. It is over exaggerated and not at all a "great account" of a narcissist. Contrast this poem to a work like "A portrait of Dorian Grey," where narcissism is subtly and realistically conveyed."

the lines

"I glory in the adoration of me into this mirrored glass I see the beauty of I
blue-black eyebrows curved dark bows that shoot the arrows of love of the eyes for I eyelashes blue-black wings myriad cilia fibrous filaments twin fans to flutter forth the sighs of the eyes for I "

clearly convey narcissism not subtly like in "A portrait of Dorian Grey," but like a sledge hammer

2) con ys
"I will respond to Con line-by-line:

"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost o"er me slivers of light dancing interfused like a curtain of black gauze"

now you see the slivers of light refer to the
"lightfalls of jet black ink to flutter like black frost "

Ok so how how can something "jet black" be a "lightfall?" Light is the exact opposite of jet black. This is classic mixed metaphor- a trademark of bad writing."

Frost doesn"t flutter- frost develops on stationary objects over night.

Even if "slivers of light" refers to a "lightfall of jet black," the line makes no sense. So this lightfall is black like gauze? I have never seen a black light that looked like or reminded me of gauze. I have no idea what image the author is trying to convey. Is it a shimmering black object? Because gauze is not shimmer-y. This poetry is awful.

the image is vivid and lurid it is the image of black light- dancing something to get your mind around

I can"t get my mind around it because it is stupid. What is black light? Are you talking about the purple light that makes things look neon? Is that the dancing light?"

reply
he says
"how can something "jet black" be a "lightfall? "
this is a surrealist poem the "light fall" refer to the black curls of the girls hair which look like splinters of black light and all together look like a lightfall play on waterfall
con says
"What is black light?
black light is the color of the girls black hair which is like black light
con has completely missed the surrealism and e poem itself
con has not understood the poem
if a surrealist poet had written the poem con would just go along with it and not call the surrealist imagry "stupid" but because dean wrote it all con can sys is
"I can"t get my mind around it because it is stupid"

3) con says
"Listen dude, people share their poetry on this website all the time. Just be honest about it- don"t be slimy and try to trick people into thinking your stuff is good. Post it honestly and engage in actual discussion about your work. Iimprove your "

reply
con says
"Post it honestly and engage in actual discussion"

that is exactly what I have done
fact is con does not like the posts/poems so he just trys and bag my debates
But if you act like a self-important skeezball don"t be surprised when people treat you like one.
Raisor

Con


First, Pro has not contested my point on spelling and grammar, sources, or conduct.


Pro’s grammar is so bad that I can barely understand his final round. Reading his R3, I struggle to distinguish what text he is intending to quote and what is the text of his argument.


Second, Pro fully concedes that he is the author of this poem, that he tries to stir up discussion of his own work as a means of self-promotion, and that by trying to pass of his own work as the work of “Australia’s leading erotic poet” he is engaging in dishonest tactics.


His dishonest tactics are clear when he makes the argument that:


if a surrealist poet had written the poem con would just go along with it .“


Pro tries to pass himself off as an already established poet to play on a well-known cognitive bias. He wants people to think he is a famous author so people judge him favorably without critically engaging his poems.


Pro is a liar and a con artist. Punish him by voting Con.


If Pro posted this debate honestly, if he posted this debate clearly stating that the poem was his own, clearly laying out that he wanted to discuss the quality and merits of his poem in this debate, I would take a very different tone. But Pro is a con artist trying to gain fame by spam. He has posted to many other websites beside DDO, including Wikipedia.


I am done critiquing his poetry.


His poem is bad.


Sorry dude, your poetry sucks. If I read it in an high school text book I would say it sucks, when I read it on DDO I say it sucks.


You know how I know it sucks? Because YOU KNOW IT SUCKS. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t try and trick people into liking it. If you thought your poetry was any good, you wouldn’t try to pass it off as the poetry of some “leading” poet.


Get off your ego-trip and rejoin the rest of us in reality. You write poetry- honestly that’s awesome even if it isn’t good. I have a ton of respect for people who use their time creatively, even if the results aren’t “great examples of narcissist poetry.” If you posted this exact poem in the entertainment section of the forums, I would probably still think it wasn’t very good but I would remember you as someone that took the time to be introspective and engage in a creative endeavor.


Seriously, stop being a jerk and be honest with yourself and others. You want people to read your poetry, ask people to read it. Don’t lie about it.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
More like a great example of a horrible debate topic.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
The poems are identified as narcissistic and erotic. How can it be argued that it is not narcissistic?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
shakuntalaRaisorTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made one simple request in round 1. That it be a 7 point loss if pro mentioned the author's name. Pro agreed to this stipulation by, being silent on the issue. 7 points to con.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
shakuntalaRaisorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's S&G was horrible so that goes to Con. Nevertheless, Pro was the only one to make arguments relevant to the resolution. Con instead used the "poisoning the well" strategy by calling his opponent a "self-poser" and other names I can't even get myself to write, while trying to shift the burden of proof and claim that he deserves a 7 point win if Pro even mentioned the name of the author this discussion is about, which is nothing more than bullying and a successful attempt to derail the debate. Pro showed through examples that the poet is desperately praising himself in the poem, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that this poem is a great example of narcissism. Con's only response was that true narcissism is one where the narcissist is not familiar with his narcissism, which is an outlandish opinion he didn't support with any peer-reviewed or academic citations or psychological studies(which probably say otherwise). Therefore, Pro made a better case and deserves the Arg points.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
shakuntalaRaisorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's format was significantly more annoying and garish than Con's.