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

Aviators is NOT a Bad Artist!

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,352 times Debate No: 58413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I'M BAAAAAAACK!!!!!!! And Ghosts In The Code is OUT! And I'm feelin' downright angry and confident and ready to FIGHT! Why am I so confident this time? Simply that even though this the third debate in my AvITBA series, I have changed the topic from Aviators being the best artist to the most obvious one to make me win: HE'S NOT A BAD ARTIST!

*chuckles* Ooohhhhhhh, YEAH, that's right, you didn't think of that because you KNEW it was obvious you wouldn't win if you had the otherwise opinion, and you hoped that I wouldn't get the idea EVER! But I did! Ever since the last debate in which I have been shot down TWICE along with my opinion and left in disgust and pride at the same time, I have secretly been planning a grand DDO-blood-filled and vengeful comeback to come back with once Ghosts In The Code came out, and now it's out.

And I'm back. In red. Ready for some good DDO victory. I mean, come on, who would DARE think Aviators is a bad musician if they've listened to him? His music is so uplifting and inspiring:

Dark, hopeless, and warlike:
(This is my comeback theme, BTW)

And all in all awesome and groovy and epic!:

And his album trailers are ABSOLUTELY pumping and action-preparing!:

(In case these videos have left you stumped, let me explain: Aviators is an independent (no record label) alternative all-genre musician who creates music from the soul, using his imagination and emotions to form sounds that take the mind and body to a whole new place that nothing else can. Trust me when I say he is GOOD.)

Oh! You dare think he is bad just because he is a Brony artist?! We'll just see about that! I will be waiting patiently for someone brave and stupid to come oppose me, knowing they will surely fail to defeat me and my awesome LOOPHOLE power! Please, none of my previous AvITBA opponents; there's no shame in starting fresh. And as Avi says in GITC:


Rules are:

3 rounds
24 hours to argue
10,000 character max
Minimal sourcing (unless positively relevant)
Voting style: just choose!
I also ask that everyone who CAN vote does, for fairness.

Tirek is waiting...Discord is waiting...Aviators will be watching with utter interest...Jason Martin is watching and waiting...Don't keep us waiting; you'll pay...
*subtle evil chuckling - not too heavy, just the right balance*


Greetings Pro!

I accept the debate and wish you good luck.

I will be attempting to argue that Aviators is a poor musician, or "bad artist."

Before we continue, I would like to kindly request that Pro join me in an agreement that we will keep this debate civil in nature and focused on our debate topic. Specifically, name-calling and raising irrelevant argument points, such as the Brony concept should warrant the loss of the conduct point in the vote, for whoever initiates the unrelated point. I will be more than happy to keep this debate strictly to music, if you are.

Just for clarity, I would like to post the definitions of "Bad" and "Artist"

BAD - adjective
1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible
3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient
4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use
5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty

ARTIST - noun
1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, especially a painter or sculptor.
3. a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.

Now that I have said my piece, I look forward to our main arguments in Round 2!
Debate Round No. 1


Right, well, let's get started. First of all, I'm not cocky, I'm autistic -- there is quite a noticeable difference that I guess only autistic people would see. Just for clarity. I'm not crazy or anything like that. I'm just being myself in this debate, and that's how I will remain. And the reason this may seem silly is because, well, it would just seem nice for me to have won more than just one debate in my time of being here. And I will, one way or another, whatever it takes. *another subtle evil chuckle* And I kinda have a feeling that I will. All right, let's get to it.

Aviators has been making music (and selling it) for about two to three years (independently; without a record deal), and has as of now released six studio albums, four remix albums, six EPs, and six singles from his two biggest albums. He dabbles in almost every genre in existence, from classical orchestra to modern electronic, and quite a lot in between. One of the many reasons I claim he's most definitely not a bad artist at all is because he's had a ton of experience in doing what he does. He's played the violin for eight years since age four, and done the guitar the rest of his practice time. In his production and recording time, he experimented with extreme pro stuff, not knowing what he was doing, which helped him learn from trial and error and soon enough he was able to release his debut album "Reflections Of A Dream". I haven't listened to it myself, but I get the impression from the majority of buyers that it's pretty good, not too bad for first impressions.

After that, obviously came his becoming of a Brony and just pumping out Brony song after Brony song, which was pretty much his whole thing in 2012, and pretty much what gave him his popularity and recognizance, for that time. Then in 2013 most of the remixing came, and somewhere along the line he decided to move on from pony music a little bit, whittling it down to two to five songs per album or something like that. Pretty much all the while of 2013, he's been working with whatever he could, and released three more albums and a mess of EPs, one of those albums a concept (well, they all have concepts, but this one is rather special) written as the score to a fictional video game, titled "Aeterno", which really shows what he can do in the world of the instrumental genre, or just how much experience he's gained over time, and honestly, in my opinion there's no bad track in that thing, or his other two albums.

And finally to this date, as of his first single from Ghosts in the Code, marks his 2014 activity, and he's still got six or more albums in progress right now. His other 2014 piece other than GITC is his Acoustic EP, which many agree is the Aviators sound on a whole new and organic level. In Acoustic, he takes a few previous songs he's made and turns them into pieces that are heartfelt, emotional, and all the while melancholy. Now does THAT make him a poor artist? I think not!

Now, to clarify the mentioning in your comment, yes, he is TERRIFICALLY inspiring, and all of his dark, depressing, and melancholy pieces fit perfectly in with everything else, and here's why: the only reason he has those pieces is to surprise the listener when they listen to the more happy, lighthearted pieces near the end of albums. That's pretty much how it's been his whole career of doing this. And I see absolutely NO bad or flaws in this technique whatsoever, so Avi can't POSSIBLY be a bad artist because of this!

So, to clarify the mentioning in the comments, yes, he is TERRIFICALLY inspiring, and his dark, depressing, and melancholy pieces only fit in perfectly with everything else, and here's why: the only reason he has those pieces is to surprise the listener when they hear the more happy, lighthearted pieces near the end of albums. That's pretty much how it's been his whole music career. And I see absolutely NOTHING bad or flawed with this technique at all! So Avi can't POSSIBLY be a bad artist because of this!

Popularity has nothing to do with being a good or bad artist (well, maybe a little, but nothing too significant) as Aviators has actually made some REALLY good pieces, and yet, well, isn't really half the most popular artist in the world. There's nothing wrong with that. And we all know that with positive popularity automatically comes negative recognition. But that's usually first impression stuff. The ratio of positive popularity towards Aviators to negative that's confirmed is QUITE obviously something like a 11-1 sort of thing. But you know, that's just what's confirmed on the Internet. There may be more people that don't like his music, but how many of them dare to even breathe a word about it? But of course, I'm sure even so, the amount of lovers would still be higher.

I've heard a lot of crap about his music not being the best, but never ONCE have I ever heard with my hawk ears and owl eyes that he is a bad artist in general. And now you've come rising up from the crowd of silent, unsure dislikers to speak up for them, probably having reasons we all know can't compete with mine. My main one is this: no TRUE artist is a bad one, they just need to find the area of art that they're best at, and in the music area, Aviators is most definitely a true artist there, and there's nothing bad about him or what he does that can't be good with a little work.

So the conclusion of this argument is that by NO means is Aviators a bad musician, and my reasons for this argument are quite obvious yet completely valid. AND since there must be minimal sourcing for our arguments, I shall put as few sources as I can on this round. Here they are...

That's all I'm gonna put for now. I will be eagerly waiting for your response to this magical gold I'm selling here. Oh, revenge just feels SO good. And it will be so satisfying to watch all the unprepared viewers' stunned faces when/if they discover that I have succeeded. Farewell, Audieu, Sayonaraa, and Gesundheit.

*Disappears into the smoke, echoing subtle evil chuckle*


I would first like to reference the definitions that I posted.

"Artist" constitutes "a person who works in one of the performing arts as a musician." This is simple enough and able to be thrown out, as he fits this definition by design.

"Bad" constitutes that Aviators would be: "not good in any manner or degree," "of poor or inferior quality," or "inadequate or below standard." This is the definition that I will be pursuing for "bad." Therefore, if Aviators can be argued to be not good, then he can immediately be considered bad. Likewise, if Aviators is below a standard of what would be good music, then his music can be considered bad.

Now, based on the several videos that you posted in Round 1, I must say that I am unimpressed with this selection of songs. They sound heavily synthesized, most of them follow the same uninteresting format, with very minuscule difference in the instrumental and vocal styles. If you were to break down this music in terms of musical theory, most of the songs that you posted begin with tonal introduction, which fades into a moderately slowed tempo, with 4:4 phrasing, and then the vocals come in. Granted, this is only a small selection of music from Aviators, but it still lacks diversity. Furthermore, as a lifelong musician, this format is repetitive and, frankly, boring to me; if Aviators has such a wealth of talent, then I would think that he would be more ambitious in trying to create different pieces. If I performed for a living, then I would dread performing the same intro structure, with the same rough tempo, and a 4:4 phrase. It just gets old too quickly, which is why artists have drastically different musical formats over the years.

According to the website,, an average independent musician's yearly income is around 14,400 dollars.
I would argue that this is not sufficient for living expenses, and that Aviators would be motivated to pursue a record label to increase his financial value. That being said, I once again suggest that if Aviators is as talented as you argue he is, why would he not pursue a record deal? While musical taste is subjective, I would like to point out that Kelly Rowland, a US singer from the show X-Factor makes approximately one million dollars annually. She has barely reached relative success, and makes exponentially more than an average indy artist, so I question again, why wouldn't Aviators capitalize on his talent? My only conclusion is that he is, unfortunately, not that good.

Now that I have made my point in some small way, I would also like to address your arguments.

First, I have a few clarification errors:
You mention how much experience he has gained over time, but I thought you said he had only been making music for 3 years?
"He's played the violin for eight years since age four;" Do you mean he studied violin for eight years, or since he was four?
"And I see absolutely NO bad or flaws in this technique whatsoever;" What musical experience gives you the authority to evaluate his technique?
Why are you asking for minimal sourcing if you are so confident you will win? If you are that sure of his talent, I would say to post every shred of evidence you can find to substantiate your arguments.
"Oh, revenge just feels SO good." Except that I have literally never spoken to you before this debate...

You say Aviators has released 16 albums and six singles in three years. This is a remarkable pace, I will admit, but it makes me wonder how he is able to produce music so quickly, when, by comparison, most full time musicians hone their craft, perform on tour, and only release a couple albums a year at best. Dave Grohl for example, plays with multiple bands, and still only puts out about one album a year. Now, if Aviators can pop out five albums and two singles a year, then why wouldn't a record label drop massive amounts of money to sign him? He either is miles above every other musician in terms of his musical pace, and is allowing his own musical ego to prevent him from making the right business decision, or his music requires less crafting, and therefore less skill and time to create. I would argue that the second is more accurate.

You suggest that he learned from trial and error, which is a process that all musicians go through to some extent. You admit he didn't know what he was doing, which shows a severe fault in his judgement regarding music. Also, if you haven't heard his debut album, then how do you have any authority to say it was good? You are logically supporting the notion that you don't have experience, but take your information blindly, which admittedly hurts your argument altogether.

Two to five songs, in most cases is not really a full album, more like an EP, but never mind. I must admit that I am impressed to hear that he created a musical score for a video game, but also must admit that if I were in his shoes, I would have sold the rights to it.

The acoustic pieces were decent, I must admit, but in all fairness, I would argue that smaller, live gigs are always going to sound better, because of the lack of synthetic filler. That being said, I still heard nothing that would make me want to buy his records. However, you also say that he takes his previous songs and "turns them into pieces that are heartfelt, emotional, and all the while melancholy." I was under the impression that his songs already were heartfelt, emotional, and melancholy, and now you seem to suggest that they only fit these descriptions in his acoustic performance. Can you clarify?

The next paragraph, you put twice. But never mind. You say that the reason his music sounds melancholy is to surprise his audience at the end of the album with a happy piece. In this case, it isn't the sad piece that inspires you, but the happy piece. Psychologically and philosophically speaking, the more negative we have, the brighter the positive appears. The reason that he has this setup is because he really is trying to subconsciously make you want to hear that happy exit piece. He's trying to manipulate his audience into making that particular song a hit, which seems logically sound. So likewise, if Aviators put out an album with 9 cheerful songs, and one melancholy exit piece, then you would be building and building, only to hate that final piece for bringing you down. That last song would by design be your least favorite on the album.

You suggest that "popularity has nothing to do with being a good or bad artist (well, maybe a little, but nothing too significant) as Aviators has actually made some REALLY good pieces, and yet, well, isn't really half the most popular artist in the world." You then suggest that the ratio of positive popularity to negative recognition is 11:1. This is a very stout ratio, and makes a very big contradiction in your logic. You are saying that Aviators isn't even half popular, and then you suggest that his popularity is 11:1. You then propose that "There may be more people that don't like his music, but how many of them dare to even breathe a word about it?" Tell me if I'm over the line, but you sound mighty arrogant here. And then you suggest that "even so, the amount of lovers would still be higher." If this is the case, then why is popularity an issue? Based on your logic, if everyone listened to Aviators, practically everyone would love his music, and those who didn't would be afraid to say so. In this case, popularity would be Aviators' biggest attribute. However, since you know this is far from the case, you try to downplay popularity. You are attempting to shift the focus away from one of the biggest issues that musicians must face. If someone is truly a talented or "good" musician, then they will profit from their musicianship. Unpopular musicians don't sell albums or tickets, don't get record deals, and generally aren't that successful.

This last paragraph is where you do yourself in. "There's nothing BAD about him or what he does that can't be good with a little work." I noticed here, that instead of trying to avoid the notion that he is bad, you have suddenly shifted it to the argument that he can be good with some work. At the beginning of this debate, you were proposing that he was good. Now he is bad, but will get better. If you feel the need to include this clause, then you are acknowledging the idea that Aviators is bad, and now trying to propose that he can improve. Therefore, by your own admission, Aviators can be considered "bad," with the hope that he becomes "good." You may have just conceded the debate right there.

I anxiously await your response in the final round.
Debate Round No. 2


*Smoke puffs out from the ground; I appear and look around with disappointment*

You anxious, buddy? You should be...

*Heavy sigh* Oi, Oi, Oi, Oi Oi. Seems like SOMEONE'S missing a very important key factor that was supposed to be considered from the very start! I never thought about this factor, and if I did, I would probably leave it out in hopes that it wouldn't be needed. But here we are now, and it looks like it should be brought up: what really matters is what the ARTIST wants to do with his career and make out of it. Their personal opinion on how good they are. And if Aviators thinks he is good at what he does, then that's probably the reason why he just sticks to the technique and main genres that he does. What if he doesn't WANT a record deal? What if the only live performances he wants to do are the small ones at the local Brony conventions? What if he's currently happy with the income he makes each year? The reason that his music isn't quite different from one another could very well be that he's comfortable with the position he's in right now. He has once made a song that has a unique style from usual:

But of course that was part of his 2012 experimental EP to try and push himself a little bit to see what he can do, and the reason that he hasn't made that style is probably because he's more comfortable with his usual style. That's fine. I don't see anything bad in that, his talent is probably just in pretty much everything he makes. You want to hear more stuff he does? Knock yourself out...

Oh, and BTW, 4:4 phrase never gets old, in fact, that's the lifeblood of most music. And his style has a TON of different tempos, most unique intros, and for some people, it may seem boring, but if that's what he wants to do, what he's comfortable with doing, there's nothing bad or wrong with that. Why does he not seek a record or a larger fund, you ask?

Well, I didn't think I would have to bring this up, but it seems you've left me no choice: he's engaged. He's dealing with that at the same time as his music career. He's chosen THAT instead of high success, and there's nothing wrong with just being a homie musician with a family and all, if that's all he wants to do with his talent. (*JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!* I was screaming in my mind for like the whole day)

Now let ME clear up some of my what-seemed obvious points. He's been playing the violin singe age 4, and did that for 8 years until he decided to quit, because he thought the violin would get him nowhere, when it actually taught him a lot about music theory, reading it, blah blah blah like that. So he started on the guitar shortly after that, and continued experimenting with what he knew until 2011, when he began recording music the simple starter way (GarageBand DAW) but never released his works because he thought that early work to be "absolutely horrible" (however, in my opinion, those early pieces are absolutely AWESOME, if they are what I think they were) and then moved on to something more pro (Fruity Loops) and threw together what came out as Reflections of a Dream. Now, just because I haven't listened to it doesn't give me no hint that it MIGHT just actually be good, based on the majority of reviews:

Now, I may be 14, but ever since I was 4, I've always had this special autistic connection with music, and have had a TON of experience with it over the years. I never got to practice instruments that much, and the only thing I always had time for was my voice. And boy, does Aviators have a VOICE. I don't need too much sourcing to insure my confidence of victory, mostly because I'm not sure I have everything I could get, but it's enough, I just know it. And revenge, baby, just feels good no matter who it's on (although on my previous AvITBA opponents, it should taste a lot sweeter...)

And how is he able to produce music so quickly, you ask? Well, why is Willy Wonka a candyman? Why am I an autistic Brony with hopes and dreams of livin' in Equestria? Exactly, because he was BORN to be a musician (part-to-most of the time, of corse -- he's currently engaged) and once again, if he doesn't want a record label, if he's happy with the pace he's going at right now, then that's okay, nothing bad there in ANY way. (Oh yeah, I'm gonna win this thing) Definitely your first point.

And the only reason I haven't listened to EVERY single buggin' piece he's ever made and am taking my info somehwat blindly is because these things take TIME! Okay? And I didn't have poor planning on this debate, either -- I had SPECIFICALLY sworn to start this debate as soon as Ghosts In The Code came out, and all my info and debating experience are right here at my will, and I will stop at nothing to win this.

Oh yeah, BTW, I said "FICTIONAL video game" music, thank you very much. There's no actual video game involved with this. Yet. I heard he's making the soundtrack for the upcoming indie game "Nikra" by request and commission. Interesting...?

And you were already under the impression that most of his music was emotional BEFORE you heard Acoustic? Not every single piece is like that, but it in FACT does not apply only to Acoustic. Only stuff like these and maybe a little more if I'm not mistaken...

AND not only does he do a range of genres, but a range of messages too. Now just because not all of them may be good, does that make him a bad artist? Let me think...uuh, yeah, NO. And the technique thing was just a rough estimate of what he usually does. It's not a sticking thing, he's not being manipulative at all, and he would definitely NEVER do the inverse of that! And even if he did, I think I would still like that melancholy exit piece, because no matter what he pumps out, nothing's bad at all.

And popularity-wise? Yeah, you're definitely crossin' the line, buddy. Popularity doesn't seem like an issue to Avi, because it's probable to him, 50,000+ is enough...for now. Just as long as he HAS positive popularity, he has no issue, and there's nothing bad about that.

And that last part there? Well, it was late and I was losin' my mind like I ALWAYS do when it's late at night. Even though it is late right now, my mind is clearer, and I will clear up my victory wrap-up for ya'll. He's not bad, it's merely in his opinion that he could use some work, but other than that, in the opinions of the fans, not bad, and in my ears, absolutely GOOD. Of course he deserves a chance at hitting the big shots, but have you forgotten what the general/gossipy public makes out of those famous people? Yeah -- I may not be a genius, but I THINK that may be the reason he hasn't gone there yet.

It's not a concession, just blurred lines. But now those lines are somewhat clear to me and I've found the ghosts in the code of THIS argument, and it would only seem like they say I'm gonna win. So voters, if you can, PLEASE no matter what use your citizenship rights to vote on this thing. And vote for Pro, the positive side, the side that sees NOTHING bad in the curly-haired, 20-to-30-something, awesomely talented almost-mythingal being/existence that is Tyler "Aviators" Shaw (Not that Bad!)

And I'll look at YOUR code and find the ghosts.................LATER..........(*Backs away into the smoke, more evil chuckling*)

(AND if you wanna check out more of what Avi has done over the years...I dare you to do it.)


I do agree that it is important to consider what the artist wishes to do with their career, however I also feel the need to question his business sense or music sense if he refuses to elevate his talent to the next level.

You say that he "has once made a song that has a unique style from usual." This suggests that he has only one unique song, while all of the others can be possibly be construed as identical or at least similar. This can be arguably because he is comfortable in his niche, but it can also easily be argued that this is because his music doesn't require extraordinary effort or skill. Truly talented musicians are always trying to push themselves to try different elements and concepts in their music. Most musicians are trying to push themselves in each album, not just in one EP.

4:4 bar phrasing is used very often, but it isn't true that it never gets old. Many other musicians have the capacity to create music using different phrasing bars, and I question his talent if he lacks the capacity to create music outside of a 4:4 format. Regarding the tempos and intros, your own selection of songs displayed a lack of variation in styles.

His personal commitments have little to do with his music career. To argue that his personal life prevents him from having a professional life is a void argument, as all musicians are able to pursue personal and professional happiness, and all musicians find that balance. If he chooses to be only mildly successful in his professional career, then that is his prerogative, however, his personal pursuits do not justify his lack of success.

Regarding your statement to "JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE," I would like to bring up the reality that I am debating you, and not attacking him. I have no strong feelings against Aviators, I simply do not think that he is a good artist. That is my musical opinion.

You say that he played the violin for 8 years, before quitting because he thought it would get him nowhere, which shows that he lacked the skill to succeed with that instrument. Then you say that he learned about "music theory, reading it, blah blah blah like that." This is a poor way to frame your argument, as it is vague, adds nothing to your argument, and suggests a lack of musical seriousness. You also raise the point that he began recording music "the simple starter way (GarageBand DAW)." I would like to point out that anyone with a Mac could use GarageBand, and theoretically, any of these users could create the same level of music as Aviators has through the use of this software. If non-musicians can easily use this software to create equivalent music, then I once again am forced to question his level of talent. If he personally thought his music to be absolutely horrible as well, then I am forced to think that this work must have been bad. Finally, you have no authority to pass judgement on music that you have not heard. You can make an inference based on the reviews, but if you have not personally heard this music, then you have no personal say.

You are 14, and do not suggest any technical musical instruction. You do say that you have vocal experience, although I can infer from your arguments that this is self instruction. Without any professional technical music instruction, I am forced to assume that you have no real authority to evaluate Aviators' musical technique or ability, so you cannot objectively judge him as good or bad. In a debate such as this, sources and experience are everything, and at the end of the day, your goal is to convince the voters. That being said, it's pointless to suggest that you are getting revenge in any way by debating me. We have never had any previous interaction, so your comments about winning and revenge are entirely unrelated.

I would like to point out that you have just admitted that you are taking the info blindly. Timing is irrelevant. If you are taking your information blindly, then you logically have no support to back up your arguments.

You suggested that his music was heartfelt, emotional and melancholy, then in Round 2, you suggested that the acoustic performance made these pieces heartfelt, emotional, and melancholy, meaning that the electric pieces were not so.

"Now just because not all of them may be good," is the second time in this debate that you have acknowledged Aviators' music as not necessarily good. I will once again point out that this means that his music is arguably bad. You are again conceding the debate.

He may not be intending to manipulate his audience, but I was explaining his psychological structure of the album. Regardless of his intent, this structure is conducive to the type of audience manipulation that I described.

You once again say that popularity is no issue, and then try to suggest that Aviators has massive popularity. This is a faulty point and contradicts itself.

In conclusion, my opponent displays frequent and massive faults in his 2nd and 3rd Round arguments. His tone throughout the debate is mocking and lacks substantial reasoning to support his claims regarding Aviators' value as a musician.

I encourage any voters to do their own research, and hope that Pro and I have provided you with an entertaining debate at the very least.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JasonMartin-327 7 years ago
Also artists like Lorde or Serena Ryder...
Posted by JasonMartin-327 7 years ago
A little something else I forgot to mention...some of the most popular artist (most of them one-hit-wonder, insta-hit big shots) only do what they do for the money. About less than half of the popular artists out there actually have musical talent and passion, and would only like to share that passion, not caring too much about the money. Aviators is one of those artists. If that doesn't get you, I don't know what will...but I'm still not worried.
Posted by Craighawley215 7 years ago
So his music is inspiring because it's dark, hopeless, and warlike? What?

Also, you seem way too cocky for debating a topic this silly. Especially after you say you lost your last 2 debates on this topic.

I know that this will probably degenerate pretty quickly into a shifted debate, but I can't say it bothers me at this point...I shall accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were slightly stronger and less based in pure opinion

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.