The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Shakespeare was a FRAUD 2

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: 2/26/2019 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 120517
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

I would like to say for the record that I am not normally a conspiracy theorist believer in fact I despise many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. However this is the first conspiracy theory I've seen that has sufficient evidence and shear facts to back it up. So without any further a do I will be explaining why I believe Shakespeare didn't write his plays.

- There is no documented proof that Shakespeare attended a college, While I do realize that he could have learned to write in grammar school, However a man who invented 1, 700 words and used over 29, 000 words in his writings, Higher than any writer in history, Should at-least have a college education?

- Shakespeare's settings in his plays are normally centered around royal families or nobles however as we know Shakespeare was very poor and most likely knew little to nothing about royal life. While you could make the argument that his father was a bailiff and that he could have had royal friends, However there is only so much you can learn from simply talking to these people this is like saying I can become a lawyer just from having lawyer friends. Furthermore the knowledge Shakespeare had was too vast for someone with just a grammar school education, To give you some perspective Shakespeare had a vast amount of knowledge on philosophy, Court etiquette, Royal life, Italy, And the English language.

- Shakespeare's will mentions nothing about his plays, Poems, Or sonnets. I mean surely a man wrote that many plays and poems would at least mention what he wanted to do with his 18 unfinished plays right? Guess not apparently. I have however heard the argument that Shakespeare simply didn"t mention his unfinished plays due to him being " embarrassed" by them. However if this was the case then Shakespeare would have specifically asked for the plays to be destroyed or be locked away from the public. Another common counter argument I hear brought up is that Shakespeare was ill and simply wasn"t thinking clearly, However what I find hard to believe is that Shakespeare had time to divy up money between his family and to divvy up his prized possessions but mention nothing of his plays or poems.

- Shakespeare"s handwriting and spelling were sloppy and inconsistent, Surely a man who invented nearly 2, 000 words and used nearly 30, 000 words would have decent spelling and decent handwriting?

- The Bottom Line is that Shakespeare's writings were inconsistent, His spelling was horrible, And the education he had would be insufficient to write his work using the language and words that he used. While I am not sure who wrote Shakespeare's plays, What I am sure of is that Shakespeare couldn"t have written his plays or poems.
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello.

I will debate with you.
Primarily because I am interested in seeing how you progress your very plausible argument.

Some logical ripostes would be:
Why the deception?
If not Shakespeare then who?
Why the anonymity of the true bard?
Maybe Shakespeare was an idiot savant.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Why the deception? "
- While I do not know for sure, From what Ive gathered the most plausible answer would be this, Poets and play writers at this point in history weren't seen highly of and were viewed as " peasant jobs". Therefore my guess would be someone of nobility wanted to be a play writer however couldn't do so do to social pressures. Because of this the person created the fake persona of " Shakespeare" and hired someone whom could act the part, Likely someone of the poor social class and whom was an actor. Shakespeare checked all of these boxes and therefore likely didn't write his plays but simply was hired to act like he did.
" If not Shakespeare then who? "
- I have no idea whom wrote Shakespeare and I doubt it will likely ever be solved, What I do know however is that Shakespeare couldn't have and didn't write his plays.
" Maybe Shakespeare was an idiot savant. "
- This was likely true, Shakespeare didn't have a proper college education and grew up in the slums. This also explains the sloppiness and inconsistencies in his hand writing.
To conclude, While I do not know who exactly wrote Shakespeare, What I do know is that their large amount of doubt in my mind that Shakespeare wrote his own work.
Sonofcharl

Con

The Shakespeare conspiracy is interesting and nothing new.
And Pro's arguments are plausible and sensible but nonetheless unproven.
And therein lies the inherent problem with conspiracy theories.

Was Shakespeare a fraud?
I do not know.
And by their own admission Pro does not know.
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

" And Pro's arguments are plausible and sensible but nonetheless unproven. "
- I have provided clear proof that Shakespeare was not educated enough to write his plays, Shakespeare's hand writings was poor and inconsistent, And that there was a clear motive for someone to fake the persona, All of which points you have yet to debunk.

" And therein lies the inherent problem with conspiracy theories. "
- While the majority of conspiracy theories are crazy and baseless, This theory actually has sufficient evidence to back it up. Just simply stating that its a conspiracy theory there fore it's wrong is NOT a valid argument.

"And by their own admission Pro does not know. "

- Not true, I stated that I did not know WHO wrote Shakespeare which isn't the topic of the debate. I have stated numerous times that the debate is on whether or not Shakespeare was a fraud, Not on who wrote Shakespeare.
Sonofcharl

Con

Pro makes sensible and plausible but unsubstantiated suggestions, Concerning William Shakespeare's possible shortcomings.
Suggestions are merely suggestions though and as such are not really debunkable, Nor do suggestions conclusively prove anything.

"Shakespeare was a fraud".
This is a definitive statement and Pro's conjecture is far from definitive and rife with uncertainty.
Therefore Pro has come nowhere near proving that William Shakespeare was a fraud.

Therefore all that I need to do:
Is suggest that, Given what is already widely accepted and despite all of his possible shortcomings William Shakespeare was probably not a fraud.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
Debaticus
@squeakly54n6
I agree. But maybe it is nice to not try too hard to find who truly wrote it. They probably concentrated on keeping it secret even when it wasn't hundreds of years old. I say, Give the dead man credit.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Debaticus
Personally, I believe that is the most likely answer to who exactly wrote Shakespeare. Although it will be probably sadly never discovered who exactly wrote Shakespeare as there was little documentation and no people still alive from that time.
Posted by Debaticus 3 years ago
Debaticus
I saw from a reputable source that there was a theory that Shakespeare was actually just the in-between for a richer, More educated man to say things about the government that could possibly be considered treason.
I'm beginning by supporting pro for this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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