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

The average girl is less into music than the average boy

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 56425
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)





The title of this debate is a feeling I got, but ofcourse it doesn't count as much for adults. Neither can I prove it by any statistics...

So, I'll try to prove that you, my opponent, is less into music than the average boy of your age! Pretty bold I think, not knowing who my opponent will be...

First off, what will we consider "into music"? How do we measure that?

We will measure it by the time spent on music, and the interest in music. Again, I have no statistics of how often an average boy would listen to music or on what conditions he would do that. All I can do, is try to disprove that my opponent truly has as much love for music as she thinks she does.

Secondly, what do we understand under "music"?

We will mainly be working with songs. Songs consist of
A: Music (melody & rhythm, nothing else)
B: Decorations (everything that is not part of the music)

As you can guess, I will try to prove that my opponent leans more towards the B-side when liking a song. But now that I said that, I hope my opponent will still be honest when saying why she loves her music.


You will use your first round to do something very fun: show us your favourite songs, bands, musicians, use youtube links, tell us why you like them (!) and do this in whatever way you like. Try varying up the genres so we get a good idea what your musical personality is. If you play an instrument, toss that in too!
One condition though: you must show at least one song you hate as well (with a good explanation why).

I'm truly looking forward to this. I know I would not be able to prove the headline of the debate by doing this, but I do hope a self-assured girl shows up that becomes the ultimate test to my very daring statement.

Don't accept this if you won't finish it!


For the first round I will post five songs. Four of which I love, one of which I hate. I will post them all and then explain why I like or hate each of them.

( Passion Pit - Little Secrets.
( Modest Mouse - Float On
( Swing Me Down - Danny Schmidt
( The Living End - Prisoner of Society
( Slipknot - Duality

Okay so, first song's first. Little secrets is just a really fun upbeat song overall! The intro draws me in every time and echoes my love of video games with it's happy little 16-bit sound. I like the fast that although the vocals don't fit on top of the music perfectly, they also don't feel forced. I also like the bridge and build up at around 1:30 because just before this you start to tune out, but it pulls you back in at the perfect time. It's been placed at the right point in the song. Overall it's just a feel good tune that's great for this time of year. I also think the fact it doesnt have an A-B-A-B rhyme scheme makes it a lot better too, as I think this stops it from being too corny or generic, though the repetitiveness (Higher and higher and higher and higher) in the chorus also prevents it from being too out there, so it still has a wide demographic audience.

As for the decorations, the video is definitely um... Different shall we say? I've only just now seen the video and it's definitely fun, but I can't really argue for or against it.

Song two! Okay so one of my favourite things about this song is that the singers voice is far, far from perfect, but that's what makes it so good!! What he's lacking in talent he makes up with so much passion! The actualy lyrics too mean so much to me. It's like, life isn't always a catastrophe, sometimes it really is okay, sometimes we just have to get by. As I have suffered with serious depression in the past, I wish I could have had this song back then, because it is the truth. The simple drums, and smooth baseline keep the song happy too, and with everyone singing toward the end it becomes anthem-like. Who doesn't love a good anthem?
As far as decorations go, the video is one of the most creative I've seen in a long time. It's great! The little paper effect pop-up book style of it it just as upbeat as the lyrics themselves. Lighten up!

I think everyone has had the same feeling as Danny Schmidt in Swing Me Down. Love can't be controlled, and you can't help who you're in love with. You can't help how difficult or easy your life is. Sometimes you just have get on with it! The violin (or fiddle, I'm not sure) in the background keeps the song from getting too sad, while at the same time certainly first with the country sound he's going for. Using brushes on the drums also means he can keep the beat, while not overpowering everything with the drums as my next song does.
As for decoration, there isn't much in the video I posted, but the album cover is nice.

Once again, this song is also great for it's relatability. I think at some point every teen has just wanted to yell this at their parents. It's the perfect sort of 'It's not my fault, let me be who I am' kind of song. I think punk is definitely the genre known for channelling anger through music, and they manage to do this perfectly. Power chords, heavy drums and yelling down the microphone all work perfectly in this song. I think the upright base is certainly a pleasant change, showing the band aren't too generic as many punk bands are.
The video, while not all that creative, works great for this song. They're not trying to be creative and new, they're trying to get their message across, which the four heavy walls display perfectly.

Now for the song I hate so, so much. Before I start, I have nothing against Slipknot, or metal music, but I just can't take this song seriously. The first lyrics are the entire reason I hate this song.
"I push my fingers into my eyes, it's the only way to slowly stop the ache." Now, I realise they're talking about replacing mental pain with physical pain, and I can certainly relate to having felt like this. But every time this song comes on, I can't stop myself from saying 'Maybe if you don't poke your eyes out, it won't hurt." Like I said, it's not a bad song or anything, but I just can't take it as seriously as they intend for it to be taken.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


A big thanks to Con for her very nice songs and elaborate descriptions! I really could not have hoped for a better opponent!

Con most certainly knows her music and it will be hard to prove my ideas.

Let's see what Con said about her songs!

1) Passion Pit

Here, Con has shown that her interests toward this song are mainly because they reflect her subjective feelings. She has said that it "echoes" her "love of video games with its happy little 16-bit sound."
From this I derive that she, as most girls tend to do, look for an associative factor in music. Those associations (in this case to her personal life) make the song more interesting.

But she has spent the most time about how this is a happy song, The melody is most certainly a happy melody, which she appreciates in this song. She paid attention to the build-ups and the rhyme scheme. Paying attention to the build up is common with all these dance songs of today, although for a song like this it should be unlikely for a girl to pay attention to this. Rhyme scheme & lyrics are part of the decorations, though, so not really part of the music.

2) Modest Mouse

Con paid a lot of attention to the singer, and she might not like this, but I'm going to compare her to Beliebers (Bieberfans) for this. The singer indeed has a strange voice, but that does not make the music any better or worse: the person who sings it, is merely a decoration (as it doesn't change the melody). Con admires the singer as a person with passion rather than a songwriter - which is exactly what beliebers do.

She also praises the song for its lyrics. Now, many people would consider lyrics very important like she does. However, lyrics have nothing to do with music as it does not provide a rhythm or melody. Lyrics are a part of decoration, and if the lyrics truly is what Con appreciates this song for, then I doubt she appreciates this song at all... Lyrics are poetry, not music!

3) Danny Schmidt

Con again shows that this song is chosen for its association to feelings she has, more specifically, those of love.
But this time she admires the artists melody, at least that is what I think she means by "The violin (or fiddle, I'm not sure) in the background keeps the song from getting too sad, while at the same time certainly first with the country sound he's going for." Although I believe she is pointing at instruments (the instrument it is played with is merely a decoration!) I am pretty sure that she actually means the violin's melody rather than the sound of a violin.

4) The Living End

Con appreciates this band for its simplicity, is all I can say about this. She literally said that she likes this song because she can relate to it. There isn't much melody to this song, and the song only stands because of its "Power chords, heavy drums and yelling down the microphone". Admiring a song for its simplicity is not bad, but I think con would be ready to admit that this song really brings no melody/rhythm to the table at all even for its punk genre.

5) Slipknot

She judged this song for its lyrics, so just like before: this proves she pays attention to decorations rather than music.

In the next round, my opponent should comment on these as thus far it seems that my ideas are correct: you are looking for decorations in songs, rather than for music. In no way do I mean to offend you, though.

I will now ask some more things of my opponent:

1) Find a song, that you would objectively name the "best song of all time". Nor me or the voters should judge you if this song is not to our agreement. You'll really have to explain as to why this song should appeal to EVERYONE.

2) Tell us what you do while listening to music & how often

3) Most importantly, give us your opinion on the following songs:

(has no decorations whatsoever)

(a special song, eager to hear your opinion)

and which of the following 2 do you find better?

Original :



Hope to hear soon from Con!


Abdab forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


forfeiture of this round as agreed!


Firstly I would like to clear a few things

  • Forfeiture should not affect votes in this
    debate as me and my opponent both forfeited due to reasons out of our own
  • As a musician myself I would like to argue that
    lyrics are most certainly a vital part of music and are not merely decoration.
    Unless he wants me to bore him with each bar, note and scale of every song then
    I ask he be more lenient.
  • Pro is making it extremely difficult for me to
    argue why songs are good, by having a very slim view on what constitutes as

Now onto Pro’s comments about my songs.

Passion pit.

I accept Pros comments but have to say that I think many
people look for an associative factor in their favourite songs. I would also
like to ask why pro thinks that it should be unlikely for a girl to pay
attention to the build up of a modern dance song?

Modest Mouse.

I do not take offence by being compared to Justin Beiber
fans, though I think the singer and the lyrics can very much change the melody
of a song. In response to the comment Lyrics
are poetry not music.
I ask my opponent to listen to this. (
and tell me that the beginning and the rest of the poem are exactly the same.

Danny Schmidt, The Living End and Slipknot.

No comment.

Onto my opponents questions.

Though it is difficult for me to choose “The
best song of all time” I have found one I deem acceptable. Get Better by Dan le
Sac Vs Scroobius Pip. Though if my opponent still does not accept lyrics as
part of music in the above arguments, then I ask him to ignore this song and
accept my answer simply as ‘There is no best song of all time.”


I have chosen this song because it sends out a strong
message about today’s society (namely in the UK as that is where I and the
musicians are from) and it says the things that we as adults, and the media are
both too frightened to say to the youth of today. This is shown in lyrics such

“Imagine a song, that really reached out and touched kids/

And not in a Daily Mail way, innocence corrupted...”

In these lyrics he is talking about how the media is
constantly saying that the music of today is corrupting young minds.

“You see the young mother capital is where I live/

Little kids being raised by slightly bigger kids/

Society seems unphased that this is how it is/

While I’m constantly amazed that this is how it is.”

In this section he is talking about the astonishing rate of
teenage pregnancy that is ever growing and how it has become a perfectly
acceptable part of Western Culture.

“I see small town syndrome growing in size”

This whole verse is talking about the fact that there isn’t
enough out there for youth living in housing estates and small towns, so they
turn to easily avaliable drink and drugs.

Now while I accept that the music behind this isn’t all that
much and is certainly nothing grand I
would like to say that it very much works for this song. It is modern and the
typical kind of sound that people expect youth to listen to today (computer
generated ‘artificial’ sounds)

I would also like to say that the decoration (mainly the
video) works just as perfectly.

I listen to music daily in a variety of
situations. When walking (I walk around 2 miles each day) When I’m writing,
doing college work, cooking, or doing chores.

As for my opinions. The first song “1, 2, 3, 4” Can clearly be heard which I
argue is a decoration, so pro mustn’t have listened to this song all that well.
As for the second song I think it drags on for a very long time and though it
is ‘nice’ it isn’t anything exciting and is awfully repetitive.

Of the two songs I find the Adele cover better
as the vocals and music are both more clear, it is more uplifting and I think
it portrays the emotion behind it in a much better way.

Debate Round No. 3


Now, we are in full debate as Con is now defending her love for music.

In round one, I have clearly said that we are making a distinction between music and "decorations", lyrics being one of those. Lyrics to a song are poetry that make a song better, but do not affect the music in any way. Referencing to the title of this debate, it should be clear why lyrics do not matter to a true music lover! But still, Con clearly judged songs partially by lyrics. That was actually what the first round was for: to see why she picked those specific songs, to see what she takes into account when talking music.

Now, Con has said that she does not want to "bore" me with "each bar, not and scale of every song". However, saying that you really like the melody would have been enough. But Con clearly seemed to be more fascinated by lyrics than by melody!

Con would also like to argue about lyrics being important, even more, vital to a song.

Here, I must remind her that this is not what we are debating and this can't even be debated: as a musician you probably put a lot of time in your lyrics, but you were writing poetry and not music. Also, plenty of musicians like R.E.M. and Radiohead have reached the top with lyrics that are very simple. It shows that lyrics are NOT vital to music, but merely a decoration to make the song better.

Returning to Con(s songs:

1) Passion pit

Association is definately important. However, boys tend to show value for music in the objective sense as well. At least more than girls. This is proven by the fact that boys are capable of listening to rough music with ugly vocals, why boys are capable to completely ignore the lyrics and why boys are more likely to create there own music. (can't prove this, but if we look around we see more boys in bands than girls. Generally speaking, ofcourse.)

To answer your question "... why pro thinks that it should be unlikely for a girl to pay
attention to the build up of a modern dance song?":

I said "a song like this" and not a "modern dance song". That matters a lot, as this type of song would not be played in disco's (at least not where I go). This definately is the type of song that you can listen to and enjoy without doing any other activity. That's why it is strange to pay attention to build-ups in music!

2) Modest mouse

Lyrics seem to be a point to discuss. However, I don't really see my opponent's point here: are lyrics truly more than just poetry? See comments above!
and regarding the "song" you posted, this literally has no melody and the (changing!) rhythm is used solely as a back up for the poetry. This was not meant in a musical way, obviously, but was poetry.

3) all the others

"no comment" -> Con concedes?

Con's reply to my questions!

1. Best song of all time?

Opponent proposes a song for lyrical reasons again... And, I hope the voters will agree that there isn't much melody to this. However, I can do very little with you saying that you cannot choose a best song of all time as you say there isn't one. I kindof hoped you would simply give me a beatles song or something that would show you do know what the "top dogs" among music are, regardless of the fact that you can't really choose a number one..

2. What do you do when you listen to music?

This question was kind of a trap - you named all sorts of situations, while "nothing" was an answer you'd expect from a big music fan. Not trying to insult you, everyone listens to music while doing activities as well! But is there really no daily time for you to simply wander through songs on youtube, or just lay on your bed with music playing?
The fact that my opponent did not mention the pure activity "listening to music" should be taken into consideration...

3. The opinion on the offered songs?

The Go! team -> the "1,2,3,4" is indeed a decoration, but the only one. It was inserted as a transition, but please do forget that small decoration! I really wanted to hear your opinion on a song with so little decorations overall.

Massive attack -> opponent seems to enjoy the melody, but says it is too repetetive and drags on too long. So is she bored by hearing solely a good melody with very little variety?

4. Lovesong original or cover?

Opponent chose decorations (adele's vocals, and simplified background tracks) over the original artistic feelings associated with it. Agreed that the decorations in the cover are better, which would make for an overall better song, but most of the melodic lines in the original literally dissapear. For that reason, you should consider the original music superior!


1) Passion Pit.

Pro's argument is completely redundant when he says that boys are capable of listening to rough music, ugly vocals and are capable of completely ignoring the lyrics. Firstly, the lyrics aren't there to be ignored. Secondly, females are completely capable of this too. Take my older sister for example, she is 19 and her favourite bands are slipknot, 3 days grace, shinedown, heavy young heathens, and many other bands like this. As to more boys being in bands than girls, this is also not true. Many girls are just as interested in music as boys.

2) Modest Mouse

Pro has completely misunderstood. I know this is a poem, my point was listen to the lyrics to blue moon at the beginning of the video compared to the poem that comes after. They sound entirely different. I'm not talking about the music that backs up the poem or the poem itself I'm talking about how lyrics carry a melody of their own and are more than just poetry.

On to Con's replies.

1. Of course I know who the top dogs in music are, but popularity does not define who is the best subjectively. Asking who the top dogs are is an entirely different question to asking what I think the best song of all time is, and I would appreciate it if my opponents stops changing his questions after I've answered.

2. Using semantics to get a certain answer from your opponent isn't exactly fair. If you ask what I do, then of course I'm not going to say nothing. After all doing nothing isn't doing something. Of course I spend time just listening to music or laying in bed with music playing but that's not doing anything while listening to music is it? After all it should be taken into consideration that my opponent asked "What do you do when you listen to music." But then said I should have answered "Listening to music." If he is willing to use semantics against me I will use semantics against him. That answer doesn't make sense following the question does it? What do you do when listening to music? Listening to music. Hm?

3. Once again my opponent is changing his question after I've answered. First he claims it's a song with absolutely no decoration. Then he says it's a song with little decoration.

Ans yes, I am bored by hearing a melody with very little variety, because it shows a lack of talent, creativity and expression.

4. I knew good and well my opponent was going to say a true music fan would choose the original, but does this not show my opponent just likes to follow the trends, trying to stay cool and edgy by saying the only way is the original way? Original music is not always superior my friend.
Debate Round No. 4


This is the last round, so I will make my final rebuttals based and then draw up a conclusion.

1) Con's song choices

Con makes a very strange claim here.

She says that girls can listen to music with less 'decorations' as well. In the opening round I have stated that neither of us can prove anything about girls in general, so we would solely talk about her here - compared to the average boy. Now, although her sister seems to enjoy music with less decoration, the bands named are only liked for subjective reasons. Melodically, they provide music of low quality. Agreed that both boys and girls can like these bands for subjective reasons. The difference between boys and girls is that boys would be capable of listening to piano music (with nothing else). Would girls too? I don't know. But you, a female who claims to be a music lover, seem to not care about the melodically good song I posted that had close to no decorations. I'd say that counts as a fair argument to prove my case: You are less into music than the average boy.

Con makes another claim, saying that there would be just as much girls in bands as there are boys. I'm talking about professional musicians, and her claim is quite controversial because practically every band we can think of would have at least as many boys as girls - if there even are girls. Con would have to show statistics here, to support such a controversial claim, but none exist because it's simply not true.

2) The discussion about lyrics

We should not even be discussing this as I clearly defined lyrics as decorations in the opening round - which my opponent must have read. I will however discuss this further because, should the voter blindly believe her and ignore my opening statement as well, they will most likely vote for her.

So, lyrics are decorations because they do not in any way present a melody. They are written down words, created to match an already-existing rhythm. Even if you write your lyrics before you write the music, your lyrics will still have to match a rhythm in your head. Therefore, the lyrics follow up to the music. The musical part in them, however, can be easily replaced with an instrument: vocals can turn into a solo and the same melody & rhythm can still be contained. Nothing changes to the music, but it simply loses the decoration of a vocal and of lyrics.

This explanation refutes all claims by con. Lyrics are not important to music.

To further clarify to the voters: Con has shown her love for lyrics, which is normal. She loves poetry and touching words. However, that proves she does not love the music. The idea I've had is that girls tend to pay more attention to these 'decorations' which is exactly why Con defends them with all her heart.

3) her replies to my questions.

1. My opponent claims I have changed the question. That is not true at all. She thinks I asked what she thinks the best song of all time is, in a subjective way, while this is what I really asked originally:

" Find a song, that you would objectively name the "best song of all time". Nor me or the voters should judge you if this song is not to our agreement. You'll really have to explain as to why this song should appeal to EVERYONE."

The reasons given as to why her song should appeal to everyone were lyrics again. This one should be self-explanatory by now.

2. LIke I said, I tried to trick you by asking that question. I expected a list, like the one you gave me. What I was specifically going to look for, was if you would mention "lying on my bed" or something like that. But okay, we can drop this question as your answer didn't really give a new perspective in this debate.

3. Why can't I get your opinion on this song? Now I have to drop this question as well since I'm not going to see your reply before drawing conclusions. Besides, the question was not altered. The idea behind the quastion was to get your opinion on a song with as little decorations as possible. Sadly, you have avoided this question twice so I cannot use it.

4. She has misinterpreted the point of my questions entirely. I asked them to see and show the voter how you looked at music first-hand, not to actually question you on knowledge. Neither of the songs can be proven better than the other, so that really wasn't the point.
I put a lot of thought into this question and it served for 2 purposes:
1. Will my opponent notice that the original has more melody lines than the cover?
2. Will my opponent pick the song based on better vocals & singing with more 'feeling' in it?

The conclusion I drew from this is that you did not notice the reduced amount of melody lines, and that you again picked the song based on decorations.

To remind you again, this has NOTHING to do with originality.

What conclusions can we draw here?

Personally I really enjoyed this debate. For one, all the evidence can be found in the debate itself: through the means of questions, and thanks to my admirable opponent who replied honestly to each and every one of them, you can see all the evidence simply by scrolling up! All of what I say is now empirically proven by her own words.

Any voter who was interested enough to read this debate will conclude that my opponent has proven herself to be a big fan of songs in the subjective way: each and every time, she admired songs for lyrics, personal association to the songs and other 'decorations'.
However, she spent way less time describing her love for a song's rhythm or its melody.
As I defined music as "rhythm and melody" in the first round, we can say that she's not really into music as much as she is into 'decorations'. In fact, she didn't even notice the melodies being gone in the 'lovesong' - question.

I believe I have succesfully shown what I initially meant to do: my opponent is not into music as much as she thinks she is.
When I asked for her objectively picking a "best song", she was unable to praise a song created by the "top dogs" and when I specifically asked for reasons why her song should appeal to everyone, she gave lyrics as the only reason. This was her best chance to truly show her quality in analysing music and her true chance to say, for example, "bohemian rhapsody by queen could be seen as the best song since its melody appeals to everyone, it has a complicated and changing rhythm and plenty of variety". However, she was unable to do such a thing.

She also condemns good melodies if they become too repetetive throughout the song and judged the artists for being too "uncreative" if they were to do that. However, a true music lover wouldn't be as critical and simply appreciate the good melody for what it is. Ofcourse such songs aren't the very best around, but the melody being repeated does not make the melody any worse. Massive effect deserves all the attention it gets.

In the first round, I made a daring prediction: a girl would accept this debate, and I would show that she paid more attention to decorations than to music. I let this girl show her love for songs, left her to speak freely and honestly, and she did exactly that.
If she would say anything new in her last round, any new arguments or altering her perspective on the debate, it should result in a win for me because that would be like destroying evidence that she provided earlier.
I advise her to just draw a conclusion as well.

Enjoyed the debate alot!

Vote pro!


1)Of course a female is capable of listening to piano music too. Like I said as a musician myself (Who plays piano along with my sister) I have a broad range of musical interests. Just because I don't like the songs you posted does not mean I like music any less than you. I mean, you didn't seem to enjoy the music I posted, does this mean you like music any less than me? Obviously not.
You have to take into account solo musicians as well as bands. Think of female singers compared to male solo artists. People can name tons. Adele, Cheyl Cole, Britney Spears, Shakira, Rihanna, Beyonce etc.

2) Have you ever written music before? From my personal experience (And level 2 Btec performing arts grade Distinction) There are many ways to write a song. But one of them is to write a 'poem' as you insist that lyrics are, and then add a melody afterwards.

Also my love for lyrics, poetry and touching words in no way proves that I do not love music. Why would I be a musician if I didn't love music? I defend these 'decorations' as you insist they are because they are still part of music. Music is not simply a melody.

  1. 1.
    vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
    "couples were dancing to the music"
    synonyms: notes, strains, tones, chords, sound; More
  2. 2.
    the written or printed signs representing vocal or instrumental sound.
    "Tony learned to read music"

Pro, vocals, also known as lyrics, are literally in the definition of music.


1. First you talk about what I think the best song of all time is, and then you ask about the top dogs.
2. This question isn't being dropped because I didn't give a perspective, this question is being dropped because pro has realised that semantics are no way to go about a debate like this.

3. I have not avoided the question at all. I have asserted the fact that once again you were using semantics.

4. There is nothing to say I didn't notice the reduced melody, you'd have to be deaf not to notice that there are less of the original melody lines, my point is that people don't have to like songs solely for the melody as you seem to claim.

In conclusion:

My point is clearly proven in the above arguments that females can appreciate music as much as males. My opponent tries to prove his points by having a twisted definition of what makes music, using semantics to purposely try to get answers that emphasise his point and by cleary disregarding certain vital parts of pieces of music, leaving a biased and close-minded view on the arts.

I have enjoyed this debate very much and my opponent is certainly a very opinionated man! Kudos to you, Sir, I hope to debate you again in the future.

Vote Con!!
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I'm sorry but I have more dignity than to humiliate us both by arguing in the comments. I have sent you a message if you really want to talk about this, votes should not be influenced by comments. Once again 'Traumatized' is such an over exaggeration. I am highly offended right now that you have suddenly started trying to put me down just because one person voted for me. Let people have their opinions.
Posted by revic 7 years ago
In round one, I said that everything that is not melody or rhythm is not a part of "music".
Perhaps you are talking about "song" definitions, where lyrics would matter. Besides, this definition does hold up: that really is what music is, when you strip it from all that is not essential. I have used Immanuel Kant's method to get to that definition!
So, tell me I have not correctly defined music, when there are songs out there that don't even have lyrics? Or vocals? Vocals, instruments... are all just methods to express a melody and/or rhythm. However, you can't take the melody or rhythm away, because otherwise you would not have a song anymore.

So yes, I am traumatized. I really put a lot of effort in this debate and although you didn't have to back down, you simply had to make a closing statement as to why you should win. Now, all first 3 rounds were completely useless and the last one was about something different than the actual resolution.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
"Traumatized" Is a bit of an overreaction. We can debate the definition of music if you want to. I promise I won't hurt your feelings in the last round or whatever. Like... Okay, I apologize for making my arguments, what was I supposed to do just back down? You were pushing me into a corner for the whole debate. I really don't think you're as into music or as educated about music as you say you are. I'm not sitting on a high horse here, I'm not exactly an expert, but you seem to like to make out you are, when you can't even correctly define music.
Posted by revic 7 years ago
Her vote literally said "First off, pro has a horrible definition of "music". Music does not fit into Pro's little box, and Pro clearly lacks depth in musical knowledge."

We did not discuss the definition of music until you decided to do so in the last round. Up until then, you only discussed as to why lyrics would be more than just a 'decoration'.
In the last round, you suddenly put your best effort into altering that definition.

I am also quite traumatized that the voter humiliates me, about my simplistic but correct definition. I'd gladly debate that definition like I have before. I truly don't know anyone who is more into music and has read more about music than myself, so her comment truly struck me right in the heart. It makes me want to throw away those 7500 CD's in my attic.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I don't see why you're so angry about this? For the whole debate you just brush off my argument that lyrics are not decoration, and you never explicitly stated in the first round that lyrics are decoration. There's seriously no need to get so angry about it? It's over now. Like... Calm down mate.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I accept Cold-Mind and Revics comments about the last round, however the first voter clearly understands where I am coming from, and is completely justified in her vote. Revic must not get so worked up over people's opinions that differ from his own.
Posted by revic 7 years ago
Because the final round is for closing statements. Having a few extra arguments, sure, but altering my very definition from Round one which you accepted?

That just makes me feel like this whole debate was useless.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I will not apologize. Why should I not be able to participate in the final round? That's hardly fair.
Posted by revic 7 years ago
I'm greatly dissapointed. I specifically asked con NOT to throw in new counterarguments, and instead she discusses MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT SHE ACCEPTED AT ROUND ONE!

this is outrageaous and I'm greatly dissapointed. Especially in the first voter, who seems to not have read this debate.

I would kindly ask for Con to apologise: she did not have the right to come up with completely new arguments, no matter how compelling they may be: saving your arguments for the final rounds so i could not reply to them is a dirty trick.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I would like to apologise for my youtube links going strange. I don't know how to fix this?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Altering accepted definition of first round in last round. 2. Making new arguments in the last round leaving Pro no chance to reply.
Vote Placed by Martley 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: First off, pro has a horrible definition of "music". Music does not fit into Pro's little box, and Pro clearly lacks depth in musical knowledge. Furthermore, Pro's false assumptions and baseless options resulted in a debate positions void of logic or reason. With that in mind I reject Pro's position and vote Con. I felt Con handled this debate well considering...

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