Tolkien was the best fiction writer in the last 1000 years
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Domr
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 8/7/2014 | Category: | Miscellaneous | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,377 times | Debate No: | 60141 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)
 Pro  Con I accept this debate. As my opponent has refused to define "best"... I will. Best means who's book(s) was the most successfull by number of copies sold. By this, Charles Dickens book, A Tale of Two Cities, is the best book/author of all time beating out The Lord of The Rings by approximately 50 million copies sold. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a matter of fact, meaning Dickens was the best fiction writer writer in the last 1000 years, as well a Tale of Two Cities is the best work of fiction. This is not a subjective argument, per Pro's request. Per the definition of best (which I urged Pro to define in the comments, which he dismissed) I should already be declared the winner. I would be surprised to see any sort of rebuttal to this. |
 |
|
Pro No, 'copies sold' does not indicate the best book. For instance, schools may have chosen to use Charles Dickens in their curriculum, forcing millions of copies to be bought. Also, the length of time the book has been out mean more copies will be sold for obvious reasons. Also, just because people bought the book doesn't mean they enjoyed it. And also, books can be handed down through generations and not always bought anew. So for them reason and many more I'm sure, copies sold does not indicate best book. As I said in the beginning. This is not scientific, how can one argue the genius of a story scientifically? As I also tried to explain in the comments - I ask the readers to look at my comment and comment themselves to say if they understood it or not. Clearly my opponent did not understand it. I clearly stated that this is not a philosophical debate about good and bad, but purely a clash of opinions. Of which, the more convincing of the two debaters would be decided by votes. Can we never have a debate about the magnificence of art, without know-it-alls trying to be smart. You spat your dummy out because I made your comment look foolish. I say spat your dummy out because you actually accepted my debate and ruined it for me, even though you knew you didn't want a serious debate and disapproved of my stance. Why not just ignore it and let somebody else who actually believes that another book is better than LOTR, and want to argue about it abstractedly, and not scientifically, accept the challenge? This is not s scientific debate. Please comment readers if you disagree, or if you see my point. Con My opponent has said "I clearly stated that this is not a philosophical debate about good and bad" Yet tries to claim this is supposed to be a "debate" about how their choice of book (LOTR) is best, over every other book/author in the past 1000 years. My opponent has made it clear their book(s) is to reign superior to others. This is good vs. bad(or less good) I have asked my opponent to define best. He chose not to do so before the debate, or even ask to change the definition after I have given one. He has only refuted that the copies sold may be compromised due to school purchasing the book, and its longevity. To this I argue: -This book is SO GOOD, schools wish to teach it as part of their curriculum because of Dicken's magnificence in his writing and stories. -Its longevity is a reason in itself to why A Tale of Two Cities is the best book. It is still relevant with today's youth through school. My opponent tries to diminish the number of books sold by stating " just because people bought the book doesn't mean they enjoyed it." This logic applies to both LOTR and ATOTC. So this is a moot point. My opponent has also not mentioned the word "scientific" until this past round. I am not sure of this debate is supposed to be philosophical, or scientific as my opponent has claimed it is both. I am very confused, but per my reasoning for best in the previous round, and the notes I have given this round, I have given far more merit to Dickens: A Tale of Two Cities as the best book. |
 |
|
Pro Con I chose to give reasons why I believe Dickens was the best. Its longevity and use in schools shows this, as I previously stated. This goes outside the realm of total copies sold. My opponent has made no arguments to combat my defintion for best (despite my request) and has chosen to give NO information about the LOTR. He also claims this debate, HIS debate, was a waste of time. Please blame him if you are to read all the way through this without gaining any meaningful knowledge on the LOTR. I hope all the readers understand the prevelance of A Tale of Two Cities in today's culture, despite being published in the 1800s. Go onwards, be merry, and Vote Con! |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
| Tommy.leadbetter | Domr | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the only one to actually present an argument. Pro said it wasn't a philosophical debate, but nor was it a scientific debate--he apparently, what, wanted Con to just say "No, my choice is better", without any argument from him despite his having the BoP? I award arguments for Con actually presenting some. As to conduct, I thought Pro's complaints were downright unfair, and his refusal to participate in his own debate was ridiculous. So award conduct as well.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
| Tommy.leadbetter | Domr | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: pro conceded I guess?
Therefore it is wise to no longer debate with you, and the past shows you will most likely give up again.
In fact, lets settle this, lets have a debate.
I don't quite understand where you are coming from. You told your opponent not to argue subjectively. And then you whine when I argue objectively.
I believe I am winning this debate, and you forfeited. Therefore, you may be out of your league son.
Next time you want to make a debate, be sure to take comments about your poor opening into consideration, instead of dismissing them so quickly. I don't care if you had already "considered" the other possibilities, you didn't account for them in your debate.
And like your last round said...you wasted YOUR time. You are still wasting your time in these comments, and continue to do so. As for me, I'm having fun. This is enjoyment to me. Wasting your time is an even better bonus.
So thanks for wasting your own time more and more and more. ;)
Opening: "Tolkiens work, The Lord of the rings, is the best work of fiction. I know it's subjective, but please don't just argue that, this is not philosophical debate "
You specifically told someone NOT to argue subjectively. As you would not then define what "best" was, I did.
Its not an enlightened point of view, and its something I sure you did not overlook. It is a quite simplistic argument because you decided to make a debate about the BEST book, yet never decided to make any real sense of the word best.
So please, do not try to belittle me because you are the dumb arse
Yet you did not state what is being compared. I gave you that chance to do so beforehand.
A debate is an argument of two sides.
How can their be two sides to different plots, characters, settings, etc.?
There has to be common ground to argue upon.
I gave you an opportunity to define that open ground, and you chose to ignore it.
You made the mistake of comparing it to every other book, i found out a way my book is better than yours.
I also chose to argue more reasons to why my book is more generally accepted than yours.
You argued nothing. Don't blame me for your ignorance.
This is about opinions.