CLASSICAL is better than rap
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
based of the ridiculaus claim from rationalmadman that rapp is ebvem remotly good
The entire debate by pro is riddled with constant obnoxious profanity targeted at con - almost the entirety of pros second round was just to belittle and insult con.
The debate description insults con, and effectively means the majority of this debate was targeted at attacking and/or swearing at con.
This is simply ridiculous toxic, and clearly warrants conduct deduction.
Conduct to con.
S&G - I don’t often penalize here; but the obsessing miscapitalization and ridiculous spelling errors riddled throughout pros case massively detracts from the readability of his argument.
The grammar is utterly attrocious: “classical is more relaxing and calm if you pot it in your ears but rap can be bad 4 youtr ears.
2 r ap is too focusedd on lyrics which make it sound more badly”
I can barely discern the action point here.
In the second runs, poor paragraphing, walls of haha, and all caps tirades render the presentation of the post so bad, it substantially interferes with my ability to read his debate rounds.
Con does not at any point stuffer from this grammatical impotence; and sg S&G must go to con.
Arguments: con puts up a standard (bad rep is good, lyrics are good), and establishes that rap meets that standard more than classical especially in the context of America.
Pro really just admonishes rap for being lyric focused and promotes violence. Notwithstanding that cons argument isn’t that strong, it still turns pros position around, and counts as both affirmative and rebuttal - meaning that due to pros lack of rebuttal - a minimal burden of proof has been met by con.
Arguments to con.
Unfortunately, this "debate" is really a futile exercise in addressing music preference, and not the topical "better than," on which there are no criteria offered to judge. and both participants do that, but neither successfully met their obligatory BoP, which I perceive to be shared.
Neither had a convincing argument, mostly because terms are never defined by either participant. What is classical music? What is rap? I know, but then Con claims America has no classical music. I beg to differ, Gershwin, for example, and Bernstein, but am not swayed to vote on that point, because Pro also distances other countries from rap, and I know of non-American artists, though I am not at all a fan of the music. Tie.
Sourcing is non-existent. Yes, Con offered examples of rap music, but the demonstration of rap does nothing to convince that it is "better" than classical; certainly not why it is. Tie
Legibility: I'm certainly glad the music, itself, on either side, is not included in voting this feature, because rap is, at times, so illegible, wheres classical music tells an idyllic story of no words, so syntax is not nearly as important as pure mood. Tie, as well, simply because music meaning transcends it element use.
Conduct: Here's where the rubber sticks to the road, and leaves it entirely. Pro loses the point, never to be recovered, in round 2. Simply horrible treatment of his competitor having nothing to do with the debate, but only Con, who is not topical in pro's topic. Point, and victory, to Con for resisting retaliation that is over the top.
Slap you with my *
led to a flame* not led you a flame