Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#3838
You select the topic.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Public-Choice
Parameters
- 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
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1571
rating
19
debates
65.79%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.
Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .
***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THE SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***
Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.
Round 1
"Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset . "
It's already preset that I'm in the Con Position.
Therefore I take the Con side of the topic. Now in regards to the topic, it's a debate over opinions, not facts unless you have proof according to the record labels, music companies, recording studios, concert hall receipts that demonstrate the range of talent and skill .
Better yet if you have confirmation from a producer of each artist explaining each level of range on a scale and you demonstrate the disparity here, we'll have objective terms possibly. There's even objection to that, no pun intended.
The objection is there is no verification of a person's total talent. The only verification is what that individual chooses or does perform before the one public.
It doesn't say what they can and can't do behind close doors so public reception is not absolute like statistics.
To be factual, it has to be absolute. Which brings us to our opinions, views and perceptions. Being a part of the public reception, we're left just arguing opinions which there is no right or wrong opinion due to no facts but beliefs from an individual.
Now what makes my opinion of someone justified and or valid?
Who can determine that it is or not?
The one that holds it, the opinionated.
I say this artist to me , subjectively is better, plays better although they may not sell as much records.
Maybe they do but you don't think they sing very well. Are you wrong?
Well there is no right and wrong opinion. Is ketchup better than mustard?
What appeals to me is totally justified as it pertains to me. You can't say what's wrong for me and be valid about it.
So according to my personal tastes, my interests, such and such is a better artist so forth and so on.
Is that valid? Yes.
It is justifiable? Yes.
In my opinion it is. I'm entitled to it just as everyone else is entitled to their viewpoint.
It is valid just like an argument but it's not an argument.
It's my view of apples over oranges. One's taste has no more validity over the other, so nothing can be argued.
Thank you Mall for accepting this debate!
REBUTTAL 1:
CON did not mention which artist they liked better.
CON also claimed comparing two saxophonists is impossible.
Therefore CON defaults to PRO since CON claimed his side was impossible to defend.
* * *
REBUTTAL 2:
CON never mentioned either Kenny G or Charlie Parker, which means it is impossible to derive which artist CON was supporting.
In fact, CON stated:
Being a part of the public reception, we're left just arguing opinions which there is no right or wrong opinion due to no facts but beliefs from an individual.
So CON believes their argument will not be more valid than anyone else's, mean CON agrees that PRO has a valid argument. But PRO does not accept CON's argument, therefore CON agrees that PRO does not have a valid argument.
* * *
ARGUMENT 1:
Charlie Parker is regarded the greatest saxophonist of all time by other saxophone players and professional musicians.
Of all the people who can have an informed opinion of saxophone playing ability, it would be people who have devoted their life to the playing of the saxophone and are so good at playing the instrument that they make money from doing so.
Sebastian Schneider, a professional musician, called Charlie Parker his pick for best saxophonist of all time. [1]
Additionally, A.C. Baruch, another saxophonist, says of Charlie Parker that he "created the [musical] vocabulary of jazz." [2] this claim is echoed by various music critics around the world.
* * *
ARGUMENT 2:
Kenny G cannot keep a tempo and has major range and rhythmic problems.
Contemporaries of Kenny G have noted that he cannot stay on tempo when he plays saxophone. They call him rather mediocre because of his apparent inability to be able to play technically skillfully.
Professional Jazz musician and composer Pat Metheny said of Kenny G that he was "not really an advanced player," and had "major rhythmic problems." [3]
Moreover, Alto Saxophonist Charles McPherson stated that "A guy like Kenny G has to know he’s an artist painting with only a few colors, not the full palette." [4]
* * *
CONCLUSION:
So it becomes apparent that, while one Jazz Musician, Charlie Parker, is renowned by the Jazz Saxophonist world for his skill and contributions to the genre of Jazz, Kenny G is known as the laughing stock who lacks the technical skills to be considered great.
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.quora.com/In-your-opinion-who-is-was-the-best-saxophonist-ever
[2] https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-best-saxophonist-between-Charlie-Parker-and-John-Coltrane-from-a-technical-point-of-view
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20090930234749/http://jazztimes.com/articles/20699-kenny-g-changes-his-tune
Round 2
"CON did not mention which artist they liked better. "
I don't see anywhere in your topic that likeability has anything to do with this.
"CON also claimed comparing two saxophonists is impossible."
I've made no such claim. You're going to have to quote where I stated that.
"Therefore CON defaults to PRO since CON claimed his side was impossible to defend."
If that's what you want to believe, we can call it right here. You're coming off as either dishonest or disregarding what I'm saying.
This is very underhanded to think you can swap positions when the setup is preset.
Who do you think you are that you can come here and change rules?
You do that, you automatically disqualify yourself. You forfeit your position because you are on the PRO side. You don't want that position, you should of passed on this debate challenge.
If you argue from the side you are not in, everything presented from you will be null and void.
"So it becomes apparent that, while one Jazz Musician, Charlie Parker, is renowned by the Jazz Saxophonist world for his skill and contributions to the genre of Jazz, Kenny G is known as the laughing stock who lacks the technical skills to be considered great."
Ok so it appears you are arguing from the PRO side. First you say I'm PRO , then you argue the PRO position.
I mean here you didn't specifically state the person is worse. You mentioned"considered great". Well is the person actually not great at what they do ?
Considerations are by who? Those of the opinionated .
Is the particular office great enough to be a success at what they do to sell albums, get radio play, sellout concerts?
You mentioned "laughing stock". Is this somebody's opinion?
I guess that it is because if there are others who thoroughly enjoy the musician, who's right, who's wrong?
Nobody as it's just a change of opinion, not fact, opinion.
So my question to you and I'm probably going to have to repeat this same question throughout .
What makes one's taste more valid over another?
That's really it. Everything you've stated so called as an argument is just the views and opinions from the public.
Can you argue that it's a fact that ketchup is better than mustard?
See we can argue that broccoli is better for nutrition than something unhealthy.
It's just fact. There's evidence of that. There's an objective standard that proves it.
If it is my opinion that ketchup tastes better than mustard to me , you can't argue with that even if the sales records are higher for mustard.
It doesn't change my taste. This is why these subjective topics go no where.
I'm going to harp on this . What verification do you have where you can scale somebody's ability 100, 100, 100 percent?
You mentioned "world renowned" but does that mean what only the public has witnessed?
It's public perception and assessment.
Take the artist Aaliyah Haughton. Dubbed the princess of R and B, Queen of urban pop.
This was public perception. There are those that hold the view that there are better singers . Singers that have more range and so forth.
Only thing we can say with validity is that the person shows limited range. The public can only see what the performer shows.
It doesn't actually confirm totality of ability unless that individual chooses otherwise.
I notice the same thing happens with Bruce Lee. So much, so much of the public assesses what his skill was and creates all these hypothetical challenges.
The reality is, people just don't know, you just don't.
So I can indicate it again, maybe you glossed over it .
I'm valid in saying it is my opinion that Kenny G is better for me , Everette Harp, Art Tatum , Nat King Cole , Louie Armstrong, Dave Koz are better to me .
It works the same way vice versa.
I'm entitled to my opinion.
What are you going to do next?
Are you going to argue that my ears are fallacious?
Are you here to refute what I hear or like to hear ?
This is the kind of topic you've chosen, it's moot.
I've made no such claim. You're going to have to quote where I stated that.
In round one CON stated:
The objection is there is no verification of a person's total talent. The only verification is what that individual chooses or does perform before the one public.
CON also stated:
Now what makes my opinion of someone justified and or valid?Who can determine that it is or not?
So CON blatantly stated that he is unable to compare two saxophonists and also stated it is possible to judge saxophonists according to any standard.
This is very underhanded to think you can swap positions when the setup is preset.Who do you think you are that you can come here and change rules?You do that, you automatically disqualify yourself. You forfeit your position because you are on the PRO side. You don't want that position, you should of passed on this debate challenge.
I'm not quite sure where CON is getting this. I switched sides and began arguing PRO when CON made it aware to me. CON is making false statements about my opening debate position which is easily verifiable by reading my opening statement. Even CON makes admission of this fact:
Ok so it appears you are arguing from the PRO side. First you say I'm PRO , then you argue the PRO position.
So I don't know where his claims of me being dishonest are coming from.
But moving on, CON also steers away from the debate prompt entirely, which was whether Kenny G IS a better saxophone player than Charlie Parker. Not whether PRO or CON have their own opinions of the saxophonists.
CON states:
I'm valid in saying it is my opinion that Kenny G is better for me , Everette Harp, Art Tatum , Nat King Cole , Louie Armstrong, Dave Koz are better to me .It works the same way vice versa.
This statement is ultimately the problem with CON's assessment, because CON here is claiming that, ultimately he cannot prove his case and even says, once again, that my argument is equally valid to his. So, in essence, CON agrees that my argument is valid, which means CON must default.
But furthermore, CON does not make an argument from any sort of data, technical skill, performance metrics, or critical acclaim at all. He makes a claim he cannot and refuses to, furnish proof for. This violates basic burden of proof standards.
Therefore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. CON's case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Therefore PRO wins by default.
Round 3
Forfeited
CON has forfeited. Vote PRO.
FWIW, I switched sides when Mall pointed out that I was defaulted as PRO. That was a mistake that I rectified with my first statement.
Just couldn't beat the clock but my response wasn't much different to add. Since I took the time to make one , I'll post it here.
"In round one CON stated:
The objection is there is no verification of a person's total talent. The only verification is what that individual chooses or does perform before the one public."
Nothing in here states anything about it being impossible. I said quote where I said according to your statement regarding comparing saxophonists.
This is why I have you quote exactly. You build a straw man out of something in lieu of really understanding what a person is saying.
"So CON blatantly stated that he is unable to compare two saxophonists and also stated it is possible to judge saxophonists according to any standard."
Strawman.
"I'm not quite sure where CON is getting this. I switched sides and began arguing PRO when CON made it aware to me. CON is making false statements about my opening debate position which is easily verifiable by reading my opening statement. Even CON makes admission of this fact:
Ok so it appears you are arguing from the PRO side. First you say I'm PRO , then you argue the PRO position.
So I don't know where his claims of me being dishonest are coming from."
Your comments are viewable. You stated one thing and did another. You are either dishonest or mixed up, one of the two .
"But moving on, CON also steers away from the debate prompt entirely, which was whether Kenny G IS a better saxophone player than Charlie Parker. Not whether PRO or CON have their own opinions of the saxophonists.
CON states:
I'm valid in saying it is my opinion that Kenny G is better for me , Everette Harp, Art Tatum , Nat King Cole , Louie Armstrong, Dave Koz are better to me .
It works the same way vice versa.
This statement is ultimately the problem with CON's assessment, because CON here is claiming that, ultimately he cannot prove his case and even says, once again, that my argument is equally valid to his. So, in essence, CON agrees that my argument is valid, which means CON must default.
But furthermore, CON does not make an argument from any sort of data, technical skill, performance metrics, or critical acclaim at all. He makes a claim he cannot and refuses to, furnish proof for. This violates basic burden of proof standards.
Therefore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. CON's case is dismissed due to lack of evidence. Therefore PRO wins by default."
Maybe we ought to have a debate about ketchup over mustard. I can see you conveniently didn't respond to that analogy.
Perhaps we can have that so called debate to understand what I'm talking about.
You guys , when you get into these debates, it's like you put up these thick walls where you can't absorb anything from the other side.
Everything you stated here is an indication of that. You want to argue opinions, not facts.
An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence. An opinion has nothing to do with evidence.
That wall is so thick, this won't make a dent .
But hey I appreciate your so called challenge. Perhaps next time, pick an objective topic like something related to health and wellness or science.
Not a topic on " boys are better than girls" so to speak.
The topic is:
RESOLVED: Kenny G Is Worse Than Charlie Parker
You're PRO. I'm CON.
BOP is shared.
PRO argues Kenny G IS worse than Charlie Parker.
CON argues Kenny G is BETTER than Charlie Parker.
Definitions:
Worse: having less saxophone playing ability.