Interesting topic. Tried to read it to the end but Pro your formatting makes it kinda hard to follow what you're saying. Drafters on the other hand is very easy to read. Maybe consider sub headings and dot points for the sake of the readers, cuz I stopped trying halfway through R2.
Tbh I honestly don't believe the resolution can be supported in the first place. Aside from me arguing for the sake of argument, I don't believe the wording of this debate actually allows you to make a case. If it were "Lyrics in raps tend to be more complex than any other musical form." You could agree with your opponent on what constitutes complexity or define from R1 and work from there, but this wording doesn't let you do even that.
What I'm doing there is layering the arguments. I don't have an opinion on raps and don't care if they're trash in an objective world or not. For you to support the resolution you need to break out of subjectivity, and I've gone through the effort of showing why even if you did address subjectivity the resolution would still be false. And then I also went through the effort of showing that even if raps weren't trash, there would still be more advanced lyrics out there. You can ignore all of the arguments that come after subjectivity because they aren't relevant until you establish objectivity in advancement. Once you've done that then you're faced with the next argument which I piled on you from the start. It's a box in a box in a box.
The ability to express more with fewer words is conciseness, and imo it's a great ability to be parsimonious with words while still saying everything you want to say. Raps are a musical style btw, I wouldn't criticise raps for using more words than need be because the words themselves are a part of the performance. A rap isn't defined by it's criticism of a government. you could rap about drugs and hoes, drugs and hoes, x20, so quality of information content isn't really relevant to raps and I wouldn't bring it as an argument against their advancement.
The information content of a single word is arbitrary. Information density is a function of sentences/phrases. Ie "I am feeling emotionally sad," has less information per word than "I'm sad," despite "feeling" and "emotion" being rich words themselves. If you want to bring it up in your round you can, but I'm just going to point out that raps use a heck of a lot of words to make a statement they could make with a fraction of the number of words they use.
"Don't say a little with many words, but a great deal with a few" so said pythagoras. Some of the most memorable artworks have used a very small number of words to create beautiful pieces. I would say that fewer words and thus greater information density per word is the value of advancement. Otherwise if it's just blunt quantity of information you're after, longer songs beat shorter ones.
Being a "rebel" isn't a basis for bad etiquette. You're free to do whatever you like but being an edgy teen is inevitably going to reflect poorly on your character. You've been banned once at the behest of other members so imo don't go out of your way to accelerate your next ban in the name of "rebellion."
You should seek permission from me before you start coaching him in a debate he's having against me. Melody is already defined and spitting is not a type of melody. That would be a specific technique. We can discuss more after the debate is done.
yeah nah bad advice RM. If he goes technical he'll be contesting me on music theory grounds where I have an advantage. He should play to his own strengths and try force the debate to focus more on rap issues, where he knows more than I do and would have an advantage. I know you mean well for him but you're gonna throw the debate in my favour so don't.
I'm aware of the mouse studying you're referencing. You think that mice were treated with MSG and toxicity was observed. That's not what they did. They used neurons from mice in a cell culture and treated those cells with large amounts of MSG until they got a toxic effect. You can eat MSG all you want, but the amount that amount that will get into your brain is so small you literally have to inject it directly into your blood to get the effects you are suggesting.
I'm not a big fan of how the science was handled in this debate. Especially from you Pro. Your science is completely off. Glutamate in MSG is metabolised to glucose, lactate and aspartate when you digest it. Even if you directly injected it into your blood, the molecule is an anion and thus cannot enter the brain. Your entire case is based on the actions of glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the CNS, and that entire basis is completely false to begin with. You don't actually have case in this debate and Con has engaged your material under the assumption that it's underlying premises were true when he didn't have to.
If you'd like to do this topic again in future, please send me an invite. This is my field of study and I'm quite confident I could prove unequivocally that none of what you said here is correct.
Yeah debate arguments aren't cached on this site so if you lose it all your work is gone. I understand how you feel. Pity, but thanks for the debate thus far.
As a psych and neuroscience major, we're not even close to a cure for autism at this point. It's not even well defined. The topic to me meant 'if we could cure autism, should we?'
I would probably accept your debate if there were one fewer rounds. On DDO the first round is not used for anything but acceptance, and here it's an additional round
I'm accepting this debate under the assumption that I'm arguing that Autism ought to be cured if possible. Based on your description that's the position it seems you want me to argue.
My institution gives me access to science journals online, it's very convenient.
It's a debate, not a rap tourney.
Interesting topic. Tried to read it to the end but Pro your formatting makes it kinda hard to follow what you're saying. Drafters on the other hand is very easy to read. Maybe consider sub headings and dot points for the sake of the readers, cuz I stopped trying halfway through R2.
Tbh I honestly don't believe the resolution can be supported in the first place. Aside from me arguing for the sake of argument, I don't believe the wording of this debate actually allows you to make a case. If it were "Lyrics in raps tend to be more complex than any other musical form." You could agree with your opponent on what constitutes complexity or define from R1 and work from there, but this wording doesn't let you do even that.
What I'm doing there is layering the arguments. I don't have an opinion on raps and don't care if they're trash in an objective world or not. For you to support the resolution you need to break out of subjectivity, and I've gone through the effort of showing why even if you did address subjectivity the resolution would still be false. And then I also went through the effort of showing that even if raps weren't trash, there would still be more advanced lyrics out there. You can ignore all of the arguments that come after subjectivity because they aren't relevant until you establish objectivity in advancement. Once you've done that then you're faced with the next argument which I piled on you from the start. It's a box in a box in a box.
The ability to express more with fewer words is conciseness, and imo it's a great ability to be parsimonious with words while still saying everything you want to say. Raps are a musical style btw, I wouldn't criticise raps for using more words than need be because the words themselves are a part of the performance. A rap isn't defined by it's criticism of a government. you could rap about drugs and hoes, drugs and hoes, x20, so quality of information content isn't really relevant to raps and I wouldn't bring it as an argument against their advancement.
Also you suggested in the debate that I hate raps, I don't.
The information content of a single word is arbitrary. Information density is a function of sentences/phrases. Ie "I am feeling emotionally sad," has less information per word than "I'm sad," despite "feeling" and "emotion" being rich words themselves. If you want to bring it up in your round you can, but I'm just going to point out that raps use a heck of a lot of words to make a statement they could make with a fraction of the number of words they use.
"Don't say a little with many words, but a great deal with a few" so said pythagoras. Some of the most memorable artworks have used a very small number of words to create beautiful pieces. I would say that fewer words and thus greater information density per word is the value of advancement. Otherwise if it's just blunt quantity of information you're after, longer songs beat shorter ones.
Being a "rebel" isn't a basis for bad etiquette. You're free to do whatever you like but being an edgy teen is inevitably going to reflect poorly on your character. You've been banned once at the behest of other members so imo don't go out of your way to accelerate your next ban in the name of "rebellion."
You should seek permission from me before you start coaching him in a debate he's having against me. Melody is already defined and spitting is not a type of melody. That would be a specific technique. We can discuss more after the debate is done.
yeah nah bad advice RM. If he goes technical he'll be contesting me on music theory grounds where I have an advantage. He should play to his own strengths and try force the debate to focus more on rap issues, where he knows more than I do and would have an advantage. I know you mean well for him but you're gonna throw the debate in my favour so don't.
Very cool, and I just saw your argument. This will be a fun debate :D
Why? Are you a musician? Because I'm a musician too lol. It's why I accepted it. I'm looking forward to it now.
I'm aware of the mouse studying you're referencing. You think that mice were treated with MSG and toxicity was observed. That's not what they did. They used neurons from mice in a cell culture and treated those cells with large amounts of MSG until they got a toxic effect. You can eat MSG all you want, but the amount that amount that will get into your brain is so small you literally have to inject it directly into your blood to get the effects you are suggesting.
I'm not a big fan of how the science was handled in this debate. Especially from you Pro. Your science is completely off. Glutamate in MSG is metabolised to glucose, lactate and aspartate when you digest it. Even if you directly injected it into your blood, the molecule is an anion and thus cannot enter the brain. Your entire case is based on the actions of glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the CNS, and that entire basis is completely false to begin with. You don't actually have case in this debate and Con has engaged your material under the assumption that it's underlying premises were true when he didn't have to.
If you'd like to do this topic again in future, please send me an invite. This is my field of study and I'm quite confident I could prove unequivocally that none of what you said here is correct.
good luck to you.
If you post anything into the debate so we can propel it into the vote phase that would be appreciated.
Yeah debate arguments aren't cached on this site so if you lose it all your work is gone. I understand how you feel. Pity, but thanks for the debate thus far.
You can score high on autistic traits without being autistic.
did you type this out on a phone..?
If you want to debate the topic just start up a new one. I'll be taking care of this case ty.
As a psych and neuroscience major, we're not even close to a cure for autism at this point. It's not even well defined. The topic to me meant 'if we could cure autism, should we?'
I would probably accept your debate if there were one fewer rounds. On DDO the first round is not used for anything but acceptance, and here it's an additional round
I'm accepting this debate under the assumption that I'm arguing that Autism ought to be cured if possible. Based on your description that's the position it seems you want me to argue.
what is con expected to argue for?