Dir en Grey is the most versatile and great band of all time.

Re: Subjectivity For the purpose of clarification, I will explain my reasoning regarding the matter of subjectivity in this debate. What I said was that any band deemed to be the "best" IS, in fact, entirely subjective. However, that does not mean that it can not be debated. Indeed the part of my argument that Pro failed to mention was when I noted, "More important than the opinionated resolution is the fact that my opponent has made little to no sufficient arguments in defense of his belief. " In other words, the winner should be determined not based on individual preference, but based upon who made the more convincing arguments. You can't just say X's voice is better than Y's. Instead, premises must be supported by facts and/or reasoning. Thus, I was not hypocritical anywhere in this debate. Re: Genre Classification Pro points out that DEG has achieved being classified in various genres of music. I never argued this claim, and in fact noted that most bands DO get labeled as pertaining to more than one genre. However, Pro listed five genres that DEG is related to, whereas I mentioned at least nine genres that a band like The Rolling Stones falls under. In other words, the versatility of TRS has exceeded the versatility of my opponent's DEG according to his very own value (genre classification). This clearly negates one aspect of the resolution. Re: Vocals While I am not arguing that Kyo's vocal ability transcends genre, I simply noted that there are other singers whose vocals can also transcend genre. The example of Robert Palmer indicates how one singer can be used to sing songs of all different sounds. Additionally, in a previous round I mentioned how there are other vocalists whose actual abilities exceed that of Kyo's. For example, Mariah Carey is infamously able to expand her vocal abilities over an 8 octave range! Regardless of whether you like her music or not (I personally don't), that is still a talent she has that illustrates how her vocal abilities may trump that of Kyo's, thus not making him the greatest singer in terms of comparison. Another note is that while MC may not be able to transition from melodic singing to hardcore metal or screamo, there are other singers that can (i. e. Bert McCracken of The Used). My point? Pro has not proved why Kyo's abilities are the best, either regarding vocal range or genre transition. The same logic applies to the band in general. Re: Lyrical Content Pro questions "how can it be true" that lyrical content plays no part in what makes a band 'the best. ' I'd like to point out that I never said that it didn't matter at all; simply that it could not be the only factor taken into consideration, and that even as a single premise of many would be hard to defend. Why? First, as I've mentioned, some people don't like music with lyrics or don't care about the lyrics as much as the music behind them. To these people, lyrical content would be meaningless in a debate about which band was the best. Second, just because a band has good or thought provoking lyrics doesn't necessarily indicate that they'll be considered the best or even relevant. For instance, some people like songs with lyrics that tell stories (Billy Joel), some like lyrics that they can barely comprehend (From Autumn to Ashes), some enjoy lyrics about love (Britney Spears), teen angst (Green Day), being miserable, lonely or sad (Dashboard Confessional), politics (Anti-Flag), money, hoes and clothes (Notorious B. I. G. ) etc. Nowhere did my opponent argue why DEGs lyrics were the best or even among the best. Instead, he just argued that their lyrics were "genius. " Again, to merely state opinions in a debate about one's preferences means nothing without any facts behind them. As much as Pro is attempting to depict me as being hypocritical, he cannot. For instance, I can argue that Eminem's lyrics are the best, and to do so would be subjective. However, if I said that his lyrics were the best BECAUSE. .. and then inserted my reasoning. .. then I have a point worthy of consideration in this debate. For example, I could say that his lyrics depict raw emotion that touch those who listen to his music; that his rhymes are complex; that his lyrics are versatile in that they're both 'deep' and funny, depending on the song; that his lyrics are controversial and have often sparked political and cultural debate, such as when he talked about the shootings at Columbine High School, etc. With this reasoning, I have defended my opinion. Pro provided no such reasoning, and as such his determination of what he thinks to be the best (or simply says is the best) is irrelevant. Re: The Beatles I believe I have already explained at length why I was in no way hypocritical anywhere in this debate. This includes the appeal to population fallacy which Pro assumes that I have used. However, what Pro failed to mention or argue in any way is that something's popularity IS often relevant to a debate. For instance, when voting on something in a democratic way, argumentum ad populum is entirely relevant; the majority gets to decide what is the "best" or most proper. Additionally, sometimes a majority opinion is exactly what will make something 'the best. ' If there are 20 guests at my party and 3/4 of them prefer The Beatles over DEG, then The Beatles would be the best band to play for the purpose of entertainment. Plus, in terms of releasing number one singles, etc. , it should be noted that popular appeal is the entire basis of capitalism. Products are valued based on how much money they can make, which is proportional to its popularity. Since The Beatles have more fans, have achieved higher recognition (more albums being sold, etc. ), then The Beatles are the best in this category as well. Note that I can argue any reason at all why I consider The Beatles to be the best, including capitalistic appeal. Using that alone, the resolution has been negated. Regarding the appeal to authority, Pro mentions that he "could produce many 'experts' who praise Dir En Grey for their ability to break language barriers, delve into numberless genres, and redefine genres all together. " However, what Pro COULD do is irrelevant -- he simply DIDN'T. On the other hand, I backed up my claim using sources that include highly regarded music magazines and esteemed critics, all of whom note The Beatles prestige over almost if not all other bands in history, let alone a far lesser regarded band such as DEG. In other words, this is yet another instance in where I backed up my claims whereas Pro has not; he only said that he could. Finally Pro uses the argument that since The Beatles time has ended and DEG's has not, then DEG must be the better band. Coming from someone who is fond of pointing out logical fallacies, I find this flawed logic to be quite comical. Pro is ASSUMING things like DEG will keep producing music, that it will be good, and that it will exceed in talent and versatility that which The Beatles has already accomplished. Using history as an example, odds are that Pro is wrong. While there is no guarantee, the evidence is statistically in my corner that this will not be the case. Moreover, Pro completely ignored my arguments regarding The Beatles and the cultural revolution they sparked, their everlasting influence on music and beyond (a degree to which DEG has not even come close to rivaling), the fact that The Beatles are the most innovative band of all time noting the many ways which they changed the industry (DEG has not impacted music production as such), etc. This can only mean that Pro concedes to these points. Re: Conclusion This debate comes down to facts and arguments vs. simple stated opinions.