Jim Morrison was more of a legend than a loser

I am not into a "shaman prophet", but I do think it is arbitrary to degrade one of rock and roll's most enigmatic and famous musicians into a category of "loser". In this round I will respond to your criticisms and offer my final points.Artistic OutputFirst off, Con's statement that "Only someone, having been destined to fail would behave that way. And he did. That's a loser by definition" is contradictory to his definition in the first place. Con states that a loser is someone who is used and manipulated by others, and then criticizes Morrison for simply not following the directions of others. Con's biggest problem is that he ridiculously applies his morality of what it right and wrong, and judges Morrison by this. This is the overarching theme in his argumentation, and ultimately its failure. The immorality of using Heroin and LSD is only valid if the law is valid. So if Con respects the Controlled Substances Act, good for him, but if Jim Morrison did not respect it, you cannot call him "bad" or "good" for what he chooses to do. Touch me is a pretty crappy song really, as is that entire album. The lyrics to Touch Me are so bad, in fact, that after that album, The Soft Parade, The Doors began individually attributing song credits. Light my Fire, two of the three verses were written by Krieger (the second Morrison wrote), but every other song (covers excluded) off of The Doors, Strange Days, and Waiting for the Sun were written by Morrison, which you fail to give credit to. Again, saying he is a loser because of the Oedipus Rex section of The End is more intellectual snobbery on the part of Con. Is Bruce Springsteen a loser because he wrote "Nebraska" about a murderer? Or the Stones losers because of "Midnight Rambler"? The End is a piece of art, whether Con likes it or not does not matter, the fact is, he is debating the legacy of Morrison on debate.org 40 years after his death, and millions of people find great meaning and importance in Morrison's lyrics. Do you, dear reader, tell me who is more entitled to call who a loser... Innovations in Rock and RollI have to give Con credit here. He manages to accuse an artist of plagiarism, yet with no quotations or examples of plagiarism. If Con can actually provide an example of direct plagiarism, then his refutation of my statements may actually have some validity. He may even be able to Google "The Doors, plagiarism" and find something, but the fact is, he makes the accusation and then finds justification to back it up. Beyond being slanderous, this is bad debate technique. "As far as his lyrics go, it would not be unfair to call them unintelligible words which meant something to Morrison alone; much like the work of a drug-addled lunatic to say the least." Ironically, this makes no sense.As for his showman tactics, con does not like them. Fine, but a lot of people do, and just because Con does not like something does not make its author a loser. LegacyHa! Is that all you have got Con? So what if Jim lied? People like Jim because he created great music that millions love. Con, do you seriously believe that Jim's embellishment of a story invalidates all the respect people have for him? And if his little self-myth about the "Indians on dawn's highway" even matters to most people? I had much respect for Jim because I identified with his lyrics far before I knew about his little stories he made up. It does not matter. But, con, if you seriously believe that all those millions of people who have Doors posters on their walls, or those who know every lyric to Roadhouse Blues, are just fools because they hero loved to tell an embellished story, who can we look up to? Churchill, by your analysis, would be a lying drunk. Jefferson would be a hypocritical wino. Hemingway would be a suicidal booze hound. You neglect that just because somebody does not personally appeal to you, or to your moral superiority, they must be "losers" objectively. Closing ThoughtsI am not convinced that LSD took advantage of Jim. Both Robbie Kreiger and Ray Manzerek have stated that the usage of LSD was very influential in Jim's lyrics and artistic process. Whether you are for recreational drug use or not, Jim took his experiences from drugs, and translated them into legendary songs, which propelled him to a prominent role in Rock and Roll history. If he sat around on the couch all day, never did anything, because of LSD, your argument would stand. But considering the name he made of himself, being in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, being considered one of the greatest vocalists of all time, and one of the greatest songwriters too, I think if anything, Jim used LSD- not the other way around.Like it or not, in a 5 year career, and 27 years of life, Jim Morrison went from a beatnik in Venice, CA to a household name in America and Europe. And while some may disagree, the name is not a mark of infamy. Jim Morrison is not a symbolic name of crime or drug use, of young death or being a "loser". Jim Morrison is a symbol of freedom and damn cool music. And in spite of his extremely influential career, his tendency towards self destruction is tragic. He was obviously a deeply flawed person, but this does not make him a loser. What he did while he was alive, is what makes him a legend. So many artists in history abused drugs, died young, and had a tendency towards self destruction, but at the end of the day, it is the painting on the wall that makes them a legend. It is "Love Me Two Times", "Break on Through", "Unknown Soldier", and an impressive list of songs that makes Morrison famous. And the juxtaposition of his great musical virtuosity, and Morrison's notorious private life, that makes him, not a loser, but a modern legend.