Any topic

Sure, no need to restart the debate. ----------------------------------------Part II will now address each point made by opponent. The themes of Lord of the Flies are annoying. Okay. One theme is the idea that all humans have innate savage impulses (etc.).I feel as though you are ignoring the matter at hand in this section, whether The Lord of the Flies is a good book. You speak at great lengths about the concept of humans not having savage impulses, something that does not relate to The Lord of the Flies. While this concept is present, your argument does not pertain to whether it makes The Lord of the Flies a good book. In this case, I believe the fallacy of you being not even wrong comes into play, as your argument is neither correct or incorrect (that humans don't have savage impulses.)Another theme is the idea of civilization (etc.).Again, you barely tie this into how The Lord of the Flies is a good book or not. Instead, you launch into a long rant about you opposition to the words "civilization" and "civilized" while not referencing the book at all. I find it hard to argue with your opinions on these matters as they are not what we are discussing. Yes, the boys had a war but how does that make them savages?I'm most likely copying my opponent by inserting an irrelevant opinion into the debate, but war is a fundamentally savage concept. The killing of one another is not certainly a civilized one. Yes, the boys ate raw meat but how does that make them uncivilized either? In some countries, such as Ethiopia (which is in Africa by the way--seeing the pattern here?), some ethnic groups eat raw meat because they developed immunity against the viruses of raw meat. It doesn't mean they're savages as much as people would like you to believe.Once again, I fail to understand what you're argument is. You imply the boys on the island are savages for eating raw meat, but this can be interpreted as them being savage or not savage. 2. MeaningThe book was basically a metaphor for society. I think the author tried too hard to drive that point home. Simon was the Christ-figure--he died. Piggy was knowledge--he died. Percival was innocence--he forgot his name. Jack was evil--he didn't die unfortunately. Basically, the book was too easy.The central theme for The Lord of the Flies are the conflicting human impulses toward civilisation and social organisation—living by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and toward the will to power as defined by Nietzsche. I can prove this because in many parts of the book these ideas come into play. The beginning of the book has boys establish a form of democracy by declaring that whoever holds the conch shall also be able to speak at their formal gatherings and receive the attentive silence of the larger group. This would represent a form of social organisation, also living by a set of rules. This is also supported by Ralph's credo to have fun, to survive, and to constantly maintain a smoke signal so that a means of rescue could be ascertained. Again, this represents peace and harmony.Later on, as the boy's baser human instincts begin to kick in, Jack forms his own tribe and they subsequently paint their faces (as many other tribes throughout history have done) and also begin to start rites related to the "beast" of the island and subsequently offer sacrifices to it. Jacks followers later believe that glasses of "Piggy" are the true source of power on the island, another false notion. After more subsequent events, we can conclude that Jack becomes a sadistic autocrat and reduces his band to mere "savages" as some would say. This is evidenced by his killing of Piggy and subsequent torture of Sam and Eric. In his desperate quest for power, Jack decides that burning the entire island just to kill Ralph would be his best option. Of course, this all reinforces the concept of "The Will to Power" and society breaking down into a form of anarchy. Basically, the book was too easy.I disagree. The argument can be made that the story also includes the tension between group think and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions (difference between the beginning and ending of the book), and between morality and immorality. The aforementioned concept above remains the same. The understanding of such concepts is certainly no easy task. Part IIThe Lord of the Flies is a good bookAfter having responded to my opponent, I will now very briefly attempt to prove why The Lord of the Flies is a good book definitely worth reading. The Lord of the Flies is considered a classic by many intellectuals, authors, and others and is often required reading in school. If it were a "bad" book, why would such prestige be placed upon it?Fundamental philosophical questions, such as (already mentioned) morality vs. immorality, individualism vs. collectivism, rational vs. emotional reactions, order vs. chaos, and (in my opinion) faith vs. nihilism come into play through the course of the story. Most books of our time do little to engage the reader in such deep and wide ranging questions as this. While perhaps not done perfectly, The Lord of the Flies manages to symbolize these ideas to an extent. Part IIIAccolades and recognition Awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels 41 on the editors list and 25 on the readers list Chosen by TIME magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005 The novel was listed at number 70 on the BBC's survey The Big Read. Stephen King, usually considered one of the greatest horror authors of all time, considered the book to be one of his favorites. More could be added, but the idea remains the same- The Lord of the Flies is a popular book and has been given its place on these lists for not being a bad book, but for being one that challenges the mind. In other words, it is a good book. Part IVSources (in no particular order)https://en.wikipedia.org...http://mentalfloss.com...https://eyeoflynx.wordpress.com...https://www.theguardian.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.psychologytoday.com...https://study.com...https://learningandcreativity.com... Okay, now moving on to a more humorous debate (As Amphia would say): ManI think you do not approve of my profile picture because you are jealous of how handsome Kant is, no? It is a crime he never married.Illuminati (Eye of Providence, get it right)I do have ties to a secret Barvarian society. In fact, I know so many things that I must hide them from the general public. In fact, if I were to reveal these secrets society as we know it would collapse, believe me.SupremeBro, how do you not like Supreme? Supreme is literally the greatest brand known to man. In fact, I think you are jealous that you don't have one in your profile picture. How do you get one? It's an illuminati secret, duh.ON TO YOUAnime is a cancer on western society. In fact, I think you are a part of an Asian plot to enforce anime everywhere in the world. How else does this explain your anime profile picture?I don't like pretty anime girls because they're ANIME. In short, A Kant X Supreme X Eye of Providence profile picture > a profile picture designed to brainwash youth into believing anime are pretty.NOTE: I apologise if the formatting is messed up, this was not my intention obviously.