Pink Floyd, The wall vs Dark Side of the Moon.

P.1 Too start off I would like to point out that con makes a whole bunch of baseless assertions. When she says for example "Con also feels contentions 2-5 can largely be considered dropped by Pro." I don't see how anyone could actually think this baseless assertion. The conclusion I came too is that this is merely tactics to sound more convincing. Thus I would like viewers to treat it as so. Creativity: Con says that she has thoroughly rebutted this. This is not at all the case. In the last round I gave a lengthy, detailed, and valid response to cons argument. Con ignores allot of what I said and gives a weak defense, while I addressed every one of her arguments for creativity, and defended all of mine. 1. Con has completely ignored throughout this debate (and thus conceded) the fact that The Wall was a movie. This is a very strong and important argument. It proves the fact that more creative effort was put into The Wall. This one point is one thing that makes The Wall unique to ANY of Pink Floyds other albums. Please extend.2. Con also ignores my argument that The Wall has allot more guitar solos thrown in.Please extend.3. Con ignores my point that there are songs in The Wall that people can culturally relate too unlike what my opponent seems to claim. Please extend.4. Con ignores my important argument that fans can relate to this album, because it gives an incite into the life of the (then) Pink Floyd band leader. I also stated that this is even better than to relate to it culturally which my opponent has also ignored. Please extend.Time, amount of songs, and lyrics: My opponent hardly makes a rebuttal for this. Con has responded to contentions 2-4 in two sentences! This is an extremely weak rebuttal by the con. 5. I made the argument that both albums are quality albums thus cons "quality over quantity" argument is invalid. My opponent seems to ignore my argument simply putting it aside with the claims that I "weakly reiterate" the point. This is hardly a decent response and ignores my response from last round altogether. Please extend. My point that the length of the album contributes to its over all superiority still stands. The Wall is a very long album, if it was made up of music that is not quality music (like my opponent states with her "quality over quantity argument) then it would not be so extremely popular! In fact my opponent has not even done anything to show how The Wall is made up of none quality music. It is simply her opinion, and a very unpopular opinion at that. 6. my opponent ignores my lyrical defense; that Waters is one of the greatest lyrical writers in the history of music, and therefore it would be logical to assume that The Wall does not have below quality lyrics. Please extend. 7. My opponent ignores my statement, " the filler songs are short, and none of them are hard listen too". Please extend. 8. Cons only reference to contention five is calling it an unsupported assertion. That is ridiculous. And is not a rebuttal! Please extend. 9. My opponent ignores my argument that it is better to be able to listen to The Wall in three sittings in contrast to one sitting for Dark Side. Please extend. 10. Con states that Mother and Young Lust are fillers, when I refute this con doesn't respond. Please extend. 11. My opponent made the claim that Dark Side has many musical styles to it. In response I showed 10 songs that have different styles from The Wall. Con gives no response Please extend. Themes: This is the only one of my opponents arguments that holds any water. But even so, this can be thoroughly rebutted. Con says that I misconstrue her point that DSOTM is "pure cultural commentary". //Con misconstrues this and interprets it as the claim that every song must have direct social commentary// I still stand by this. If my opponent states that the album is pure cultural commentary, that should mean that all the songs are cultural commentary, not less than half. I took my opponent literally when she used the word pure, and I don't think there was anything wrong with that. But even so there are only two, three, or four songs that are cultural commentary, so taken literally or not this point has been thoroughly rebutted. I say two, three, or four because it's a given that Time and Money are cultural commentary, but my opponent only defends two other songs. So at the most there are four, at the least there are two. //even though some songs - like many in The Wall - are purely instrumental.// It seems like con has an apparent lack of knowledge of the albums. The Wall has ZERO songs that are instrumental, yet my opponent says there are many! When doing a debate about two albums you should listen to the albums. I have listened to both albums multiple times, as well as watching the movie since this debate has starting, but it has become evident that con has not. [1] [2] Con questions my bringing up the fact that DSOTM has a crazy theme to it, and says that this strengthens her position. However my bringing this up was to point out cons false claim that Dark Side was pure cultural commentary. The main theme of the song is something that few people can relate too, thus proving cons claims false. Dark Side does have relatable cultural commentary, it would be foolish not to admit that. But con ignores me when I point out numerous songs in The Wall that could be called cultural commentary. Con also ignores me when I point out that fans can relate to The Wall and that the way fans relate to it is even better than Dark Side, because The Wall gives you an incite into the band. Thus, both albums have cultural commentary. Great Gig in the Sky In truth this is possibly my worst Pink Floyd song, but my opponent misinterprets me. I was pointing out that this song doesn't really have a theme to it. This was in response to my opponents claims that Dark Side is pure cultural commentary. I was not stating my opinion of the song. Us and Them. My opponent claims the song is about the "socio-cultural divisions that we find ourselves randomly born into". And quotes one line to prove her point. She also claims that the song describes a battle scene. I would admit that this song has a battle theme to it, but not what my opponent first said. In The Wall you see many songs with a similar theme to this, such as Goodbye Blue sky, Waiting for the Worms, and Bring the Boy back home. Thus one song with a battle theme to it hardly matters when comparing to an album with many songs of the same theme. Let me also point out that my opponents second source leads to lyrics of songwriter/singer Alecia Moore, or her stage name which is pink. This has nothing to do with Pink Floyd, or this debate. Voting categories: Conduct: I think both of us had good conduct throughout the debate. Unless my opponent forfeits the round I really don't see why either of us would lose the conduct point. Spelling/grammar: My opponent constantly calls me con even though I am pro. Con also calls herself con so that it is confusing sometimes, to the point where you're not sure who she's talking about. Con makes a few, more minor, mistakes like saying "him" instead of "his". Voters may or may not count this as bad grammar, but it would be unreasonable to give con the grammar point. Arguments: Con ignores a vast amount of my arguments. Cons only decent argument is themes, but The Wall also is a master piece, and an even greater master piece when taking into account its themes, and story lines. The Wall is easily more creative, something my opponent gives a weak and very short address in the last round. Sources: My opponent only uses 3 sources throughout the debate to back up her claims, while I use more than 20. At that, 1/3 of her sources don't have to do with the debate. It would certainly be very unreasonable to give the points to con. Thank you for an extremely enjoyable debate! (And happy B-Day!)http://www.debate.org...