Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Okok, a lot of stuff to cover and a lot of things that just don't fit in this debate. that need to be refuted and corrected. Pro firstly notes that this debate was addressed to those that the resolution is aimed at. Nowhere did he mention this nor imply and as so, even if this would be of relevance to the debate it would still be illogical to assume that position now. Even if I was not intended to accept the debate there was no way for me to know that beforehand. Secondly he said I undermined my own argument by pointing out that his works have been ridiculed. Note that the resolution does not include that and all logical interpretations of the debate would find the fact irrelevant. Pointing out what was given is not undermining the argument for there is no disagreement between pro, con and the resolution that Dean's work is ridiculed. He then points out that the website is online as opposed to in print. I concede to that sentence alone, as it isn't a part of the debate. The fact is that the guideline mentioned: “Any document that would have formerly have been published in print. The current status of the content is not of relevance, but the fact that it has, or had the opportunity, to be published in print. Taking a random title from the press and searching for it we'll find that it is indeed published on print and is held in 5 libraries in Australia “on book” [1] This shows us that the content has formerly been published on print in part, and thus the entire online collection fits under this guideline. He then quotes the guideline that content is a pre-eminent factor. Note that it said “content”, not “quality”. The content might all be there, and it might all be culturally valid, but it can still be lacking in quality. I'm sure that you can go down to your local library and find a title that you, for any reason, find to be of sub-par quality, yet it still is published and it still is a part of the culture it was published in. Next pro accused me of trying to be clever and undermine the NLA decision. Nowhere did I imply that the decision is wrong or that they don't deem the press itself to be of value. HOWEVER the instigator is trying to point out that those that ridiculed Dean's Poetry look ridiculous now. Not the Philosophy titles, not the fiction, not the literary criticism, the poetry. The poetry section is maybe just under a half of the titles, accurate numbers vary due to a lot of overlapping of titles in the sorting system. It is a big chunk, but it has not a large enough chunk. The archive did not specify an exact reasoning on why it was archived and the guideline gives only a vague, well, guideline that only shows us what an archived site should have and not what it has to have. We can note that in the section quoted by my opponent on what a site should have they used vague wording with a few meanings which basically boiled it down to “Has to be an Australian title that isn't a data report from a company.” The quality of the poetry in the press was not mentioned and we have no reason to believe that Pandora thought that said poetry was of great, good or even acceptable quality. Thus the Pandora argument my opponent is clinging on is not solid and does not act as proof that it was ridiculous to ridicule the poetry itself. It stated that it should be of cultural value and as I already explained, if something is of cultural value it does not have to be of great quality. The dictionary definition of cultural is not an undermine, and the word “significant” is, as always, both vague and a guideline. Dean has published a lot of titles outside of poetry that might fit the definition “to be of cultural, religious and scientific value” and as such might have justified the archive. What Pandora said in the guideline does not have to actually be applied in full to the press and as such the quality of the site does not have to be as long as it is somewhat true to them.For instance: There are, in the archive, numerous websites that are not of great quality but are none the less archived.We have Gothic.net.au [2] (a working version is available trough the archive. The website itself is nearly empty and could be remade in Ms. Office word without effort and thus is not of any quality. Yet it attempts to provide information on the Gothic culture in Australia and is thus archived. Also archived is oxygen.org.au/ [3] which is little more than just an overly colourful anti-smoking ad with emphasize on flashy colours, flash games and a layout fitting for a Myspace page. It is arguable if this has any cultural impact on Australia but yet it is archived, most likely on the ground that it is indeed Australian. The Press is just another example of this: because Pandora does not give an exact reason for why it archives certain titles we cannot make assumptions that it has the be because of something akin to “<insert guideline clause here>”[sic]. When you find the Cultural significance of the game “smokes and ladders” let me know. Next argument Pro provides is more or less the exact same one. A small twist is that he tries to put the Bop on me that the NLA archived the press due to the other titles in it. The Bop is in best case on him in this matter since he is saying that the poetry is the only reason that the press got archived. I say that collectively the works have a cultural value for the fact that they are an art form and/or an attempt to show human intellect, albeit poorly spelled and the effort of the site to offer all the content for free is a large factor in the decision. If he wants to single out the poetry in order to affirm the resolution he has to prove it. In response to the B part of my three step analysis of the first argument he states that he did not assume that his poetry is good. This is a fallacy, for his poetry have in a majority of cases been bashed on because they are not good: and they don't look ridiculous because they where bashing something irrelevant to your argument. As such you where assuming that your work is good, OR, conceded that your entire first round argument was invalid and not important to the debate. Cultural value, once again, is not equivalent to good. Next he defines, for no reason, the word “ridicule”, along with stating that the debate really is about ridicule. This again is not true. The debate is, word for word,, “Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous“. This is equivalent to saying „Those who bought Ice cream are now sad.“ The topic of that debate is the reasoning why they are sad and how it correlates to the bought Ice cream. The act of buying the Ice cream is not important nor up to debate, it is affirmed by the resolution itself that they bought said Ice cream. That is not up to debate. For his final trick he said that the debate isn't about the resolution being affirmed. Affirming the resolution means proving that the positive pole [pro] is correct and not Con. The debate Is nothing but about affirming and negating the resolution. My opponent wants to prove and show that those that ridiculed Dean are ridiculous, but he has not proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. The resolution so far is negated, not affirmed, and thus my opponent so far has failed in providing us with unrefutable evidence for his case. 1]http://trove.nla.gov.au... 2] http://nla.gov.au...3]http://nla.gov.au...