Paramore are not a punk band

SummaryI believe that I have met my burden of proof and that my opponent has provided no evidence to refute my claims. My claims are as follows:A band's genre is determined by widespread perception and conclusions.Paramore is perceived to be a pop punk band.Pop punk is a sub-genre of punk as defined for this debate.Therefore, Paramore is a punk band.I will continue to support the first two premises in this argument. The third is a fact based on the definitions for this debate.Genres Are Determined by PeopleMy opponent seems to have claimed that I am incorrect when I say that genres are determined by people. This necessarily means that my opponent feels that genres are not determined by people and are determined by something else or inherent to the characters and sounds that compose the name of a genre in any given language. She, of course, has not provided support for this claim. She has only asserted without evidence that this is the case: "That is untrue, to be honest."My opponent has also created a straw man for my argument. She claims that if she got some people to agree that One Direction was a punk band, it still would not be one. This ignores the fact that my argument was that widespread perception is what is important. Paramore is widely perceived as a pop punk band. If everyone in the world was convinced that One Direction was a "punk band" or at least a majority were, then it would be a punk band. As I previously explained, the word "punk" has no inherent meaning. Now of course the past meaning of punk is important, but as I pointed out with my example of rock, both words and genres change and evolve. It should be noted that it is unlikely that One Direction will ever be considered a punk band. I already addressed this. Some genres differ to such an extent from other genres that an artist of one will likely never be perceived as the other genre. Examples could include classical compared to metal and metal compared to electronica. There are clear instrumental differences, for example, between these genres. Changes in perception of genres are not so random as my opponent would make them out to be.My opponent has claimed that the perception of Paramore as a punk band is due to media labels. She, however, has not provided any support to this claim or given any evidence that this change in perception is unwarranted. As I have pointed out, the meaning of words change. Since words are subjectively defined and determined by usage and perception, it is incorrect to claim that a change in the definition of a word is invalid. There is no "real" definition, but there are common ones based on common usage during a time period. The same holds true of genres. My opponent's objection that my definition of punk could also apply to rock is not valid because punk rock is a sub-genre of rock, and regardless, this is definition of punk for the debate. Also, a political message is not necessary for a punk band based on the definition provided for punk. My opponent has not defined "raw sound." Furthermore, whether or not Paramore is considered to be "raw" is irrelevant to this debate.My opponent also contradicts herself by pointing out the slow tempo of Rancid, which she claims is a punk band, and then saying that punk is of a faster tempo than rock, metal, and grunge. This is clearly an over-generalization as well considering genres like speed metal and power metal that have faster tempos than any of the songs my opponent listed and claims are punk. My opponent asks if the Paramore songs she gives are punk and then simply asserts that they are not: "The answer is obviously no!" I however have displayed that they meet the definition of punk and specifically pop punk. It is not relevant to the debate whether or not Paramore sounds like the bands my opponent has listed. Also, the songs my opponent has listed are all from Paramore's most recent album which was made without their former lead guitarist and drummer. These songs are arguably more pop-like than a lot of their music, especially Daydreaming and Still Into You. The first three videos I have included are each from a different Paramore album. The pop influence can still be seen, but they might all be considered to have much "rawer" art, dress, and music style and might give a fuller picture Paramore as a whole. Their music does have a lot of variety. Also, if poor video quality has anything to do with "rawness," at 240p for official music videos, the first two videos are quite poor in quality. It doesn't really matter either way since, as I have pointed out, "rawness" is not necessarily required to meet the definition of punk.As I pointed out, genres are vague. My most important point is that Paramore is widely considered a pop punk band. My opponent has given no evidence to counteract this and has even admitted they are considered to be a punk band. I consider this a concession on the point. My opponent did, however, make the claim that Paramore is not actually even a pop punk band. Again, she presented no evidence for this statement but only asserted without support that "NOFX and earlier Blink 182" are pop punk bands while Paramore is not. Again, I will quote Wikipedia on the issue[1]: "A 'second wave' of pop punk was spearheaded by Blink-182 in the late 1990s..."Paramore is listed as also being a part of this continued second wave of pop punk, and Blink-182 is still considered to be a pop punk band [2]. Also, the fourth video I have linked to is a Blink-182 and Paramore mashup for enjoyment. Many different bands are considered to be part of the pop punk genre. We can see a clear progression in the genre and differences, but this does not mean that newer bands that are considered pop punk are not actually pop punk because they do not sound exactly like older pop punk bands. The same is true of punk as a whole.My opponent's next statement that I am wrong because I am ignorant of "real punk music" might be considered an ad hominem. Instead of explaining why what she considers to be "real punk music" is punk music but what others consider to be "real punk music" is not, she simply states that I am ignorant and wrong. Furthermore, as I pointed out, there is no such thing as "real punk music." This might be considered akin to the no true Scotsman fallacy. My opponent does not get to determine what "real punk" music is for the world. The fact that she considers the mostly 90s punk bands she lists to be "real punk" is irrelevant to the debate. A single opinion is not an argument.I have included a popular pop punk mashup below the aforementioned videos. Paramore makes three appearances. I think the video especially shows the diversity of what can be considered a genre. Sure, some of these bands can be more specifically classified, but punk is used as a very broad term that has changed over time.ConclusionI feel that I have met my burden of proof while my opponent's argument has been based mostly on her own opinion. Popular perception and agreement on meaning is what allows us to communicate. If someone were to claim that words had different definitions than the commonly perceived definitions, then they would be unable to communicate with others. This is why general agreement matters and one cannot claim that someone is wrong about a generally agreed upon definition as if their opinion about what the word should mean is somehow objective. My opponent's argument has been that Paramore cannot be considered a punk band based on what she things punk should mean. My argument has been that Paramore can be considered a punk band based on what the word does mean to a large number people. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...