Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Welcome to this debate which will, if it will not diverge from the normal debates against the instigator, be composed entirely from actual logical arguments from Con while Pro will repeat the same debunked argument again and again. Sorry, this will be the only time I've intentionally shown bad conduct in a debate. With that out of the way, let us start.The resolution resolved is:Those who previously ridiculed Colin Leslie dean for his poetry now look ridiculous. BoP is on him to provide examples and evidence of that sort and it is on me to debunk them. The main argument of Pro is the following statement, summarized and paraphrased:“Because the national library of Australia has selected Dean's website for archiving due to aforementioned guidelines that means that It has to be good and thus those that said it is not look ridiculous.” The last part of the sentence is based on the fact that not many have said that Dean's poetry is of any significant or notable quality. Just Google his name and/or use a DDO search box. You'll find those comments fairly fast. Now, let's read over the guidelines: where the guidelines lists what a “publication” Is and what types of publications are eligible:“Any document that would formerly have been published in print”“Substantial literary works”and as formerly noted: cultural projects. What my opponent is assuming is that his work is being published for it's quality and/or poetry only. If this would be the case then the resolution would at least have a possibility to be true, but it's never as simple as that.What many don't actually realize is that Dean is a published author. Self-Published, mind you, but still has had his work published in print. The books he has written are, as well as having been printed, available on said site and thus he has shown that he has documents that formerly have been published in print.He has written an incredible amount of books and poems and thus his works are “substantial” not by their quality or actual content or impact, I couldn't find his work cited anywhere outside the self published sites and his own user accounts, but by the shear number of them. A lot of authored books that have shown to be printed are substantial. Thus it is eligible trough this method.The third one is where semantics are involved and is a material for a whole other debate: so I'll just run quickly trough it. “Culture” is the key word here: so let's define it.Culture: G2;kA2;lt@3;ə/ noun:the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. SO, anything that can be considered art of some form or a signal of human intellectual achievement can be considered to be “Of cultural value”. Note that there is nothing in that definition of a required quality of said culture, it just needs to fit the definition. A bad artwork, say, a painted garbage bin with a price tag on it, can still be “of cultural value.” as the first argument went my opponent has assumed two things:A) His website was selected for it's poetry solely.B) His poetry is goodC) B results in the resolution being affirmed. A is, as already covered, highly improbable. On Gamahucher we have a large range of publishing including Philosophy, Religion, one book under “fiction” and so on and so forth. Assuming that the press was selected because of poetry and not mathematics or philosophy is absurd. Because there is no guaranty that the poetic section of the press had anything to do with the election process it is impossible to use this argument effectively in support of the resolution. B is irrelevant, for we see that being of “cultural value” does not equate to “Of great quality.” Dean's poetry is still Australian poetry and thus it is part of the culture of Australia. It, as all poetry, is a form of art and shows the intellectual properties of the Australian author. Dean is a poet, Poetry is an art form and art is culture. However, it is not a requirement that it is good, and even if A would be true B most certainly is a breaking point. Because Pandora did not, as far as I am aware of, give out an exact reasoning in support of the archive of the press we can not know if the quality of the published books was a factor: seeing how every single one of them was littered in grammatical errors in places where they shouldn't be considering the formality the author wished it to have we can deduce the reason. Quality was not a factor.Because quality is not a factor when measuring if something is “of cultural value” the argument that because it is of cultural value it must be good is mute. Now, A is negated, B is debunked and C was interlinked to B and thus is negated as a side-product. The resolution stands unproven and my opponent needs to have better evidence and reasoning than Pandora's archiving system.