Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Yes, pro is actually correct. The debate is simple. Which is why I'm amazed at how he managed to completely misunderstand his own debate and argue for the wrong thing. In order to get my point clearly across I'll set up each and every main argument I have up separately, and a more detailed version in the second half of my round. Note that, as predicted, I'll be repeating myself a bit because the message isn't getting trough. In order to win my opponent must prove and show that each and every clause here is incorrect, just like some form of a contract. He cannot win if he fulfilled none, some or most of the clauses here in detail, he must irrefutably disprove ALL clauses. No exception. The NLA never >directly< stated that the press was archived because of it's cultural value. Just as the Oxygen site most certainly is not of cultural value the press might have been selected for the prime reason of being Australian. Even if 1 was false it does not have a correlation to the fact that the poetry was ridiculed. The poetry has been ridiculed for lacking general quality, not because it is not of cultural value. The fact that Dean has been ridiculed for his poetry is not a part of the debate. Neither party was arguing that the poetry had not been ridiculed and thus this is mute. The opinion of an archiver does not mean the opinion of a larger crowd is ridiculous. The NLA was archiving the website itself, not the poetry. Just as Oxygen was not archived because it had flash games. The poetry was ridiculed, not the website, and thus the entire NLA argument is on bread feet. The NLA archives thousands upon thousands of websites a year. They are not all of great quality nor of cultural value. A guideline is not a set of requirements or hard-lined rules (should =\= has to) and archive is not a pedestal nor should it be treated as one. In addition to the obvious fact that pro is a one trick pony that has not provided a single argument beyond some vague guidelines [invalid, see 7. below] and the archive decision [invalid, read the entire debate up to this point] he is also failing to even connect his argument to the resolution. Let's just run trough this:1: the NLA decision was not, as common with these archives, made by a high standing scholar at the library. All archives that are not suggested by a member of the general public (say, the publisher) are archived by general staff that can make an arbitrary decision to archive said title for unspecified reasons. Because they do not specify the exact reason it is impossible for us to know if they archived it because of it's quality, it's cultural value or simply because it is Australian. The last one seems the most likely at the moment, I'll get to that in argument 8. because we can't prove that the cultural value was the reason we cannot use it as a solid argument, pro has to have an alternative in order to affirm anything. He has to prove that the archive was referencing that specific guideline clause, and was not an arbitrary decision of the archiver. 2: In most comments that criticize Dean's poetry, something they have full right to do, their own opinion and right to state it outweighs NLA's 'opinion', they are attacking the general quality and lack of it in Dean's poetry. In order to “look ridiculous” they must be proven wrong, or their opinion shown to be invalid. Since their opinion is interlinked to quality Pro must show that the quality of said poems are good enough to invalidate the subjective opinion of the masses. But because I've shown that being of cultural value is not equivalent to being of high quality he cannot make the link between. Art can be poor and yet be of c.value. Thus, even if 1 is affirmed, the NLA's decision to state that the press is of cultural value does not mean that the poems hosted on that site are of good quality. The two events are unrelated. 3. This is pretty clear, but I'll refute it anyhow. Pro seems to think that the fact that his work is in fact ridiculed is somehow relevant as an argument or rebuttal in this debate. It isn't. It is a part of the resolution that is essential for the debate to take place. It is a given fact, it isn't anything that even should be discussed. 4. all right, here is a hard fact that 1 touches a bit on. There isn't a specialized commity, there isn't a high standing scholar, you don't need specialized training to find titles to archive, you don't have to read every single last content on a page, you just have to work for an archiving partner and click a little “approve” button (simplified.). as such the opinion of a staff member is not to be held in higher regard than the opinion of the general public. Because of this the unproven opinion of an unknown man is not enough to disprove the opinion of a mass crowd. 5. The Pandora archive clearly states: “Gamahucher Press was selected for preservation.“ Not “The Poetry on G.Press was selected” or “G.press was selected for its poetry.” Because the debate was supposed to be discussing the criticism of Dean's Poetry pointing at a site archiving a website that happens to host said poetry without any mention of it won't actually work as an argument without a further connection. 6. Now, here is a seller. There are thousands of websites on the NLA website archive. Assuming that they are all of great, good or even average quality or value is absurd. Because none of the websites are ranked, rated or given a review upon being archived stating that the website and the content it hosts is good for any other reason than being Australian and are therefore immune to criticism is ridiculous. The press is no exception. It can be a poor website and be archived, it does not make it immune to criticism and/or any better than other content. More on this in 8. 7. So far my opponent has been citing guidelines. Guidelines, as the word implies, are not rules. The archivers should be following them, but reading over the file we find a lot of words like “should”, ambiguous, vague words that imply a choice, not a requirement. The archivers can archive websites for reasons not specified in the guidelines, they are alone on choosing what follows a guideline and what now and they can bend the guideline. As such, without a specific review, Pro cannot point at a guideline and state: “THIS APPLIES 100% TO ME!”. It doesn't, we can't prove that, and thus can't use that. Connecting 6 and 7 reading over the websites at the archive we see that a lot of websites look like having been archived for the prime reason of being Australian. Nothing else. No culture, no arts, no nothing. Just nationality. The press might just be another of those. 8. it is an archive. Nowhere does it state that the archived websites are special or good. They are simply storing and preserving them as they are a sign of Australia and Australian culture at this time and era. The press is Australian, and is archived so it will not get lost. It is a small part of culture in Australia at this point, and along with thousand other websites, it isn't special. It's just being stored, not promoted, not elevated. Just as I write a bad book and it is stored at my national library just for existing so can a bad website be archived just for existing. in conclusionYes, the website was archived. Yes, there is a clause in the guideline that states that, among many other possible ways, being of cultural value should be a factor, but that still does not mean that critics are wrong in their judgement of Dean's poetry. It still is not good poetry. It is art, it is a cultural value, but, it is still bad poetry. They don't look ridiculous because the website is archived, and pro has offered no other arguments. He has not actually connected the argument and resolution and unless he answers and proves all 8 points I mentioned he has no chance of affirming the resolution and winning. People have a free voice, and if they ridiculed something that does not make them wrong in any way. It is a free opinion.