The Velvet Underground Are Simultaneously The Most Underrated and Overrated Band of All Time.

For clarification, I understand Pro's advocation very well and hope that the readers do too. I am arguing against the fact that TVU is *simultaneously* both the most under and over-rated band. Now on to a refutation of Pro's rebuttal... 1. Pro says that he can show that masses of people think that TVU is amazing and that masses also think they are not. He also feels that the degree of their opinion in both directions is greater than any other band. However, just because he CAN do something doesn't mean that he has. Thus far, Pro has not provided any evidence to prove this point. 2. Pro says that because TVU is not as well-known as some other bands, it proves that they are under-rated. However this is a logical fallacy. Simply because something/someone is largely unknown does not mean that this person or thing is under-rated. For instance, most of you probably don't know my Law professor. Does that mean that he or his teaching capabilties are under-rated? No. It means that you haven't been exposed to him or his lessons. Your ignorance to his existance does not mean that he is under-rated, and such it is with TVU. 3A. Pro suggests that my sources are unreliable because "Anyone can create a webpage or write an article of who they believe to be the most overrated bands" which is true. However, later on in this debate, Pro introduces RateYourMusic.com as a supposed valid source of rating bands/music for the purpose of this debate. He even goes so far as to say that RateYourMusic.com is 'democratic' because "the people themselves decide the rankings of each artist," but, uh, can't people do that with websites as well? Why does one have to vote on RateYourMusic for their opinion to be valid? And keep in mind that people can skew votes on that website just as easily as they can on this one (debate.org). Therefore if you're going to dismiss my sources, you have to disclude Pro's as well. 3B. However let's assume for a second that RYM was actually a credible source. Even so, I can dismantle Pro's logic using basic common sense. For instance, Pro notes, "B/c they are so widely, highly rated i conclude that they are overrated." So Pro is saying that just because people highly regard TVU, they must be over-rated. Once again, this is completely illogical. If 90 out of 100 people polled felt that Michael Phelps is among the best swimmers in the world right now, or that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest basketball players who ever lived, that does NOT make either of those 2 individals over-rated. It just makes them popular, or exemplifies how their accomplishments and talents are widely regarded in the public eye. In other words, simply because a lot of people feel that TVU is awesome does not make them over-rated. Maybe they really are as great as many people think they are. 3C. Just to reiterate a previous point, Pro goes on to provide a quote from 'a music critic' who prefers TVU over The Beatles. That is no different than any music critic's opinions provided from my sources. 4. Pro's next point is that when TVU first appeared on the charts, they did not rise above 171. Now they are tanked #13 according to Rolling Stone. So I ask this of Pro -- what does this have to do with anything? All this proves is that TVU was once unpopular, and now they are more well-known. At the very best, this proves that TVU was either once under-rated in the PAST, or perhaps more over-rated TODAY. Either way this proves nothing, as the resolution refers to a band that is *SIMULTANEOUSLY* both the most under and over-rated band. 5. Pro's 5th point is, "The Ramones are much more famous with the masses than TVU for this reason they are NOT more underrated then them." Once again - whether or not a band is well-known has absolutely nothing to do with being under or over-rated. Rather being under-rated means that something is not prasied enough for its quality - not the fact that it is little or unknown. 6. Pro ends his argument first by agreeeing with my analysis... which I don't really understand, because that would make me the undisputed winner of this debate, but I digress. Then Pro agrees that some of the bands I listed were more over-rated than TVU; however, states that none of them are more under-rated because all have had more commercial success. However just because something is commercially successful does not mean that everyone gives it just praise. For example, consider Heath Ledger's role in the film Batman: The Dark Knight. As we all know, this film was a HUGE commercial success. However many people feel that Heath's amazing performance was exaggerated by many for the simple fact that he had passed away by the time the movie had come out. Now many of us disregard this nonsense, however, you'd be surprised at how many people actually think Heath did just an okay job. To fans, the fact that Heath isn't being even MORE prasied shows that his performance was completely under-rated, despite the fact that it raked in big bucks at the box office. CONCLUSION: Pro is incorrect with his conclusion when he states, "For my opponent to prove me wrong she must provide an example of one band that is simultaneously more overrated and more underrated." In R1, you'll noticed that I listed this option as only one of several ways for me to win this debate. However in addition, I can also point out the fact that there is no unbiased way of EVER determining if something is under or over-rated, meaning that Pro's assertation that TVU is both of those things is subjective and unsupported. Further, I ask that readers and Pro remember the true meaning of under and over-rated (perhaps these terms should have been defined...?), because neither of these things has to do solely with commercial success.