Any topic

Part I I am sorry my points were not clear. The reason I mentioned the themes of the book was because they made me hate it. Along with the disgusting nature of some scenes but that’s kind of a weak argument. My main point was that the themes, the beliefs held by the author that showed through the story, made the book bad. Regarding the meaning of the book, you just drove home my point that it was about society. Maybe for some, the book was a wonderful read and really provoked them intellectually but for me, I saw it coming before it did. I could already tell where it was going which ruined the thrill of reading. I knew it was going to be about the details of society and what happens when society comes head to head with the forces of “savage” nature and “baser instincts”. Actually, I lied. The one thing I didn’t see coming was when they raped a pig with a spear. :l Part II My opponent makes the mistake of using an argument that appeals to authority. He says that since many intellectuals, authors, and poets enjoyed the book, it has to be good, right? I don’t think this is a valid argument because basing the goodness (for lack of a better word) of a book by the people who read it is a kind of a fallacy. My opponent also talks about how the book incorporates many philosophical questions and since most books of our time don’t do that, this makes Lord of the Flies a good book. Maybe I’m dumbing down the argument a little but I wouldn’t argue that many books of our time don’t incorporate philosophical ideas. Also, even if they don’t, I don’t really think the author handled these philosophical ideas very well anyway, at least not to the extent that I’d say: “Well, it was very ‘deep’ so I guess it’s a good book!” Part III I think we should be careful not to mix up popular with good. Maybe that’s a little radical but just because something is popular does not mean it is good. I mean, come on, Gone with the Wind had some racist themes but everyone LOVED that book. It won tons of awards and was made into a movie. NOW ON TO THE MORE HUMOROUS DEBATE (AS AMPHIA WHICH IS MYSELF WOULD SAY) ManMe? Jealous? Oh please, I’ve seen better looking 17th-18th century Europeans. Lord Byron is far more handsome—and I HATE Lord Byron. And have you seen the paintings of Kant when he got old? He looks so…old. Eye of Providence (Fine, jeez, no need to be subtle.)I call lies. You’re just keeping the secrets to yourself because you’re selfish. And you’re racist and sexist too. Quite the triple threat, eh? SupremeI don’t need a Supreme. You’re clearly overcompensating. And anyone who votes should remember that the Supreme does not fit the time period of the profile picture. I explained that this sort of inconsistency transfers to lifestyle and my opponent did not refute his. Expect a forfeit everyone. Smh. ON TO ME The only reason my opponent hates anime is because of his silly Western superiority-complex. Anime is wonderful. And if Asians were really trying to enforce anime around the world, don’t you think we—sorry they--would have done it by now? My opponent is lying when he says he doesn’t like pretty anime girls. The only reason he added the Supreme (which is more modern than the rest of his profile picture) was to impress the modern anime girl in my profile picture. Just so you know, she isn’t impressed. All in all, my profile picture is better because it’s appealing to the eye and not offensive in any way.