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

I would like to point out that there is still apparently some confusion regarding my previous points, so let me state them again. Pro begins by pointing out that his sources have described how TVU was rated both very low and very high according to the charts. I understand that. However my point was that they were rated very low in the PAST, perhaps when they were not as well-known. However even if they were known and were just simply under-rated in the past, that does not change the fact that the resolution is talking about TODAY (it says 'are' the most over-rated, not 'was' the most over-rated). Therefore the only opinions that matter are what TVU is regarded as in MODERN DAY, and Pro has already established that they currently top charts. Now, the fact that they currently top charts doesn't mean that the band is over-rated. It simply means that they are being noted for their talent. In order for Pro to prove that this band is over-rated, he would have to prove that they are not as good of a band as people think they are -- NOT just the fact that a lot of people like them. So again, the fundamental flaw with Pro's argument is that so far he has only been talking about numbers and people's opinions. Nowhere in this debate has he talked about the quality of the music, which is essentially what the entire debate is about -- the band's talent and whether or not it is under-appreciated or highly exxgerated. Next Pro points out that music is a fundamental part of human existence, and states, "Popular recognition is in fact a method of understanding the ratings of a musician" and I agree (to an extent). Although once again, ratings do not mean anything without some sort of idea of the music itself. For instance, if band XYZ was awesome yet had poor ratings, that would signify that the band was under-rated. The opposite would indicate vice versa. However Pro has not given us any basis of the band in order to determine whether or not they were in fact under or over-rated. Here's an example of my point: Tom Green is not held in high regard as a musician and does/would in fact receive bad or low ratings. Now just because he receives those ratings does not mean that he is under-rated -- he truly deserves them! So Pro's problem here is that he has not established why TVU deserves either a good or a bad rating. Similarly on this point, Pro goes on to say, "plz note i'm not saying that being well known makes a musician good, i'm saying being well known makes a musician highly/over rated. " But once again that is flawed logic. Consider an artist like Beethoven. He is well known but not over-rated; his high rating is deserved. Pro moves on to point out that he has used Rateyourmusic. com to "use as evidence that many people think TVU are great. " However Pro has NOT provided evidence to show that TVU is over-rated, as in, their appreciation or admiration is not deserved. This is an important principle in this debate. On his final point, Pro asks that readers listen to TVU and decide for themselves whether or not they feel that TVU deserves the honor of being considered to have the #4 best album of all time. However whether or not any reader agrees with this is completely void of any meaning. This debate is supposed to be about how well WE argued - not what readers happen to think of the music. Pro was supposed to have made better arguments -- not care what voters feel about the band itself. Pro then goes on to point out why the album is over-rated (he says it's because Lou Reed can't sing). However Pro has not pointed out why this band is UNDER-rated, which is a huge advantage for me, the Con. For Pro's main point of the debate, he notes, "The main point of my argument was that they aren't popularly recognized today and they are rating more highly then they should be today. " However, while Pro provided that TVU is highly regarded today and at least gave one opinion or example as to why they shouldn't be, pro has NOT explained why or how they are under-rated, and if it is deserved. Saying that they are under-rated because they are not well known today is FLAWED and I have explained why several times. Just because some people may not know them does NOT mean that they are under-rated. It means that they are not as popular as they should be - that's all. Because in their ignorance, people are not passing judgment on the band. Nobody is saying "TVU sucks because nobody knows who they are. .. " In regard to Heath, Pro says, "Some people saying that Heath's performance was overrated doesn't make it underrated. " No, but the fact that Heath isn't as highly praised as he should be amongst critics, to me, makes his performance under-rated (I've already explained that I thought it was brilliant). However I do believe his performance was over-rated when I hear that some claim it to be the best villainous performance of all time (because I can think of other paramount examples, such as Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs). So in my example with Heath ledger, I have explained both why and how Heath is simultaneously under and over-rated. But with TVU, Pro only explained why the band is over-rated. His saying that it's under-rated because it is not as popular as it should be does NOT make any sense. Not popular does not mean that people are not giving the band enough credit. Yes, some ratings are based on popularity but ratings do not always equal reviews or opinions. For instance, the #1 best selling album may not be what I or many others feel as the BEST album. It just happens to be more popular among the masses. In conclusion, Pro attempts to once again make the claim that I must "provide an example of a band that is more overrated and more underrated to prove me wrong. " That is simply not true. Rather it is Pro's burden to prove the resolution to be true, and for me to prove the resolution to be untrue. I have proven that the resolution is untrue because I have proved that it is based on opinion, and also by pointing out that Pro has provided no evidence to make this subjective resolution have any substantive, factual merit. The fact that I provided numerous bands and actually incorporated reasoning as to why each of them is simultaneously under and over-rated, especially moreso than TVU, is just a bonus :) Pro agrees that his case is riddled with bias, however, in that instance it was his burden to provide more analytical reasoning in addition to just cited sources of what other people think of TVU. However Pro has not fulfilled this burden in the least and therefore you should vote Con. Thank you.