Can this work be considered existentialist

--Note on Conduct--Pro never offers any response to the accusation made against him in the previous round that had grievously violated common debate protocol by attempting to insult me. As a matter of fact, in this round, he has continued this, by commenting my debate strategy as being “dicky”. Consequently, the voters are obligated to vote conduct in my favour. --Pro’s Case--The reason why a framework for discerning whether a work can be considered to be “existentialist” is needed is because without such a framework, it would be impossible to characterize the work provided by Pro as being “existentialist”, or not. However, rather than attempting provide a legitimate framework, Pro seems more intent attack me, for “having no real idea of existentialism”. However, existentialism, even though we can clearly identify certain philosophers and authors as being existentialist, has, because of it being a multifaceted, complex philosophy, no clear-cut definition. This reinforces my view that Pro needs to provide a framework for discerning whether a work can be considered “existentialist”, or not. I find it ironic that Pro criticizes me for never studying existentialist philosophy (by the way, a claim never justified) and instead, rely on Google, or other parts of the Internet (another claim never justified), when he personally, uses Wikipedia to provide a definition of angst. Unfortunately for him, the definition of angst provided by him, relates to the “drama an adolescent troubles with”. However, he uses this definition to attempt to show that an old man struggles with angst, which is irrelevant. Rather than providing a clear analysis of how angst relates to the old man, Pro seems more intent on attacking me on the grounds that I had never read the poem. However, I do not need to read the poem in order to satisfy my burden of proof. As Con, I am tasked with showing that it can be reasonably doubted that the work Pro provided can be considered to be “existentialist”; a role that Pro never attempted to deny. As a result, all I have to do is to negate Pro’s argumentation. In addition, even if we assume that the fact that the definition Pro provided can be applied to the old man, he neglects parts of the full definition provided on Wikipedia, essentially making his definition cherry picked. The full definition, as found in the link Pro provides, is: “Angst is often described as a drama an adolescent troubles with during their developmental years. This adolescent trouble or self-loathing is often tied to sexual attractiveness, both males and females often feel this angst and worry that they will not find both a partner or romantic conditional love for who they are. As adolescents face the prospect of adulthood where they must take control of their life, the dread of both facing life alone and the fear of freedom and responsibility often lead to depression. ”Once again, we see that Pro has failed to link the poem to freedom and responsibility. Therefore, Pro’s non-attempts to show that if I were to read the poem, I would see the old man “suffering” and “self-longing” etc. fails in its attempt in relating the poem to angst, due to the fact that his alternate definition, apart from being dubious in its application from teenagers to old people, is cherry picked to ignore important aspects anyway. Throughout this debate, Pro has consistently attempted to dodge the act of relating his work towards existential angst; the freedom and responsibility aspects pertaining to the concept. Pro then argues that the SEP article on existentialism included aspects that render the poem provided to be considered “existentialist”. He argues that a quote associated with existentialism characterizes the old man perfectly. However, this leaves him with no real framework in order to judge whether a work can be considered “existentialist”. Previously, he argued that his framework pertains to angst, but now, he provides a quote relating to a different concept - one of anxiety. Pro does not explain how anxiety fits within his framework, and as a result, we do not know whether the work provided can be “existentialist”. Even if he did do this, he still has not satisfactorily shown the work to be “existentialist”, because rather than providing a reasonable analysis of the poem, showing how the quote relates to the old man, he makes bare-assertions, leaving his argumentation without elaboration. --Con’s Case--In the previous round, I made a case that the poem Pro provides neglects the most distinguishing feature of existentialism, the concept that existence precedes essence. I also noted that an existentialist work does not necessarily need to relate to such a principle, but if Pro wishes to argue this, he would have to elaborate on how the poem deals with other existentialist concepts. Given that Pro has not been able to elaborate sufficiently, we are forced to extend this argument. --Conclusion--Pro has failed to show that the work provided can be considered “existentialist”. This is because:(a) He has not sufficiently related the old man, and the poem in general, to existential angst; in particular, the freedom and responsibility involved. (b) His framework is unclear. (c) He neglects the Sartrean concept that existence precedes essence. Due to this, the voter ought to vote for Con in terms of arguments, given that Pro has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, whilst I - by showing that it can be reasonably doubted that the poem provided can be existentialist - have. In addition, the voter ought to vote for Con in terms of conduct, given that Pro has openly attempted to insult me several times throughout this debate, resulting in a violation of common debate conduct. The voter also ought to vote for Con in terms of spelling & grammar, given that Pro has, throughout this debate, continuously has been unable to capitalize the first word of a sentence, as well as other proper nouns. A few spelling & grammar problems is fine, but Pro’s problems occur throughout this entire debate.