Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Would it have been to much to ask if you had just attempted to refute my case, explained why it was wrong or, you know, actually read what I was saying? I can just go trough this line for line....“I have given proof that the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value-thus those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous-I have proven my claim“ read clause 1,2,4,5,7,8. There are, once more, a few issues with this argument.You have not proven that this is precisely what the archiver, on behalf of NLA, stated. You've proven that there exists a guideline that recommends that, among other guidelines, that archived websites should be of cultural value if it fits no other guideline. The archiver did not give a review nor a statement on the archive of the press and you can not prove that the archived happened because it was considered to be of cultural value as opposed to being archived for being Australian or offering the content for free. Because of this ambiguous nature this is a fallacious argument. The archiver is not required to follow the guideline, as shown countless times if you bother to read trough the websites that are archived. Oxygen for instance is not of cultural value and has no redeeming quality aside from being Australian, it does not fit the guideline. Yet it is archived. The press thus has no guaranty of having been archived for anything the guideline stated and thus the guideline argument is fallacious. The archive was not performed because of the poetry. The content is not being reviewed, the entire website is. Just as you don't say that a film is great because of a single scene neither is the website of cultural value because of a few poems. Thus linking the archive to the poetry is fallacious, or at least won't hold up on its own. I've demonstrated, and not been refuted on, countless times that cultural value is not the same as being good. Something can be bad and still be of cultural value. So even if this was the stance of NLA using “cultural value” to invalidate the general opinion that the poetry is “bad” is a fallacy, the two are not interlinked. In addition to the other already discussed and unanswered arguments in the debate I put forth, but this will do for rebuttal. Pro did not fulfil the burden of proof in his single argument nor answered any of my 8 points I brought up. Now, the other point:2}con has not given proof that the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural valuethus con has not demonstrated his con position which isThose who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry DONT look ridiculous I don't know why I'm even replying to this...First off, again, in next to no way is the (unproven) decision that the entire website is of cultural value affect in any way the fact that the poetry is bad or of not any quality. Thus this won't be sufficient to affirm the resolution and thus I do not need to debunk it, albeit I already did. Because the resolution was not affirmed by the Bop holder (pro) it is negated by default. I have demonstrated the position numerous times, I noted that your only argument has little to do with the resolution. I stated that if a large crowd share a position or opinion the opinion of a single other member is not enough to invalidate said group. I stated that the ridicule is just and the poetry is not good in general. I have upheld my position to great detail, I've refuted each and every point Pro could think of, which where not many, and I've made a solid case. Pro has not and at mostly dropped my arguments without reading them it seems So, let's sum this up:The NLA did not give a reason for the archive nor did the archive remark on the quality of the poetry in any way. Thus any criticism on said poetry is valid and the critics themselves are not ridiculous. This one line is enough to answer the entire case pro put up, and yet the 32.000 characters I've spent fighting that single strawman argument just seems to fly past pro. To conclude, pro had a single argument and no effort put into the case. I refuted the argument and as predicted he just tried to use it again and expect it to change meaning. I refuted it again and now, 5 rounds later, my opponent still hasn't put up a half-arsed debate nor fight. I don't complain, it is good practise for me, but I would have wished that he at least tried to think outside his limited little box and make better, more versatile arguments. His case has been defeated, I thank him for at least trying. Au revoir, et Merci.