Tool

Ok I guess we are on the same page then. 👆

Saying Lyrics are important to a song though is a very broad statement though.Which can lead to confusion. Because obviously someone who likes Lyrics more thinks they are more important , and they are more important; to them. Now if you mean important to the songs success, or to most people, Then you are correct about Music being more important. Because most people don't even know what the lyrics mean at first lol. They only find out cuz they like the music in most cases.

It was a drastic analogy but it proves my point well. If the lyrics are equally important to the music, it shouldn't actually matter who's singing it if the words are what you love.

Not with validity. You more or less said this. Singer A has the following attributes - Lyrics - 10, voice 10. Singer B has the following attributes - Lyrics -10, Voice 2. People are going to like Singer A better, so this proves that voice is factually more important.
Again, it just doesn't work like that. Obviously, in that situation, most people will probably like Gavin more because he's singing great lyrics with great vocals. Ashley is singing great lyrics, but with a asscovered voice. Surely you see the flaw in this.

That's not the case at all, because you flipped the roles of my analogy, but I'll use that analogy. Comedy is the main part of The Simpsons, the humour. The animation adds to it, correct? It's not the main part, right? If the characters were lumps of talking shit, but had the exact same comedy, it would still be funny. Not as funny, but funny. If you looked at The Simpsons animation on it's own, a picture of them just sitting there, you don't think "Hahaha look at what Homer could be saying, so funny." Because while the animation adds to it, it's not IT. Just like a song without lyrics will still be awesome. Maybe not as awesome, but awesome.

Too be honest, if homer was a talking piece of shit....that would be quite hilarious.

Seriously though, the simpsons analogy I made was the same as yours in body and presentation, flawed and biased towards making a point seem factual and absolute when it isn't. It was overly drastic and simplified to a fault. But yeah, to me, comedy is the main part of the simpsons, however, I'm not going to say someone is factually wrong if they say they think the animation is the most important aspect of the show. Same goes for video games, some people think Graphics are the most important aspect of video games, while I don't agree, and I could post evidence reasoning to back up my claim, I would not call it a fact that they are wrong.

So which would be better, in that event? Gavin still right? Because he sounds better. Proof also being At the Drive-In. Very, very good band, horrible lyrics. If lyrics were as important, their shows would be shit. I'll use your analogy again.

If they switch lyrics, Gavin singing Ashlee's shit and Ashlee singing Gavin's material, which would a die hard lyrics fan enjoy more? Gavin's because it sounds better. Not even the most die hard lyrics fan is gonna listen to a 20 year old pop fool who has no talent, regardless of her lyrics. Let's bring THIS on though. Keep what you just said, but add a third choice, right? You hear Ashlee sing Gavin's words, you hear Gavin singing her words, you then have BOTH lyrics sheets to read. What is the better one? Gavin's performance? Yes, because lyrics on their own aren't as powerful as lyrics sung and great lyrics sung shit, mean shit. So again, lyrics are proven to be an accompanying attribute.

I'd personally like gavin, yeah, because as I said, to me music and voice is more important then the lyrics, that doesn't make it a FACT. It makes it a reasonable belief and opinion, one that most people may agree with, but not a fact.

Now, how do you know what other people would think in this type of situation. Don't speak for others, friend. I believe you've condemned people for doing that before, and now you're doing it. Speak for yourself, and no one else.

Some people who truly care about the lyrics, very well could enjoy ashleys vocals more because of the better, deeper and more intriguing lyrics. I'm not going to claim to know what people are going to think.

I don't understand the third scenario about reading the lyrics sheet. How would that make a difference on the peoples opinion on who the better singer was?

I keep showing you it and I keep getting the impression you are disagreeing for the broader sake of it. Like the guys in the comics forum in debates such as who would win, Wolverine or Hulk?

"Well if Wolverine did...." No. The answer is Hulk, clearly. Why? Because it just is, isn't it? You can theoretically come up with a way for Wolverine to win if you sit there and try so hard, but if they met, it'd last 5 minutes minimum. You can theoretically try to say "Well if the lyrics...etc" all you want. The answer will still be that in the medium of art, specifically music, the music is most important.

Again, you're showing evidence and reasoning, not PROOF. There is a massive difference. But again, please point me to this proof you seem to believe you've posted, I've not seen it. I'm not trying to be stubborn, nor am I debating for the sake of debating, I really haven't seen any.

Also keep in mind that personally I agree with you, I think that music is more important, the only thing I'm in disagreement on and confused about is the claim of it being a fact rather then opinion.

http://www.quia.com/jq/24723.html

fact and opinion quiz lol.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not with validity. You more or less said this. Singer A has the following attributes - Lyrics - 10, voice 10. Singer B has the following attributes - Lyrics -10, Voice 2. People are going to like Singer A better, so this proves that voice is factually more important.
Again, it just doesn't work like that. Obviously, in that situation, most people will probably like Gavin more because he's singing great lyrics with great vocals. Ashley is singing great lyrics, but with a asscovered voice. Surely you see the flaw in this.

It proves a point though. Point being that lyrics aren't equally as important as the music.

You get Maynard on stage singing The Grudge, right? You then bring the band out and they play it together. What is better? The second one. AGAIN, because of the music. The lyrics don't factor into making it a better performance. Music is what carries the emotion, lyrics just define it a bit.

Originally posted by BackFire
Too be honest, if homer was a talking piece of shit....that would be quite hilarious.

Seriously though, the simpsons analogy I made was the same as yours in body and presentation, flawed and biased towards making a point seem factual and absolute when it isn't. It was overly drastic and simplified to a fault. But yeah, to me, comedy is the main part of the simpsons, however, I'm not going to say someone is factually wrong if they say they think the animation is the most important aspect of the show. Same goes for video games, some people think Graphics are the most important aspect of video games, while I don't agree, and I could post evidence reasoning to back up my claim, I would not call it a fact that they are wrong.

Why? Because we both know they are wrong. Why are you denying it? That's why I believe you're being stubborn. Games aren't about great graphics, hence why games were great on the NES. Family Guy? First season wasn't that funny. Second and third were f*cking hilarious. The animation was the same.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'd personally like gavin, yeah, because as I said, to me music and voice is more important then the lyrics, that doesn't make it a FACT. It makes it a reasonable belief and opinion, one that most people may agree with, but not a fact.

Agreed, you believing it doesn't make it fact. Me believing it doesn't make it fact. It being a fact, is what makes it a fact. People can prefer lyrics till the cows come home, whatever floats your boat. To make a claim that lyrics are more important is wrong.

Originally posted by BackFire
Now, how do you know what other people would think in this type of situation. Don't speak for others, friend. I believe you've condemned people for doing that before, and now you're doing it. Speak for yourself, and no one else.

Some people who truly care about the lyrics, very well could enjoy ashleys vocals more because of the better, deeper and more intriguing lyrics. I'm not going to claim to know what people are going to think.

What's the chances of that? 100,000 people in a room and none of them have heard or heard of Gavin or Ashlee. Ashlee performs the great lyrics, can't sing. Gavin performs the shit lyrics, can sing. You may very well get people coming away saying "Ashlee had great lyrics." But the chances of people coming away in that situation saying, "Man, she had awesome lyrics. That was the best performance! She couldn't sing, the other guy had an astounding voice, but the words stole it for me." are slim and none.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't understand the third scenario about reading the lyrics sheet. How would that make a difference on the peoples opinion on who the better singer was?

I'm proving that lyrics aren't as important as the music. Here:

"Molly was a good girl and she knew the reasons why.
So when she went back in the bathroom she would never come
outside.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar.
Oh - Liar - Oh - Liar - Oh Oh.
Molly was a good girl and she knew the reasons why.
Molly was a good girl and she knew the reasons why.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar
Oh - liar - oh oh no - liar - oh oh no
Molly was a good girl - Molly - Molly was a good girl.
Molly - Molly was a - Molly was a - Molly - Molly.
Molly was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a liar.
She was a good girl and it felt great to be a..."

Lyrics to Molly by Mindless Self Indulgence.

Now, those are pretty piss poor lyrics mostly. That song, is f*cking incredible. If lyrics were as important, that song would be shit wouldn't it? Imagine Jimmy Urine standing on stage singing that. You'd think "Leave it ahhht mate." When I saw them live, I didn't stand there and think "Man, these lyrics are lame." I was enjoying the hell out of one of the best shows I've seen because they're kick ass musicians.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, you're showing evidence and reasoning, not PROOF. There is a massive difference. But again, please point me to this proof you seem to believe you've posted, I've not seen it. I'm not trying to be stubborn, nor am I debating for the sake of debating, I really haven't seen any.

Also keep in mind that personally I agree with you, I think that music is more important, the only thing I'm in disagreement on and confused about is the claim of it being a fact rather then opinion.

Well the fact that you can't grasp (no offence intended there) what I'm saying and why it's a fact, isn't my fault. You just don't agree that it's a fact, that's not my fault. A fact is something undeniable, I can prove that things are facts. How can I prove that a fact is a fact more than I have? I have no clue. I don't need to because you're agreeing with me and the only reason you are not is because of people who might have differing opinions which, to you, makes it subjective despite them having a wrong opinion.

-AC

It proves a point though. Point being that lyrics aren't equally as important as the music.

You get Maynard on stage singing The Grudge, right? You then bring the band out and they play it together. What is better? The second one. AGAIN, because of the music. The lyrics don't factor into making it a better performance. Music is what carries the emotion, lyrics just define it a bit.

Again, it hasn't PROVED anything. It doesn't PROVE a point, it MAKES a point. You're using the word "prove" improperly. You can't prove something through a flawed analogy, which is what the analogy in question is. It seems you have a poor grasp on what proof really is. Proof isn't evidence, which is what you've given.

This again, is a flawed analogy that proves nothing to an unbiased mind. You're not making it through fair and objective means. You're adding something to the performance that inherently improves it (obviously, if you add music to good lyrics, it will pretty much automatically be better because now it has more quality attributes to the art) no matter what a persons preference. Saying that adding music to good lyrics undeniably proves that lyrics aren't as important as music is simply not valid proof. You've not pr oven why, you're simply saying it because you think it to be true.

Music carries the emotion to YOU, not everyone.

Why? Because we both know they are wrong. Why are you denying it? That's why I believe you're being stubborn. Games aren't about great graphics, hence why games were great on the NES. Family Guy? First season wasn't that funny. Second and third were f*cking hilarious. The animation was the same.

No, we don't know they are wrong, we simply strongly disagree with them. It's a matter of opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for the importance of lyrics in songs. If you think that anyone who thinks that graphics are the most important part of a game is factually and provably wrong, then the only thing you are proving is you're misunderstanding of the word "proof".

What's the chances of that? 100,000 people in a room and none of them have heard or heard of Gavin or Ashlee. Ashlee performs the great lyrics, can't sing. Gavin performs the shit lyrics, can sing. You may very well get people coming away saying "Ashlee had great lyrics." But the chances of people coming away in that situation saying, "Man, she had awesome lyrics. That was the best performance! She couldn't sing, the other guy had an astounding voice, but the words stole it for me." are slim and none.

Again, how do you know this? You are making some incredibly blatant assumptions based on your own personal feelings and nothing more. Also, why is it okay for you to make assumptions as to what other people would/could/do think, but when other people do it you call them on it and condemn them for it? You need some consistency here, AC. You can't throw stones at someone for doing something and then go and do it yourself, that's very poor form in a debate/discussion.

The chances? Who knows what the chances are? I don't, and you sure don't. The fact that it's at all possible for people to come away thinking that Ashley was the better artists suggests that a persons stance on the subject is a matter of opinion, and nothing more. The fact that it's even possible to disagree with you and retort you shows how non factual this is.

Now, those are pretty piss poor lyrics mostly. That song, is f*cking incredible. If lyrics were as important, that song would be shit wouldn't it? Imagine Jimmy Urine standing on stage singing that. You'd think "Leave it ahhht mate." When I saw them live, I didn't stand there and think "Man, these lyrics are lame." I was enjoying the hell out of one of the best shows I've seen because they're kick ass musicians.

Again, this is based on first hand experience and your opinion on this particular song, is this what you consider proof? This just proves you like the song regardless of bad lyrics. Just because you feel that this song is outstanding despite the shit lyrics doesn't mean this is factually a good song, nor does it mean that it's impossible for people to feel that the lyrics ruin it. Again, it's simply a matter of opinion.

Well the fact that you can't grasp (no offence intended there) what I'm saying and why it's a fact, isn't my fault. You just don't agree that it's a fact, that's not my fault. A fact is something undeniable, I can prove that things are facts. How can I prove that a fact is a fact more than I have? I have no clue. I don't need to because you're agreeing with me and the only reason you are not is because of people who might have differing opinions which, to you, makes it subjective despite them having a wrong opinion.

To attempt to blame the person who doesn't recognize your falsely advertised proof is spectacularly illogical. The fault falls on you for failing to provide valid proof on this matter. Each of your alleged proofs has not been such. It's either been evidence or reasoning, all of which are grand, but you can't claim them to be proof! They are evidence and reasoning, nothing more.

How odd, you say "A fact is something undeniable", you claim your stance is based on fact and proof, yet I am somehow denying it. That should tell you something. You do seem to know the proper definition of a fact, yet you're incorrectly placing it in this situation.

But, once again, if you can actually point me to specific forms of proof, which according to you, are here in abundance, despite me not being able to find them, please, quote them, or tell me what post/page they are on. I'm still looking for them, I'm going through the thread, searching, and I've yet to see proof. All I've seen is evidence and reasoning, but no proof.

Anywho, It's 3:00am and I need to get to bed. This will probably be my last response, since tommorow the discussion probably will have moved on to something else,and since we're beginning to go in circles in this debate, and I simply won't care tommorow, most likely. So, it's been fun, always enjoy discussing things with you. And if you'd like, I'd still really enjoying seeing particular examples of the proof you claim to have given. I'll let you have the last word, unless of course I still give a shit tommorow. Good night, and much respect, AC.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, it hasn't PROVED anything. It doesn't PROVE a point, it MAKES a point. You're using the word "prove" improperly. You can't prove something through a flawed analogy, which is what the analogy in question is. It seems you have a poor grasp on what proof really is. Proof isn't evidence, which is what you've given.

Proof, to me was always defined as the evidence with which the mind is lead to believe an idea as true. Which is also what dictionary.com defines it as. What do we know though?

Originally posted by BackFire
This again, is a flawed analogy that proves nothing to an unbiased mind. You're not making it through fair and objective means. You're adding something to the performance that inherently improves it (obviously, if you add music to good lyrics, it will pretty much automatically be better because now it has more quality attributes to the art) no matter what a persons preference. Saying that adding music to good lyrics undeniably proves that lyrics aren't as important as music is simply not valid proof. You've not proven why, you're simply saying it because you think it to be true.

What are you talking about? Of course I've proven why. Because I've gave many examples of lyrical effectiveness on it's own, musical on it's own, and the two together. Result being that lyrics aren't as powerful. Not too hard to grasp.

Originally posted by BackFire
Music carries the emotion to YOU, not everyone.

George Bush, to me, is an *******. Not to everyone. He is though, isn't he?

Originally posted by BackFire
No, we don't know they are wrong, we simply strongly disagree with them. It's a matter of opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for the importance of lyrics in songs. If you think that anyone who thinks that graphics are the most important part of a game is factually and provably wrong, then the only thing you are proving is you're misunderstanding of the word "proof".

A) You misunderstood the word proof, as proven. Ironically.

B) Well games aren't made for the purpose of putting it in and just looking at. So they're not made for the graphics, hence why someone believing they are, would be wrong.

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, how do you know this? You are making some incredibly blatant assumptions based on your own personal feelings and nothing more. Also, why is it okay for you to make assumptions as to what other people would/could/do think, but when other people do it you call them on it and condemn them for it? You need some consistency here, AC. You can't throw stones at someone for doing something and then go and do it yourself, that's very poor form in a debate/discussion.

The chances? Who knows what the chances are? I don't, and you sure don't. The fact that it's at all possible for people to come away thinking that Ashley was the better artists suggests that a persons stance on the subject is a matter of opinion, and nothing more. The fact that it's even possible to disagree with you and retort you shows how non factual this is.

I'm not making assumptions based on my own personal feelings. I'm basing it on the talent of both individuals involved. I'm not specifically speaking for actual people, I'm speaking over a scenario. Let's review this scenario:

"100,000 people in a room and none of them have heard or heard of Gavin or Ashlee. Ashlee performs the great lyrics, can't sing. Gavin performs the shit lyrics, can sing. You may very well get people coming away saying "Ashlee had great lyrics." But the chances of people coming away in that situation saying, "Man, she had awesome lyrics. That was the best performance! She couldn't sing, the other guy had an astounding voice, but the words stole it for me." are slim and none."

You're denying this? Despite the fact that we know, live, Ashlee Simpson cannot sing a note, and Gavin is incredible?

Originally posted by BackFire
Again, this is based on first hand experience and your opinion on this particular song, is this what you consider proof? This just proves you like the song regardless of bad lyrics. Just because you feel that this song is outstanding despite the shit lyrics doesn't mean this is factually a good song, nor does it mean that it's impossible for people to feel that the lyrics ruin it. Again, it's simply a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of opinion how good the song is, sure. The words in it and the music made are not connected though, which is my point. You could hear that song, think it's great (because the lyrics aren't too decipherable), read the lyrics later and say "Now that song is shit." How would it be? Where is the logic in this? How can words on a page, have a lasting effect on what the band's bassist, drummer or guitarist are playing? How can you logically say that because of some words written down, the MUSIC BEING PLAYED is no longer as good? It's the most illogical thing ever, not just to me, but in general. Because that's like buying a copied album, loving it, then buying the original and then hating the album because you dislike the cover art.

Originally posted by BackFire
To attempt to blame the person who doesn't recognize your falsely advertised proof is spectacularly illogical. The fault falls on you for failing to provide valid proof on this matter. Each of your alleged proofs has not been such. It's either been evidence or reasoning, all of which are grand, but you can't claim them to be proof! They are evidence and reasoning, nothing more.

Ahem.

proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

But then maybe we're both wrong and you're right. You think evidence and proof are separate, and you're claiming it's not your fault that you aren't grasping my point?

Originally posted by BackFire
How odd, you say "A fact is something undeniable", you claim your stance is based on fact and proof, yet I am somehow denying it. That should tell you something. You do seem to know the proper definition of a fact, yet you're incorrectly placing it in this situation.

But, once again, if you can actually point me to specific forms of proof, which according to you, are here in abundance, despite me not being able to find them, please, quote them, or tell me what post/page they are on. I'm still looking for them, I'm going through the thread, searching, and I've yet to see proof. All I've seen is evidence and reasoning, but no proof.

Being that evidence is actually proof I suggest you reconsider this entire part. Thanks.

Originally posted by BackFire
Anywho, It's 3:00am and I need to get to bed. This will probably be my last response, since tommorow the discussion probably will have moved on to something else,and since we're beginning to go in circles in this debate, and I simply won't care tommorow, most likely. So, it's been fun, always enjoy discussing things with you. And if you'd like, I'd still really enjoying seeing particular examples of the proof you claim to have given. I'll let you have the last word, unless of course I still give a shit tommorow. Good night, and much respect, AC.

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.

This is all based around you thinking two definitions are different.

Proving something is an act, evidence is what you use to carry out that act. I've provided evidence in the actions of proving my conviction.

-AC

Proof and evidence are not the same thing. They are related, and SOME evidence becomes proof, but as a whole, they are different, they even have different definitions.

proof Audio pronunciation of "proof" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
1. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
2. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
1. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
2. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7. Printing.
1. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
2. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8.
1. A trial photographic print.
2. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9. Archaic. Proven impenetrability: “I was clothed in Armor of proof” (John Bun

ev·i·dence Audio pronunciation of "evidence" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es

1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

Now, as you can see, they are related, and as I said, evidence CAN become proof if strong enough. However, not all evidence is straight forward, undeniable, proof. Take the example given in the definition of Evidence.

"The broken window is evidence that a burgulary took place". See, this is evidence, it enhances the argument for the burgulary, but it does not PROVE that a brugulary took place. Once they find other forms of evidence that eventually become undeniable, it will become proof.

Basically, evidence enhances an argument in some way, it supports it, it does not END an argument.

Proof, on the other hand, ends the argument, cold turkey. If you prove something, it would be impossible to make a counter argument. Take the example in the definitions of Proof.

"was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability"

See, in this case, the evidence (which would be an ID for his identity, and an employment history, which, if good, would prove that he is a good worker) inherently ends any possible opposition that could be said against his identity. If he has a valid ID, that proves who he is, his employment history shows whether or not he factually has been a dependable worker. It's unarguable, can't be debated. There lies the difference.

Evidence enhances an argument/idea/belief and supports it, and can become proof is strong enough and if absolute. However, having evidence does not automatically prove your point to be factual.

Proof makes it impossible to retort against, it is absolute and can't be disagreed with or questioned. It makes the claim a truth in the minds of ALL, not just some.

Originally posted by BackFire
Now, as you can see, they are related, and as I said, evidence CAN become proof if strong enough. However, not all evidence is straight forward, undeniable, proof. Take the example given in the definition of Evidence.

"The broken window is evidence that a burgulary took place". See, this is evidence, it enhances the argument for the burgulary, but it does not PROVE that a brugulary took place. Once they find other forms of evidence that eventually become undeniable, it will become proof.

I'm not discussing burglary though. I'm discussing something that we can look at and use. The police don't know there's a burglary.

Originally posted by BackFire
Basically, evidence enhances an argument in some way, it supports it, it does not END an argument.

Proof, on the other hand, ends the argument, cold turkey. If you prove something, it would be impossible to make a counter argument. Take the example in the definitions of Proof.

"was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability"

See, in this case, the evidence (which would be an ID for his identity, and an employment history, which, if good, would prove that he is a good worker) inherently ends any possible opposition that could be said against his identity. If he has a valid ID, that proves who he is, his employment history shows whether or not he factually has been a dependable worker. It's unarguable, can't be debated. There lies the difference.

You are applying different usage of the word to different situations, none of which are the one we're discussing.

The ID proves who he is but whether he has been dependant or not is subjective. The examples given by me prove that lyrics are not as important as music, whether people prefer music over lyrics or not is subjective. To say they are equal is not.

Originally posted by BackFire
Evidence enhances an argument/idea/belief and supports it, and can become proof is strong enough and if absolute. However, having evidence does not automatically prove your point to be factual.

Proof makes it impossible to retort against, it is absolute and can't be disagreed with or questioned. It makes the claim a truth in the minds of ALL, not just some.

People are stupid enough to deny fact, you seem to be accounting for these people. Anyone can vocally deny fact by saying "Nah, aint true." If that's what you mean, then there's no point going on because there would be no need for fact or opinion.

If I say the grass is green, it's a fact, without getting into concepts of perception. Someone could continually stand there and say the grass isn't green, despite it being. Like someone could stand there and say lyrics are equal, when they're not. That's not them denying it by proving it non factual, that's them denying it cos they're non-smart. Case in point, you're not disagreeing with me on the actual issue.

-AC

Fair enough, my whole point with that above post was to show that evidence and proof are not the same thing, nothing more.

Too you, lyrics are factually less important then the music.

To me, it's a matter of opinion.

Obviously, neither of us are convinced of the others argument and aren't about to budge to the opposing side, so to avoid starting to go in circles and go drastically off topic, we'll just go ahead and leave it at that, if that's okay with you?

Yes, I've got bigger things to deal with, man.

As I'm sure you're aware.

-AC

Actually Lyrics can be more important...especially in faith and worship A.C. =) I'm not saying I'm a fan, but its true.

Also music isn't special...It has the same literal definitions of everything else. Since it is an art it is also very subjective.

Now look at this...someone can say Red is better than purple, and come up with all these reasons including you need red to make purple. Its still just an opinion. here is a decent site that deals with opinions masquerading as facts. HTTP://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/factopinion/factopinion.html

OPINION: Statement of belief or feeling. It shows one's feelings about a subject. Solid opinions, while based on facts, are someone's views on a subject and not facts themselves.

Music being more important is your view. It's not something clear cut u can point out and prove. Like fingerprints on a door matching another set, or that the earth revolves around the sun. You put up strong arguments to why it is, but it doesn't make it a fact.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Actually Lyrics can be more important...especially in faith and worship A.C. =) I'm not saying I'm a fan, but its true.

Also music isn't special...It has the same literal definitions of everything else. Since it is an art it is also very subjective.

Now look at this...someone can say Red is better than purple, and come up with all these reasons including you need red to make purple. Its still just an opinion. here is a decent site that deals with opinions masquerading as facts. HTTP://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/factopinion/factopinion.html

OPINION: Statement of belief or feeling. It shows one's feelings about a subject. Solid opinions, while based on facts, are someone's views on a subject and not facts themselves.

Music being more important is your view. It's not something clear cut u can point out and prove. Like fingerprints on a door matching another set, or that the earth revolves around the sun. You put up strong arguments to why it is, but it doesn't make it a fact.

Read what I said in one of my posts to BackFire, regarding fact and opinion.

I respect what you're saying but I had to explain what opinion meant to you. That being said, this isn't at the forefront of my priorities right now.

-AC

Can we just clarify- are we saying lyrics are as important as music generally?

Or do we refer to lyrics being as important as music TO music?

If it is the latter, then they aren't.

In the former- many people may listen to music and think the lyrics are the most important thing to them- that's fine, and subjective.

As far as the question 'which is more important to music?', the question is not subjective, it's a simple logical deduction.

aenima woudnt mean shit to me unless maynards voice and lyrics was in there

That's fine. But saying words are more important is wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Read what I said in one of my posts to BackFire, regarding fact and opinion.

I respect what you're saying but I had to explain what opinion meant to you. That being said, this isn't at the forefront of my priorities right now.

-AC

lol I know and have known what opinions are. anyway I hear ya on more important things...like why hotmail sucks and wont let me in, and food.. Nice discussion A.C., at least debates with you are intelligent ones...more then I can say for most people. (actually I dont see alot of people who argure like trolls on here...mainly other message boards.)

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Can we just clarify- are we saying lyrics are as important as music generally?

Or do we refer to lyrics being as important as music TO music?

If it is the latter, then they aren't.

In the former- many people may listen to music and think the lyrics are the most important thing to them- that's fine, and subjective.

As far as the question 'which is more important to music?', the question is not subjective, it's a simple logical deduction.

Logic doenst make something a Fact though...Its logical that red is a better color then purple (like i said before)cuz you make purple with red, but purple is still some peoples favorite color, and they can think its the best.

also im intriqued to hear what you think about the role of lyrics in Faith and Worship music...obviously the lyrics are the most important there.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Logic doenst make something a Fact though.

Thanks...

Originally posted by Pezmerga

..Its logical that red is a better color then purple (like i said before)cuz you make purple with red, but purple is still some peoples favorite color, and they can think its the best.

That's because you are using the word 'better', which doesn't mean anything unless it is qualified.

Originally posted by Pezmerga

also im intriqued to hear what you think about the role of lyrics in Faith and Worship music...obviously the lyrics are the most important there.

Not TO the MUSIC. Just against the music. The music itself can live or die without the lyrics.

Some people don't like instrumentals. So therefore its just an opinion.

But you are talking about who likes what.

Not what actually is.

-AC