The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
W0LV3NBANE
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Shakespeare was a FRAUD

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2019 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 120037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

My argument is a rather simple one so to make it clear and precise, Ill divide my reasons up.
1. There is NO document proving that Shakespeare had any level of education, Surely a person who used around 29, 000 different words in his plays would AT LEAST have a basic education if not a college degree.
2. Shakespeare's signatures are sloppy and inconsistent, I mean surely a man who wrote many plays and sonnets would at least have decent hand writing right?
3. Shakespeare's settings in his plays are normally centered around royal families or nobles however as we know Shakespeare was very poor and most likely knew little to nothing about royal life.
4. Shakespeare's will mentions nothing about his plays, Poems, Or sonnets. I mean surely a man wrote that many plays and poems would at least mention what he wanted to do with his 18 unfinished plays right? Guess not apparently.
I would also like to say for the record that I am not normally a conspiracy theorist believer in fact I despise many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. However this is the first conspiracy theory ive seen that has sufficient evidence and shear facts to back it up.
W0LV3NBANE

Con

* This statement is incorrect. We do not know HOW educated shakepheare was, But we all know that he had some sort of education. He learned poetry and literature from a horn book framed in wood. (http://www. Shakespeare-online. Com/biography/shakespeareeducation. Html)
*No. Shakepheare did not have decent handwriting. In fact, He didn't know how to properly spell. Shakespeare's play's had editors that brought the writing into proper form
*Shakepeare's father was a Alderman, A cheif magistrate, And a baliff. This probably taught shakespeare's at least something about court and nobility. Also, Shakespeare's main audience included church officials and nobility who loved hearing about themselves. Why wouldn't Shakepeare target his plays around nobility?
*I'm not sure why shakepeare did not give away his unfinished plays. Maybe he was embarresed with them? Maybe he would rather they were left unfinished then other incompetent authors finish them?
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

- Regarding your first point I will concede on the point that Shakespeare wasn't educated at all and I am sorry for my mistake. However as that article points out, There is no official record for Shakespeare attending a school. Even if he did attend a grammar school, It is unlikely he would be able too write at that high level of vocabulary that he writes in when he only attended a grammar school. To give you some perspective Shakespeare's plays includes almost 29, 000 words which is more than we use today.
- Now regarding your second point, I have not found a single article or study proving that Shakespeare had editors whom edited his plays while he was still alive. Even if he did it is a bit suspicious that a man whom had that high level of vocabulary had poor hand writing and poor spelling.
- Your 3rd point isn't true as Shakespeare father was a glove maker. On that note neither of Shakespeare parents knew how to write as evidenced by this article. Http://www. Shakespeare-online. Com/biography/shakespeareparents. Html
- While it could be reasonable that he found his unfinished plays to be embarrassing, If he found his unfinished plays that embarrassing than he would instead ask that his unfinished plays be destroyed. Even if he was embarrassed and didn't ask for them to be destroyed, It is however suspicious that Shakespeare didn't write anywhere in his will anything about his unfinished plays or his actual plays.
W0LV3NBANE

Con

* "Shakespeare's plays includes almost 29, 000 words which is more than we use today" You forget that out of those 29, 000 words, Shakespeare invented 1700 of them.
* I will concede on the fact that there was not a editor while Shakespeare was alive.
* Yes, John Shakespeare was a leather maker by trade. However he was appointed to high baliff in 1568 which entitled him to be referred to as Master John Shakespeare. (Source, S. Scheonbaum, 1987, ). This is well known information, And is one of the first things you'll learn when googling John Shakespeare
*According to Dr. John Hall, Shakespeare likely died of a cerebral hemorrhage. The internal bleeding inside shakespeare's brain could result in many things, Including the poor handwriting. It also could explain the inter-lineated clauses of shakespeare's will.
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

- Ok even worse than. Tell me how a man in the 16th century knew nearly 30, 000 words and invented 1, 700 words. Words that we still use today like addiction, Assassination, Belongings, Admirable, Or accommodation.
- While I did find that John Shakespeare was a bailiff and that he did home school Shakespeare, This still isn't a high enough education for Shakespeare to invent 1, 700 words, Use nearly 30, 000 words, And have a vast knowledge of philosophy and the human body.
- "The internal bleeding inside Shakespeare's brain could result in many things, Including the poor handwriting. It also could explain the inter-lineated clauses of Shakespeare's will".
- While this does explain why Shakespeare's handwriting was off, It does not explain the inconsistency's in his handwriting, Or the fact that his will mentioned he and his wife's " second best bed" or his silver plate, But not any of his unfinished plays or poems. Surely a man whom was a play write would at least mentioned whether or not his unfinished plays would be released or destroyed?
W0LV3NBANE

Con

I have to concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MyBatteryIsLow 3 years ago
MyBatteryIsLow
If what the Pro is saying is true, Then at least Shakespeare isn't as fake as Marco Polo, Am I right?
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@ K_Michael_Tolman
"Everyone at some point has imagined how it would be like to be rich, So this means that the wealthy. Noble characters could appeal to everyone, While one about a fixherman, For instance, Would be unrelateable to those watching, Including the QUEEN, That didn't know anything about a fisherman's life. "
- While I do agree that writing about wealthy life makes sense as settings for his plays. It is still undeniable that as a member of the lower class who barely had an education, He knew too much about wealthy life. Such as having a vast knowledge of the human body, Philosophy, Court etiquette, Or Italy. Now you could make the argument that Shakespeare read a lot and had many royal friends, However their is only so much you can learn from having royal friends and by reading books. This is like saying that I can be an expert on dancing when I have only read books and have some friends who dance.
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
K_Michael_Tolman
The problem is that there wasn't a lot of records back then that we can find.

Almost all of Shakespeare's plays also had some witty, Satirical comments made by a commoner. Some were historical, Which explains their focus on nobility. Everyone at some point has imagined how it would be like to be rich, So this means that the wealthy. Noble characters could appeal to everyone, While one about a fixherman, For instance, Would be unrelateable to those watching, Including the QUEEN, That didn't know anything about a fisherman's life.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
squeakly54n6W0LV3NBANETied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes in last round.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.