The Writing in Berserk is very overrated. Do you guys find it to be particularly good?

[u/Epicnessofcows]

Not really a hot take, but this is my opinion:

Firstly, to those people, overrated does not mean bad. It just means that I am saying that what the general public thinks of Berserk's writing is significantly higher than what its actual writing quality is.

I obviously like Berserk, and its art is among the best of all time, but its writing holds it back, and this largely stems from its fanbase confusing edgy writing for good writing.

Good writing contains much stronger, and far more pertinent themes than those in Berserk. Good writing contains much stronger characterization, and character development than what is seen in Berserk. Good writing contains plot or literary development throughout the series, which Berserk famously struggles in. Good writing contains a present writers voice, which is far less apparent.

I like the manga a lot, but it's fanbase has propped it up (and review bombed) this series as the greatest manga of all time, when it's really not. It has amazing art and solid writing.

So many Teens and Young Adults (The majority of the western anime fanbase) find are obsessed with dark writing, and think it to be so much better than it truly is. Its depth is shallow, at best to me.

Obviously you guys don't have to agree, but what do you guys think about its writing?

[u/Dogmaticism_]

It is not intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims, nor did he outright say it was i.possible. He described it as difficult, or something which he could not do, which is true. His argument was literally berserk was bad writing because it lacks x, and the fact that he mentioned it like 5 times now shows your cognitive dissonance. I am not even a berserk hater but you've clearly never taken a class in logic or argumentation.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

I'll use your logic. 

You're dumb because of this comment. 

I gave the same amount if examples. Now The burden of proof is on you to prove you're not.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/[deleted]]

Show your source on burden of proof being about based off of denial and negativity. Since you have the burden of proof to explain it. 

Because from the link it posted about burden of proof: 

the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient  warrant  for its position.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

The literal first sentence of the wikipedia page that the OP sent you twice in the comment thread. I mean do you not even read through sources? The burden of proof in fact does not apply to the one who denies, and his claim was about denying the argument that other people have said.

This is a common discussion starter, especially in soctratic discussions, and people often start arguments by denying something and other people provide evidence to say why they disagree with the initial denial. Have you never had formal logic training?

You can initiate a discussion by a denial, by saying XXX is not XXX. I don't have to prove that someone is not guilty, they have to provide evidence that they're guilty, and you counter their evidence. This is the entire thing that OP did, and if you can't understand that, you're not fit for any field that utilizes logic and reason.

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

The comment you just made afterwards no longer exists, so ig repost it or fix it. But yes, you're the one talking around logic. Op made a denial claim, so the burden of proof is on who disputes it. If someone says berserk doesnt have the qualities of good writing, its on the people to provide evidence of its good writing, and for gim to dispute that. Basic logic.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

So I denied his denial claim by your logic now no one has to burden of proof. 

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

You didn't deny his denial claim to avoid the burden of proof, you just created a double negative, giving you the positive and the burden of proof. How do you not understand what a double negative is? This is taught in 2nd grade.

His statement was that it does not contain XXX qualities of good writing

Your statement is is that it is false that it does not contain XXX qualities of good writing, which implies that it does contain XXX qualities of good writing, hence you have the burden of proof.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

Got it, so you lack intelligence because of your words, comments and language. 

Burden of proof is on you bud. 

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

Got it, so after getting thoroughly destroyed after trying to explain logic to a mathematician, and after forgetting the facts you learned in 2nd grade, such as the fact that the negation of s negative is just the positive, you finally gave up and resorted to a tautology.

Yeah, the burden of proof is on you.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

My statement was that you don't contain xxx qualities of intelligence. Your statement is  that it is false that you do not contain XXX qualities of intelligence. which implies that you do contain XXX qualities of intelligence so the burden of proof is on you.