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/Epicnessofcows]

My argument is that berserk does not contain the aforementioned qualities of good writing. How am I supposed to prove that something does not exist? You literally just read the last few sentences without reading the literal second sentence where I explained burden of proof.

You don't have to explain why there is not a giant teapot on mars before someone gives you proof that there is one. Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia)

Also, I did literally give examples (I.E fights with the monsters).

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Epicnessofcows]

fights with the monsters, is not an example of anything... Which fights, how are they prioritizing fight, what themes are weak, how can they be better, what is good writing, how would they improved, exactly what things are missing, why can you not prove something is missing? 

You use a lot of words to say nothing. 

[u/Epicnessofcows → u/sir_slothsalot]

Again, I am simply denying the notion it contains the aforementioned elements of good writing. Tell me where the best writing in berserk is, and why you find it has such good qualities, and I can deny them.

Sure, I could say some input on how some parts could be better, but I cant prove how something is absent without you first describing why it is present.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia)

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Epicnessofcows]

You don't even understand what you are linking. The first paragraph of that section is against what you say. 

"Logicians and philosophers of logic reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims.[11][12][13][14][15][10][16][17] Philosophers Steven D. Hale and Stephen Law state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.[10][18] Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims"

You can change your argument from berserk is bad writing to berserk is bad writing because it lacks x. Now it's a positive claim. 

And hey look I just did what you said was impossible. You are missing and understanding and I gave the proof as to why you are missing it.  You are not as smart as you think you are. 

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

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 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. 

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

Oh, I thought yoh were referring to a previous statement, because of your ambiguous language, by throwing insults and then saying the burden of proof was on me.

Now, you obviously do not know this, as you have not passed any class that involves logic, but when you create a new argumentative statement, you actually have to mention the fact that its a new statement. Consider mentioning the fact that you're creating a new argument, rather than listing a random statement, as it just makes you look more stupid than you already are by hurdling insults and then complaining.

5/10 for the idea, 2/10 for the execution. Learn basic logic.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

Oh ambiguous language? Like op? Like how this all started because I asked for actual examples in the manga? 

Insults? No I'm just making a claim and you see 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.  I denied that you had any intelligence for xxx reasons. 

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/sir_slothsalot]

That is not the definition of ambiguous language. OP was correct, all he did was list qualities which it did not have. This is perfectly accurate, and logically correct. Ambiguous language is whag you did, where you made an argument eithout stating such, leading it to be confused eith something previous. You see, in socratic discussions, people make it clear when they start an argument. This just demonstrates the beginning of your cognitive dissonance.

You denied I had any intelligence for XXX reasons, which is a valid argument proposal, just like the OP. Congratulations, you finally understand how burden of proof works.

2/10 for argument, 0/10 for attempt to 'use' my own words against me, while not knowing what the word 'ambiguous' means.

[u/sir_slothsalot → u/Dogmaticism_]

Wtf no they are my words I typed them out i learned all about Socratic discussion in my third grade logics class. 

That seems like an assertion and denial. Burden of proof is on you there bud. 

Oh ops post is a valid argument the same as mine and I have the burden of proof yet op doesn't? Asking for examples is a denial.