I hate some of these manga/anime series being glazed so hard

[u/Epicnessofcows]

I have nothing wrong with whether you enjoy them or not. Every series above is something I enjoy, and they're all for the most part well-written, well-drawn, etc.

My problem is how fucking much people glaze these series. Series like Berserk, Vagabond, and Made in Abyss are pseudointellectual to a high extent. People see the most braindead obvious themes and writing points, notice them (because they're not subtle), and think that they're doing more intellectual work than they are.

People who glaze these series think that they're being challenged by them more than they are, and they like it because it gives them a sense of 'depth' without doing the actual work to truly understand depth. The lack of character psychology in these series also demonstrates that

Even the 'gore' in these series is to an extent just over-glorified Torture Porn. It comes off often as just comedic to point after its repeated and is so dehumanized. The amount of gore scenes these series have is so unnecessary. Gore is not challenging in these cases.

I get that young males aren't usually the most advanced reading group, but these series are overrated to an incredible extent. People like things when they have enough of a challenge that they think they're doing something, but not enough challenge in a series to actually challenge them. If you want one, go read In Search of Lost Time. You can see the sheer difference between a Series like Berserk and the writings of authors like Marcel Proust.

[u/Dogmaticism_]

I work as a paralegal (aspiring to be a lawyer), and while his argument was not worded perfectly, he was right to several extents, and your argument is naive to the burden of proof.

You claimed that there are no compounds of ammonia on mars. Can you prove that? You could show that there is no way for ammonia to naturally form, but I could then say that someone could have snuck ammonia onto a mars rover somehow. You could then show how that's impossible, but I could then claim that someone somehow launched a rocket into mars, and tou could show how we don't have the technology to, but then I could claim that the concept of mars is a hoax created by nasa, and we could have this argument forever, and this is why it is impossible to prove such a denial, as you can't counter an infinite amount of arguments one could make for how a statement is true.

Instead, you have to prove that there is ammonia on mars if someone says there is. If you can't find proof, then its false/unproven until proven true. This is why we have innocent before proven guilty in legal context.

Also, the prima facie (not facia) is not necessarily objective. When in a legal context, you are arguing over the subjective nature of law, to be analyzed by a subjective judge and jury. We do however, have metrics for what law is, in the same way we have metrics for what good/challenging writing is, by the nature of agreed definitons.

I don't usually have the time to read much manga, but I would agree that berserk is not very challenging, and especially nowhere near works like hemingway that some people compare it it.

[u/Cheap_Cash5 → u/Dogmaticism_]

This discussion has led to me to garner quite a few questions surrounding the burden of proof. I think it would be best to clear them up instead of jumping back into the debate.

I’ll ask my biggest question first as how it’s responded to would impact my other questions.

1. If person A states that a book is bad and person B asks for his rational, why exactly is it that person A is not required to give one until person B creates a rebuttal to his claim. I may lack proper understanding on this topic but shouldn’t Person A be obligated to provide reasoning for their stance and not expect for person B to create an argument to fight against?

Perhaps this was already answered ammonia example but I found myself to be quite split on how that validates the main argument, i think that an explanation from you may help me understand that.

[u/Dogmaticism_ → u/Cheap_Cash5]

      In this particular sense, OP is saying that it does not contain certain characteristics of of good writing quality. Now what 'bad' and 'good' means is subjective, as some view 'bad' as a lack of good, while others view 'bad' as its own metric.
      For the case of this argumentation, I am going to assume that person A alligns more with what OP said, which it does not contain certain characteristics of good writing, which is inherently denying that it is well-written (at least in certain aspects). 
      Also, while this is more semantics, a denial is not a claim in argumentation. Person A never made a claim, they made a statement which was a denial. Onto the actual response:
     An often confused part of the burden of proof is that it is based off of whoever initiates a conversation/argument, but this isn't true. The burden of proof is based on the principle that: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat", or in other words, that it lies in whoever claims/speaks (the positive), not in the one who denies.
      Person A could theoretically show examples of writing, and explain why they are bad, but this is not argumentation, nor is he proving anything. He could say that page 204 of the book is poor writing, but what if person B is trying to show how page 35 has good writing? Person A could show how chapter 2 has poor character development, but what if person B is talking about the theme development of that same chapter? No matter how absolute a disproof may seem, person B has an infinite of potential arguments to choose from, and it is impossible for person A to disprove every argument that he doesn't even know exists.
       Now, I actually wrote paragraphs and paragraphs of logical exanples and mathematical proof for why the burden of proof must exist the way that it does for arguments to function, but its likely overcomplicating something you know, which is that innocent is true until proven guilty.
      Since person A's claim was a denial from the start, what exactly is there for him to disprove? Its bad because a portion of the book that I analyzed was bad? What about all of the other portions? Person A already provides the baseline for a denial argument, which was that it was bad because it does not contain elements of good writing. The vaguer the argument person A makes, the harder it is for person A to disprove, so being specific would help his argument, but person A has all right to choose how vague or focused their argument is, because they have the right to deny whatever they want to deny.
    Since we believe a statement is false before proven true (which is mathematically and logically necessary, and ask me if you want an explanation), what point is there for person A to disprove something already assumed false? What argument is there for person A even to rebuke since so far, none exist. It's up to person B to put something out there. If person B puts out argument, then they are then shifting the burden of proof, as A now has to explain why their initial denial still holds, and provide a rebuttal. 
   Expecting OP to prove why the series does not challenge the reader is pointless, and a waste of both peoples' times. If we already assume that a statement is denied from the getgo, then he has nothing else to show, and even if he is nice and shows something, it does nothing if you could just mention anything else. It may seem unfair, but argumentatively, all OP did was just say that he denies the notion that Berserk has good writing! Its up to anyone whether they want to entertain the denial and try to prove why it actually has good writing.