Today i decided to sit on my mac, fire up my volcano and put together some thoughts and ideas on a popular subject that seems to always make it's way back to the music hall. Here's my thoughts and veiws on debates people have started on grasscity on the subject of "Best Rapper". some of this may sound repetitive to what you have read from other users from this site but i wish to take some of there general ideas and incorperate my own thoughts on the subject. The whole idea of "Best rapper" i believe is a close minded argument. those who already have their mind set on who they think is the best rapper refuse to acknowledge new artist. (this doesn't apply to every1). but to say someone is the best at something is similar to saying Stephen Hawkings is the best scientist alive, now stephen hawkings is known for his interpretation of blackholes to say hawkins is the best scientist alive is excluding alot of fields of science.(this is not the best example but expresses the general idea). same with peotry and i believe hip hop. theres millions of topics a rapper could define in his work. lets look futher into the idea of someone being the best rapper. hip-hop is diverse and not all rappers share the same ideas. to make a claim brainwrecked is the best rapper you have stated in order to be considered the best rapper evryone would have to stictly share the same ideas as brainwrecked. by making this statment you have excluded numerous topics and ideas that Brainwrecked dosen't address. hip-hop is a diverse community with talented artist everywhere mainstream, underground, and others out there who rap without record deals. to arrive at a conclusion of the best rapper there would have to be a mass comparison of every rapper alive, dead, depending on the depth of the question that's being asked. this is impossible not only because the millions of artist out there but also because of there differnt ideas and views on topics. comparing lil wayne and eminem is like trying to compare Aristotels veiws on Morality and St. Aquinas 5 proofs of god. while they both are brilliant philosophers they are interpretating different branches of philosophy. therefore to arrive at who is better than who would be illogical. i hope somewhere in my rambling i made somewhat of a clear point. i welcome anyone who wishes to add or dissagree with something i have said.