args

Resolved: Budget Cuts to Art classes are justified

The resolution comes down to two central questions: What are the conditions under which we call something """justified”, and do the budget cuts to art classes fulfill those conditions? Let's start out with a few definitions: justified 1 based on sound reasoning or information 2 being what is called for by accepted standards of right and wrong [1] While budget cuts are unforunate, budget cuts still happen. When budget cuts happen, art classes are often one of the first classes to suffer budget cuts. In this debate, I will be arguing that budget cuts to art classes are justified in particular, not budget cuts in general are justified. In order for budget cuts on art classes to be justified under the first definition, they have to be based on sound reasoning or information. The most common reason why art classes suffer budget cuts is so that core classes such as English, math, and science do not suffer the budget cuts. To quote my opponent's source: " Art education increases performance in reading, writing and math. Thus enhancing all those subjects that are most often deemed "more important" " [2] This quote supports that art education is an enhancement to English, writing, and math. If budget cuts were directed to these subjects instead of art, then art classes would serve less purpose of receiving funding. Thus this supports that budget cuts to art classes is justified over budget cuts to core classes (english, math, and science.) Furthermore, art related occupations are quite low paying (http://www.forbes.com...) According to forbes.com, art related majors provide 5 out of 10 of the lowest paying majors, while math and science jobs are among the highest paying jobs (http://www.bls.gov...) Also, one can get art education outside of the classroom, thus the school does not have to use its budget to pay for art classes. (Note: Due to time running out I will have to cut this round short, thank you for your time.)