args

Art and/or music are important in grade school.

Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses.