args

Video Games are a form of art.

1) If we are to take the resolution, instead of taking it in its literal sense to mean that video games have qualities such that they can, by definition, be categorised as "Art" and instead interpret the resolution (incorrectly grammatically) as meaning something like "generally, video games can be classified as Art" then fine - however, it is clear at that point that Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. He needs to show, not only that some video games can be classified as Art, but that a majority of video games can be classified as Art. Pro has brought forth no argument or evidence thus far to even attempt to fulfil such a burden of proof - either the former or the latter. In addition, he has yet to provide a definition of Art such that we can properly evaluate this question; my working definition derived from the first round will have to do apparently. For example, if the resolution were "Plastic Cups are a form of art" then, if we interpret the resolution as Pro does, he would have to provide evidence that a majority (or "in general") of cups are works of art. Pointing out exceptions such as novelty cups shaped like lion's heads will not do. It seems almost trivial to point out that an imagined conversation with someone from the past does not count as evidence - in any case, the resolution is that they *are* a work of Art, so even if they were considered beautiful in the past Pro has to show that they are a work of Art now, in the present tense. 2) If beauty is entirely subjective, then we have no real way of determining whether Video Games do fall into the definition of Art and thus it is impossible for Pro to prove the resolution. Things that are "in the eye of the beholder" cannot, by definition, be proven in a debate since they are not truth apt statements. If art is subjective, then I can simply say "Well, I don't think video games ARE art" and I will be just as right as you.