Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to...

    Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

    I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse. Students enter a submissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to. Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused! https://www.youtube.com......... Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. https://www.youtube.com......... I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill. https://www.youtube.com......... Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports. Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility and will be more willing to allow others to abuse them just to get the next colour belt, see video below https://www.youtube.com...... Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them [1] and clean their car like in the film - 'the karate kid' Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burglar enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art. I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response sources: [1] http://patch.com.........

  • PRO

    Clearly you assume that art work will give access to...

    Illegal art should be made accesible

    My opponent claims that a person's right to view material should be quashed. Decide to view obscene and offensive material, and you will find yourself a pedophile. I have argued consistently that this is utterly false and a flawed argument. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous period where we made a cold calculated deliberate choice to establish a lack of respect for children in art, available in an online museum. Not to say that some people may do this however those abusing children in this way have their own means of acquisition and dissemination and are not dependant upon a museum for their searches. I call on a point of order. Your argument that the proposition would encourage lewd misuse of illegal art is not entirely true. There is much research to say that it is not only nude images that encourage pedophiles. Many are encouraged by relationship and other aspects. Clearly you assume that art work will give access to material for pedophiles again not true, as seen on the above film clip this material is already accessible. I am calling for a museum, a place where history is recorded, meaning is debated and formed. Importantly Bill Henson 15 years ago produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets. Not titillating, more akin to a nightmarish car wreck. Some of this series of nudes are on show at the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, where they have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone a scandal. Yet the recent teenage nude photographs caused such a scandal, only when Kevin Rudd commented publicly about his dislike about the photographs, was police action taken. His response was deeply felt and genuine, but emotional and aimed at maintaining political image. How is it ok with the public, police and Kevin Rudd that there have been nude teenage art works by Bill Henson displaced in Newcastle for 15 years, but the current photographs are so despised? He's forgotten what the role of art is in a democracy. Accessibility should be made available to the public. To ban anything in art can be both politically and socially dangerous. Any supposed moral or social offense surrounding the work is entirely in the eye of the beholder. A blanket response of 'disgust' in the face of nudity, child or adult, reflects more upon the viewer than on the work of art itself. That is, some people will find it objectionable where others won't. The whole purpose of digitisation on the internet is so users can have access to whatever their heart's desire, including exhibitions they have missed out on seeing physically because it was deemed as illegal, obscene or offensive art. This should not be allowed to stop people making up their own minds for themselves and seeing the work or prevent accessibility on the internet. In today's society, culture is very much controlled as you mentioned. Google is a great example. Our accessibility to any culture is so difficult, because of the copyright laws. It is understandable how some people would get offended by "illegal" art and would not want to view it physically in an art gallery. However the people that do see beauty in it should have the right to view it through the digitisation on the internet in their privacy. I thank my opponent once again for accepting this debate, and appreciate their insight. References For a full list of references see delicious.com dedicated tag jtc107

  • PRO

    I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Martial Art...

    Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

    I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse. Students enter a submissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to. Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused! https://www.youtube.com...... Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. https://www.youtube.com...... I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill. https://www.youtube.com...... Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports. Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility and will be more willing to allow others to abuse them just to get the next colour belt, see video below Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them [1] and clean their car like in the film - 'the karate kid' Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burglar enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art. I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response sources: [1] http://patch.com......

  • PRO

    With live there must always be skill and practice in...

    Loving is an art

    Pro- Contention 1: The Justification of love- -First those with Savant Syndrome are not the norm, and thus the standard cannot be based on these people. Second those with Savant Syndrome are skilled with an activity art (painting, sculpting, acting). Not something that envelopes a personality aspect. With live there must always be skill and practice in place, because even if to the smallest amount; all people both need and are given love in order to survive to grow to be old enough to love in the first place. - Maintaining love through a difficulty My opponent has not refuted my prior argument, but has simply extended their own argument through. Accordingly this argument is a drop. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- My opponent claims that egotistical self-love still counts as mature love, however as a direct quote from round 1, "If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love..." It is not love, and my opponent's arguments are nothing but semantic attacks. Con- Contention 1- - My opponent offers no warrant for this point. The mother may be raising her child simply to avoid the social implications of giving it up for adoption, or because she loves her husband. otherwise the love for the child is inherent, and again not bound to the burden of the round. Contention 2- - My opponent is missing the point of my argument, and has utterly dropped her own point here. - Love doesn't have to be reciprocal to fall into the boundary of mature love.

  • PRO

    What side prop fails to acknowledge is that people are...

    Censoring Art Is Dangerous

    What side prop fails to acknowledge is that people are generally reasonable, which is why governments empower people to make choices that could harm them, because we expect every adult to be able to make informed decisions, and most of the time we are proven correct, which is why most people are not criminals. The harm that propositions logic has is that they do not realize that depending on the person listening to the song, we could have completely different interpretations of what the song means. This is because art is intensely personal; the emotions that art evokes are completely subjective, so one cannot simply assume that once someone hears a misogynistic song, they will be compelled to oppress women. For example, a lot of feminists maligned A Clockwork Orange for being exploitative to women because it depicted a lot of women being raped, but most people appreciated it as a warning against a society that was depriving people of their humanity (1), metaphorically turning them into cogs in a clock. This movie won four Oscar nominations, showing that gratuitous violence can be acceptable in society, and that we are capable of reading between the lines. So the question becomes: how exactly will proposition determine which songs are worthless and which are not? That is why censoring this music and any form of art is never a good idea. We can never really know the value of a work of art to different individuals, so it would be wrong to ban it unless we can determine a real harm, but as we have proven, the only harm that has been demonstrated by proposition is completely assertive. Music audiences have repeatedly proven that they do not take lyrics literally as the popularity of songs like Blowin’ In The Wind by Bob Dylan would suggest, or Yellow Submarine(2) by the Beatles. (1)http://www.mouthshut.com/review/A_Clockwork_Orange_-_Anthony_Burgess-55646-1.html (2)http://www.lyricinterpretations.com/Beatles/Yellow-Submarine/2

  • PRO

    Also, in the upcoming Bioshock Infinite, the themes of...

    Video Games are an art form.

    Ok, just like to say thanks for accepting this debate and let's hope it's good. First of all, I would like to get rid of a preconception a lot of you might have. I am not saying all video games are art, because they aren't. This is naive and is a gross misunderstanding of the debate. This does not however mean good video games cannot and are not art. It's just Call Of Duty isn't art, same way Rebecca Black's "Friday" and the assorted sub-standard Michael Bay films aren't. First of all, video games are art because they allow the creators and the players to express themselves. My example will be Halo Reach in this case. Most people will think this slightly strange, but, as a whole, Halo Reach is the story of a doomed planet, and the brave men and women who defended it. The campaign tells of Noble Team's tragic and final hours, and even the multiplayer levels show the tombstone of a dying planet on their walls. What's more, with game modes like Invasion, you really get the sense that you are part of a war. And sometimes that's the art in these games. They are an experience, in this case of a future war against a seemingly unstoppable foe and with tragic consequences. Secondly, video games are adept at handling themes, as they not only show you, in most cases, flawed ideologies, but they immerse you in them and make you feel like you are being affected by them. This is an immersive way of getting people to understand complex philosophies: they are put into a world ruled by a chosen philosophy and shown how it has turned out. My example in this case is the Bioshock series. The first Bioshock is based on objectivism, and it is concisely summarized by Andrew Ryan's famous speech "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?". Instead of lengthy sermons, it gives you the dystopian world of Rapture, and shows you the terrible consequences of this flawed concept, like charities and religious freedom being banned. Also, in the upcoming Bioshock Infinite, the themes of racial purity and American exceptionalism, in the floating city of Colombia, which was originally a showcase of the best of America, but has become another dystopia. Thirdly, video games can make emotional experiences and moral dilemmas infinitely more intense by making them interactive. I will use two examples here: LIMBO and the Mass Effect series. LIMBO is a perfect example for this topic, as not only is it a hauntingly beautiful piece of art, but I can also say, without a shadow of a doubt, that it could only ever be done through video games. LIMBO is a game where you play as little boy, who wakes up in a hostile world filled with horrors. LIMBO is a beautiful piece of art, in a big way because it lets you draw your own meaning from it. The only information we are given by Playdead is "Uncertain of his Little Sister's fate, a Boy enters LIMBO". In this world, you encounter many dangers and hazards, and many strange, unexplained encounters, and it leaves you to draw your own conclusion from the events. Mass Effect is also another piece of art only possible through this interactive medium. In the Mass Effect series, you play as Commander Shepard, a soldier who must prepare the galaxy for an invasion from a unknown species who live in dark space, and come out every few thousand years to wipe out advanced civilizations. Mass Effect is a game about conflict. Conflict between species, factions and people, and you are expected to resolve these conflicts so as to repel the Reaper invasion. The thing that makes Mass Effect unique and, quite frankly amazing, is the way in which you interact with the world. You can talk to people in whatever manner you choose, try and persuade people to do what you want and, in it's strongest moments, the game forces you to make terrible choices. For example, in the first Mass Effect, you must decide whether you let a species known as the Rachni, who just attacked you, live, in the hope that under their queen they will turn to your side, or kill them, and make sure they don't kill anyone again. It is a tough decision, and you must make it. In a movie, the hero would make it and you would just think "Oh, I would've done it differently, but I guess that's that". But in Mass Effect, you are forced to decide the fate of the galaxy. Similarly, in Mass Effect 2, if you don't prepare your team sufficiently for the final mission, some of them will die. This was a heart-wrenching experience for me the first time I played it, as I made some bad decisions and a large amount of my team got killed. In a movie, you would feel sad that they died, but in Mass Effect, I felt a personal guilt, as I knew if I prepared properly, they would still be alive. That's what Mass Effect does. It gives you a sci-fi epic, and makes it personal and interactive. I have listed my main points above, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguement. Good luck and remember guys: Keep It Clean. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... WARNING: Spoilers below for Halo Reach Halo: Reach ending: http://www.youtube.com... Bioshock Intro: http://www.youtube.com... Bioshock Infinite Demo: http://www.youtube.com... LIMBO trailer: http://www.youtube.com... Mass Effect Rachni choices: http://www.youtube.com... Mass Effect 2 gameplay: http://www.youtube.com...

  • PRO

    Perhaps you indeed have a point, although in the modern...

    art is useful outside career field

    Perhaps you indeed have a point, although in the modern world, art is meaningless to some. But art is still a hobbie and you do not need the skills to master it or even give it a try.

  • PRO

    Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is...

    Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art

    Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is art where God or the clock-worked universe is the artist. All skills are art All creation/destruction (indocti discant) is art. Cave paintings were/are art. Good/bad writing is art. To claim that something is not art because it does not fit some pompous criteria/standard is an elitist realization of Marx's Bourgeoisie, who standardize art(where/when there are no 'real' substantial definitions of beauty/art) to keep themselves rich and the proletariat poor. Posthumously commercially exploiting (poor proletariat)artists like Vincent Van Gogh; to keep themselves rich.

  • PRO

    Stop giving random reasons. ... My sources...

    Money wasted on art works is absurd

    Gap in manufacturing and sale value Modern, alive artists have become damn rich. Furthermore, if the money is not helping the original, dirt-poor creator, why does selling it justify such a price? The guy that dug it up from the dead artists home has not invested much time or money, yet here you go, 20 million for you. Height of nonsense. Graffiti 1. Gang signs look pretty cool actually. And the offensive ones are the reason why it is illegal and termed vandalism. 2. Reason given above. 3. They can sell photos of it, or take an impression of fresh, spray-can paint. Or they could do it on their own damn walls. Blank Blue painting with a line is hard-work and symbolic? Furthermore, art work of famous artists is trash according to the majority, but the rich autocrats use "symbolism and other trash" to justify their senseless purchases. Buy my trash as well. I have another book that I created for about 5 years, it has good grammar at least, come on, pay up a few million. Know my next project? I will make a cross on a canvas, make up some symbolism about it, maybe it represents good forces being trapped by evil and the outside help unable to penetrate the boundaries made by evil, and lie that I spent I life-time on it (not all artists do that, but then you never know), get a few friends to vouch for me and become a mega-millionaire. You wait and see. Mona Lisa is just the painting of a woman. Stop giving random reasons. So what if it influenced other artists? That should be considered bad, for plagiarism and the unoriginal ideas. Wouldn't it be better that artists cook up their own painting, song, and book from their own inspiration? I think so too. I don't get how technological advancements and a woman are related, unless you are a lost romantic. X-box, games, books, movies are art available to the masses. Why not the same with visual art? I want to lower the value. The value for it has been set far higher than it actually should be. X-box already has a few million copies, so there. It can't be even more mass-produced as it needs metal and electrical components, and is a difficult as well as a costly manufacturing process. But since we have many tons of newspapers, photo copying art shouldn't be that costly. A book written by hand is unique. Why not sell it for a few billion? It gives all the things (culture, history, symbolism) that art does. It is a completely unique story and a great experience. Yet you still typed it out and sold millions of copies of it? That is exactly what you are doing with art. Why not mass produce the paintings and sell them to the masses, rather than giving history only to the filthy rich who won't share, or to the museums that charge us much more heavily on their tickets, and are not open all the time? The art museum charged me about 10 dollars just to view the painting. They don't even let me touch it, even if I say I will not damage it. Shouldn't I have not gone there at all? Contention 1 Art is not important/valuable as it most artists have not suffered or worked for their art, nor have they created anything great. And the fact that the money doesn't go to the dead artists like Picasso and Vinci, but to filthy rich art merchants. Contention 2 Art will be a time-travelling device for the extremely rich, which is not fair. I recommend mass-producing the paintings through photocopy and selling it, while the original gets a much cheaper public exhibition for all. There are many more devices of history, such as history books, this debate and other data on the internet, other novels such as autobiographies, music and sometimes realistic movies. Art is not an efficient device for conveying history, for a blue canvas doesn't seem very historic, and while invisible art may be hoax, I don't get what those people were looking at in the photo. The guardian Why does the source seems to be rather sarcastic???? It seems to imply that it was a waste of money (now you get why I hate symbolism). Besides, it but expresses an opinion that the painting was good, and we are not supposed to consider the word of media as absolute. Caveman It says don't take their word for it. Yet, the blue painting price was true. If you bother to verify the others, you would find that they too had the same price. My sources http://www.theverge.com... (million x-boxes made and sold)

  • PRO

    I think it should be free because It is just some art for...

    free admission to art museums

    I think it should be free because It is just some art for view, To look at you should not have to pay in especially for looking at historical animals, People etc.

CON

  • CON

    A majority does not decide what is good or bad. ......

    Money wasted on art works is absurd

    Now, I shall go over my opponents attacks, then I will review my own case and close. First of all, I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from swearing. Seriously dude, you don't need to curse to prove your point. My grandpa is an artist, and I don't think he has ever been wealthy. Well lets go back to the importance of value. An artist spent 20 or so years making a wonderful work of art. Many people see its value and want to buy it. This work of art is like the artists baby, you could say. It seems like the art and the artist are almost the same. They feel as one with another, or so the artist feels. Even though they need the money, it would still be kind of hard to part with your creation. That's why the price is so high. The value of the creation to the creator is almost too high to part with. The guy that dug up the old painting did not create the painting. Therefore, any intelligent person and good willed person would give it to a museum or the artists family. But selling it would just be stupid. That would be like if you gave your teacher homework that isn't yours and has a different name on it. If you are not a credible source you won't get an exchange of value. Also, why do you think that anyone who likes art is a filthy rich scum bag? I like art and I can see the symbolism in it and I can barley afford my own car. My opponent seems to have failed to defend his point on graffiti. Sure, you could find a way to bootleg sell it, but that just diminishes the value. Also, the only gang signs I see are offensive. Its not like a gang is going to be a happy group of people that does community service by drawing cool gang signs. In fact, they are quite the opposite. When you are in an all out war with the police and other gangs, I don't think you will be spray painting very nice things. Obviously, my opponent decided to remain in ignorance and not view the painting from a different perspective. My opponent is not looking at the true value, he is looking for some kind of amazing thing that you can see from a glance. For example, If my opponent were to look at a fork he would see a pointy metal thingy with no value at all. But, obviously, we all see a fork to be a tool of great value when we are enjoying a meal. So, what I'm trying to tell my opponent is that you can't come down to a conclusion on something just from seeing one point of view of it. You need to see all sides of the story to properly comprehend the value of something. A majority does not decide what is good or bad. Your conscience does that. And who said that most of the majority believes in your opinion? I don't need some rich dude to tell me what symbolism is in a painting because I can find it for myself. If a rich man told you the sky was yellow would you believe him? Of course not. When we talk about symbolism in a painting, we don't see it there because a rich man said it was there. We see symbolism because we have eyes of our own and consciences of our own to see it for ourselves. We aren't as idiotic as goldfish. When I gave the book example, I wasn't specifically talking about the grammar. I was talking about the value. If people see that your trashy book doesn't have value, they won't buy it. The same goes with your trashy painting. You can lie all you want, But any intelligent person could see that you have no value for your painting and that you are just trying to make a quick buck. People have done that too. Its called con selling and usually only easily led people fall for it. Yet again, my opponent has decided to remain in ignorance when it comes to the Mona Lisa. I'm not giving you random reasons, those are the actually descriptions and characteristics of the painting. I advise you to actually look at the painting instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion. Also, its not considered plagiarism when you are influenced by something. In fact, it has nothing to do with plagiarism. If I read an inspirational quote and was influenced to do something good, should I be charged with plagiarism. No. Plagiarism, is to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas. Artist can use some of the great techniques used in the Mona Lisa for their painting, but they can't copy Mona Lisa entirely and say that it is their own. And for some reason, I guess painting is all about women for some reason, according to my opponent. What I said was that the Mona Lisa uses mathematical and artistic advancements that were never used before. So that's why the Mona Lisa was such a great addition to culture and history. Many paintings have already been photocopied and mass produced. Including the Mona Lisa, which sells at $5.02 dollars now on amazon. It seems like my opponent has completely ignored the importance of value also. Sure, a book a unique, but anyone can write a decent book. But it takes more talent to create a work of art. Also art includes many emotions that can't be expressed through writing. They won't let you touch the paintings because they are very valuable and rubbing your grimy hands all over them shows that you have no respect for the value of the painting. If you went there just to touch the paintings and not to experience the true values of the works of art, then you truly are a victim of extreme ignorance. You can't really give money to dead people, sorry to tell you that. But before an artist dies he/she usually entrust all of his/her works of art to someone he/she knows will take care of it. Art is a time traveling device for all. The guardian isn't an opinion, it is just describing what the painting is symbolizes. It's not sarcastic at all, you're just viewing it in a sarcastic way. It doesn't imply in any way the the painting was a waste of money either. The caveman did give true prices, but it did give the opinion that they are "Ridiculous pieces of art". The caveman circus isn't as much of a credible source of information at the guardian is either. But anyways, I guess we aren't debating on whose source is better, so I will just leave it at that. I will now review my own case. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. Contention 2: Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate. Art is a very important and valuable part of our culture that we should recognize and respect instead of ignoring and despising it. I would like to thank you for your time and for this debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Sources: https://www.amazon.com... Here is my grandfather who was an artist. http://www.deseretnews.com...

  • CON

    If our standard for art involves official certificates...

    A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

    If our standard for art involves official certificates and price tags, how do we avoid the corruption that comes together with money and official business affecting whether the art is judged fairly? Such a process can hinder art as much as it can support it. Secondly, Beauty is a subjective principle. Order is just as ugly to some as Chaos us to others. The mystifying aspect of beauty is that it cannot be defined as anything except that which appeases the mind. If all art were predictably beautiful, would beauty continue to be the most sought after experience in art/life?

  • CON

    Rebuttal: So I'll start this off by saying the inherent...

    Separate the art from the character or personification of the artist

    Rebuttal: So I'll start this off by saying the inherent flaw in the substantive put forth is simply in the mischaracterization of this motion. When we talk about separating one's art from one's self WE ARE NOT inherently talking about that art not being enjoyed. I believed that fundamentally art is an extension of the artist and as such any art must be viewed with the context of the artist. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that the art mustn't be viewed at all because of the artist. I think the distinction is really unclear in your argument. I think that art is a matter of influence and perception. It is impossible to, As imperfect beings, Remove oneself from one's work. I believe that as such any form of art is by extension influenced or a figment of the artist's perception. They are innately interlinked. But even then, What I'm really trying to get at is that art shouldn't be removed from the artist because context, Or the artist, Can many a time change perception. Take Louis C. K as an example. He, And I quote from the NYT, "cornered two women and masturbated in front of them with no consent and used that moment in his comedy show". Now I'm not judging you for watching this, Or even for finding it funny. I believe it is quite ostentatious why having the pretext of Louis C. K's character can help change how you view that particular show or segment. You want to talk about R. Kelly? He has a work of art called 'I see nothing wrong'. I'm not saying that the song is bad, And shouldn't be liked. BUT IT IS important to know the roots of the song, Specifically the dark confession of his heinous acts pertaining to it. Just to summarise, Viewing art by a bad character is not wrong. I think it is fine to enjoy Louis C. K's jokes, Or R. Kelly's music. However, Since expression is an extension of being, And that context can really shape the underlying message of any work of art, It is required and shouldn't be disregarded.

  • CON

    It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display...

    Just shock-tactics, at the cost of better art

    Who determines whether something is too disgusting? It is also hard to separate a piece of work’s artistic merit from its impact. It is perfectly possible for a work of art to display great technical competence, and yet fail to have an emotional impact on its audience, and so as a consequence it seems most sensible to allow, display and fund as wide a display of art as possible. Limiting the forms of art that we display or give funding to those considered ‘artistically meritorious’ will result in the loss of innovation in the art world: if we only encourage those pieces that are ‘good’ under present-day metrics, we lose those pieces of art that, though considered controversial, or ‘not art’ now, may in the future be considered masterpieces (e.g. Picasso’s Guernica). 

  • CON

    I think that grqffiti is an art in itself ! ... I know...

    Is Graffiti Art or Vandelism? WHY ? x

    I think that grqffiti is an art in itself ! I know that garffiti looks messy when people just tag, but when people do amazing art work, i kow that it is vandelism but i think it looks amazing.I know many people have different views to me , i want to know what you think !

  • CON

    I concede that yes art is based on perception but...

    Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

    I concede that yes art is based on perception but everyone believes in art in on form or another. Art can be defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing" - Websters Dictionary Everyone finds something beautiful or appealing so it exists if only in a persons mind. To say that art is non existent is ignorant.

  • CON

    Because the character limit restrains me from providing...

    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.

  • CON

    However sports in general are not stressed; just the act...

    Art and/or music are important in grade school.

    Because my opponent did not reply in Round 2, I will take this opportunity to continue with the points I promised to address at the end of Round 1. 1. Funding Not only are art and music classes unnecessary to have in grade school, they are also very expensive. These classes often call for the purchasing of pricey supplies such as musical instruments including at least one piano, music stands, paints, oils, canvas, sheet music, etc. Keep in mind that these things (especially the art supplies) need to be replaced on a continual basis. If you add up all the costs, it could be thousands and thousands of dollars spent needlessly whereas there are other more practical and useful school programs that could make better use of the money instead. Even if that were not the case, instead of charging tax payers the burden of providing these often unappreciated classes for many disinterested students, perhaps taxes could be lowered to save citizens/residesnts money and instead put that cash back into our struggling economy. 2. Alternative Options I do recognize the value of a music education and/or art appreciation in society today. However that does not mean that art and music have to be an essential part of the grade school experience. For instance, I see all of the positive aspects of being involved in athletics. You learn teamwork, discipline, time management, good sportsmanship, school spirit, and most of all take active strides in trying to stay healthy and fit. However sports are hobbies and activities that people can choose to join and take part in outside of school paramaters. If they play a sport in school, it is by choice and many times people are responsible for providing their own equipment, gear, etc. Sometimes people even have to pay for practice time. For instance my HS was a private school; students on the golf team had to pay a local country club for using their golf course for games. And such is an option for students who wish to partake in art or music programs. Another perspective I can offer is this: Physical fitness classes or Gym are required to take in grade school. It is an important thing to learn and take part in. However sports in general are not stressed; just the act of staying fit and doing different things to promote physical wellness. In comparison to art and music, I support learning about these topics in a historical context or in a way that they relate to the school work at hand, such as if it corresponds to a lesson regarding a social science, for example. However going into detail and spending time learning special artistic skills is unnecessary. So basically, while I think it is important for children to know about Jackie Robison and his contribution to society, I don't think it is important for kids to know how to play baseball and spend a great deal of money teaching it. Similarly, I think a child should be aware of Leonardo da Vinci and his feats but not necesarilly learn how to draw or paint. Thus my proposition is this: allow for classes or programs regarding art or music to exist in grade school, however, not be funded by government spending. Instead children can be exposed to these fields via their parents, friends and family; television; volunteer programs; specialized institutions that their parents can pay for them to learn; etc. Because again learning these things is a want, not a need. Money can be better spent elsewhere in the education system today. Thank you and back to my opponent.

  • CON

    Other expressive mediums are limited in their ability to...

    Video Games Are Art

    You've certainly done a fine job defending video games as art... off the wrong definition. You have essentially equated artistic expression in video games to the mechanical process of creation akin to a book you'd buy called "The Art of Cooking" to help teach you how to make food. I am explicitly talking about art by the definition of expressing the imagination and abstract ideas through the form of artistic mediums such as music, movies, and novels. These are two completely different definitions and while, yes, video games are "art" in the way you describe it, that definition is no different than words such as "method", "process", "how to", and more - nothing about expression, but everything about objectively instructing you on how to get a job done. If anything you have demonstrated that video games are art through the intensive level of labor, care, and skill that goes into ensuring that every part works and makes sense - which helps reinforce my first point, surprisingly. What ultimately discredits video games as being considered an artistic medium is the fact that the elements which make a given game "artistic" in the eyes of many are elements which do not belong to video games exclusively. Not only that, but the one element that sets video games apart from other mediums carries little to no expressive opportunity. Take music, for example. It claims sound as its own unique trait for expression while vocalists write lyrics to help create a story to accompany a piece. Here we see how music and writing come together to create an artistic piece. However, music does not explicitly require a vocalist or lyrics to be expressive and artistic - as sound from instruments alone can construct entire narratives, worlds, and emotions on noise alone. For another example, film has visual movement as its own unique element. And while most films will be found including story or a soundtrack to tie those moving images together, film can express abstract ideas through camera angles, shot composition, and color. Other expressive mediums are limited in their ability to do this, as they do not have the privilege of tangible movement in their mediums. As for video games, the one element that sets games apart from other mediums is player input and control. In lets say, an adventure game, you manipulate the movement of the game's main character to navigate levels and get to the end of a game. Your own method of playing and experience, depending on the game, can change dramatically from how another person played the game due to our own unique inputs manipulating the end result of the said game. And unfortunately, that is all that video games can claim as their own unique element. Video games, especially those which many prop up as examples that the medium has artistic value, rely heavily on visuals, sound, and story to present abstract ideas and concepts since, simply put, there isn't a lot you can get out of expecting a play to press the X button at a certain point in a game. Ultimately, we praise video games on merits that video games do not claim as their own. And unlike a film where music and writing can service moving imagery to improve the meaning its creating - sound, writing, and visuals cannot service player control to enhance expression. It is the other away around. You have given credit to an aspect of video games that we, as audiences, cannot even see. The process of coding and design is skill and work that ultimately dooms video games as being accepted as an art form because, when discounting the elements of sound, imagery, and writing which are not exclusive to video games, it implies that video games can only be appreciated through a very objectively done job that audiences aren't aware of or don't even care for. Meanwhile, their appreciation is handed out to aspects of a game that you can easily find by picking up a book or watching a movie. Such as the Metal Gear Solid franchise, where eventually, the amount of cut scenes and scripted in-game events that map out each game in the series found itself being longer and overshadowing the gameplay itself. Yet you will never see anyone talk about how the gameplay itself helped cement the massive amount of themes and ideas that Kojima built up in his magnum opus. There are a few games I'd consider capable of presenting the element of player input and control as something of artistic value, instead of being there by obligation as a game to instead prop up elements borrowed from other mediums. Games such as Undertale and Hotline Miami, which use long established conventions in video games to deliver interesting stories and criticisms of the said conventions they borrow, deconstruct the nature of player control and movement by heavily breaking down the confides of their own games. Undertale emphasizes 'consequences by our actions' with a system that tracks the actions you made across multiple playthroughs and eventually, and mind the spoilers, finds your player killing the game's files themselves if you stray too far down a morally dark path - a method that has never really been seen before in a game. Hotline Miami, on the other hand, delivers a criticism on violence in video games and the pointlessness of delivering a moral in a game that would rather occupy your time with 'no questions asked' violence. The game structuring itself as a combo heavy, violent, and neon-hazy shoot them up plays into the story of a game that asks you important questions about what you're doing and why... and then eventually mocks you for trying to figure it out when clearly you were just there for the few hours of violent thrill. Other games such as Portal and even BioShock, too find themselves using elements of player control to create stories with very important and poignant morals that otherwise would not have any effect if told through other mediums. Yet, not only are these examples only a few out of thousands upon thousands of games. They are also rarely, if ever, included in discussions for games that "prove" that games are art. On top of that, nearly every single one of them when discounting Portal can only ever seem to deconstruct or criticize long standing elements of games that ironically limit video games ability to do far more on its own unique merits. Which brings games back to square one in showing that, as an art form, they are entirely limited or incapable of showing expressive meaning and artistic merits without borrowing elements from other mediums and almost always playing those said elements straight without player input contributing to them... or vice versa. To summarize basically. The most appreciated qualities in games being propped up as artistic are qualities that are exclusive to other mediums and are borrowed for video games. The merits of player control that video games claim as their own unique quality are either extremely limited or incapable of enhancing the elements video games borrow to create more amazing and expressive themes and ideas. The few games I provided examples for as being undoubtedly artistic could only ever deconstruct and call fact to the limited nature of video games and artistic expression, which hilariously puts them back at square one for proving games can be an art form.

  • CON

    A masterpiece of cinema is '2001: A Space Odyssey,' in...

    Video games are a serious art form.

    Hello, whomever opponent chooses to reply. In this debate I will be discussing two reasons why I believe video games are not worthy of being called an art form. Firstly, art is one's reaction to life. A masterpiece of rock music is 'Pet Sounds,' and most the songs on the album are about relationships and break-ups. A masterpiece of literature is 'The Great Gatsby,' which was F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the behavior of the rich class. A masterpiece of cinema is '2001: A Space Odyssey,' in which Stanley Kubrick warned us about the risks of AI becoming more and more advanced. Nothing produced within the video game industry is comparable to any of these. Some have really innovative visuals, but even the best video games very rarely have themes or commentary on society. 2. Video games do not influence art forms. We have seen music influence music (The Beatles' influence on pop). We have also seen movies influence albums (effect of the movie 'American Gangster' on Jay-Z's album of the same name). We have even seen novels influence music, and vice versa. But rarely, if ever, will you see an author, film director, or musician cite a video game as an influence for any of their works.