Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    It is good to get feed back on a piece of art work but...

    At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

    Yes but can you really learn art ? I believe that you can draw naturally or you can't. I don't think someone can just walk in and teach you art. It is good to get feed back on a piece of art work but not everyone wants it from an art teacher. Yes they may have an art degree but it doesn't mean they will mark it professionally. I think that art teachers will go on their personal opinion of the work rather than looking at the piece with an open mind. I think that mark schemes are completely wrong in art. There's no right or wrong answer in the subject. It's your interpretation.

  • PRO

    1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting...

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

    ok lets address your first argument: Your definition is art is based on the concept of an individuals expression being based on what is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. my definition is a creative skill put forth in a way that can be seen. one doesn't have anything to do with another. 1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept. 2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be 1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept. 2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be art"). Even if i grant you that your interpretation is ok, it still proves my argument which is that art is based on belief. it is a unproven concept that people choose to accept, like religion, but is not based on anything factual, and i don't believe in it. personally im happy when im well rested, does that mean rest is art? your next argument, 1. your running away with this "everything is art" and "happiness is art" idea. i already address this in my 2nd point of my last argument. but to add to it, you're assuming that everyone has known happiness. that is not a proven fact. even if it was, many people would argue that happiness doesn't equate to art, like to 2 people that defined the word for us. neither use the idea that happiness is a factor in determining what art is. 2. further, a lot of people that would meet your original definition of art, ie, someone that painted a beautiful painting, may not be happy. lots of people express themselves for example by painting aesthetically pleasing pictures because they are depressed or miserable. some can only do it when they are in that state. your last arguement 1. i think your missing my point about art. I'm saying that art exists about as must as God, Allah, or Buddha do. all are concepts that people have chosen to except as their reality despite the inability to provide proof that they exist. art has been accepted by millions of people all with their own opinion of what is and no way to tell them they are wrong. i can think a painting is a really cool painting or a dancer is very talented but that doesn't mean the picture or the dance is art. again my argument still holds true that it is an unproven concept. it is based on a persons personal opinion and if someone doesn't accept any of the definitions and chooses not to define it then they don't believe in art. that means art is not their reality. 2. and 2nd the sky isn't actually blue. its every color in a prism but the gas molecules that exist in our atmosphere only absorb blue light and scatter it in many directions. so i guess that means that im valid in denying that art is reality huh? your argument is basically about art being happiness and beauty and anyone knowing happiness knows art. then you said everyone knows happiness so that means art exists. my point, which i think you've failed to address, is that thats your opinion and you're not wrong for it. nor are the people that created either of the definitions that we used in this debate. thats why im right that art is an unproven concept. anyone can call anything art and be right by their definition murder, pictures, music, nature, stripping, whatever you want. or a person can not accept any of the definitions and not believe in it all. good debate...thanks for being my opponent

  • PRO

    How easy it is to die in an instant.you also learn the...

    Roads kill is better than art

    I prefer road kill for the following reasons. It's easily disposable. You can just pick it up and throw it away without worrying about how much its worth. Also road kill teaches you about death. How easy it is to die in an instant.you also learn the anatomy of an animal by seeing its guts fall out and seeing its brains.roadkill is edible as you can just scoop it of the road and eat it.roadkill is also more interesting than today's modern art as you can just sit there in disgust looking at it. With modern art you look in disgust at how it's considered art but its just not the same.

  • PRO

    In order for budget cuts on art classes to be justified...

    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.)

  • PRO

    the art of the Renaissance" How is art different then...

    Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

    Art-the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. "the art of the Renaissance" How is art different then woodshop. Like the definition woodshop express's one imagination in a visible form. Scroll Saw Projects look pretty nice and some may argue that they are art. Woodshop should be consider one year of art at high school. Images of Art https://www.pinterest.com... Images of Woodturing http://veryshareimg.com...

  • PRO

    I will be in favour of graffiti can be art. ... Failure...

    Graffiti can be art.

    This is a basic obvious resolution. I will be in favour of graffiti can be art. You will be against such. First round you state your opening statements, and the last round you only type "thanks for the debate". Failure to follow this rule will result in a 7 point loss, no exceptions.

  • PRO

    I also think that art can be a friend that you can talk...

    Should art be taught more seriously

    I think that art should be taken more seriously since its one of the few way to express our feeling in our own way! I also think that art can be a friend that you can talk to. If your sad you can paint with the color blue if your happy you can paint with the color red etc.

  • PRO

    ok , if it is not enough if we look around the...

    Art is essential to life.

    ok , if it is not enough if we look around the surroundings that we are surrounded by, there is also art and there is many sort of it,or do you need another evidence? i think those are enogh for now.

  • PRO

    This is just an open debate regarding the legitimacy of...

    Aikido is not an effective martial art

    This is just an open debate regarding the legitimacy of Aikido as a self-defense martial art. There will be no opening round to agree on rules, just make your argument and then the two later rounds will be rebuttals.

CON

  • CON

    2.) ... Again, any student that wishes to take art,...

    Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

    I thank the contender for going through the entire debate, always appreciated. The final round will be for the closing statements. I hope that voters will see the reasoning in my main arguments. Choice. 1.) The student should be able to decide whether they take art or something else more suited to their liking. Lack of use. 1.) Art is not used in everyday life or in most careers. 2.) A single high school art class will not do much good for someone lacking any inborn talent or passion. Cuts into educational time. 1.) The student could take classes that would benefit their everyday life or their career. 2.) Time spent after school practicing could be instead used to do homework, study, work, or catch up on sleep. And see the reasoning in my rebuttal. Lack of depth. 1.) Simple middle school art classes are enough to give the cursory knowledge of the subject and to give the student an idea of if it is their "cup of tea". 2.) If a person was going into a career for art they would have to take college level art courses regardless of whether they took high school art courses or not. Impractical. 1.) See "Lack of use". Stressful. 1.) Unless you have talent, art can be bothersome for you and for others. Choice. 1.) Again, any student that wishes to take art, whether it be because they enjoy it or because they are looking for a challenge, is free to take it.

  • CON

    For this reason I do not disagree with it being taught in...

    Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

    I appreciate the swift acceptance. As a senior student taking Arts & Humanities as a night class, I must set aside time each week to do the course online. This leads me to question why students are forced to take an art class in order to graduate. Art classes should be optional, not required. 1.) Art is a wonderful thing. It brings happiness and passion to many. For this reason I do not disagree with it being taught in schools, but it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not take up their educational time with it. One or two art classes will not benefit the average person after school. 1.) Not trying to be offensive, but art is relatively useless. The only people that benefit are the people that are naturally passionate or skilled and may go on to use art in their career. These people are the ones that would be likely to choose to take the classes as electives even if they were not forced to in order to graduate. Art classes take up time that could be used for other educational purposes. 1.) Art takes up an entire period of class time that could be used for a choice elective. I would much rather take Spanish III (a class that would actually benefit me in my chosen career) than Arts & Humanities. 2.) Many art classes (such as, dance, drama, and band) require after-school attention. The time spent during this could be used for doing homework, working a job, or getting the necessary sleep.

  • CON

    Moreover, if pupils do know that they are not good at...

    Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

    The art is a very important for the formation of human morality. However, someone have a talent and some have not. Those who are not so successful in an art, may not get an excellent mark and deprived of the opportunity to get diploma in future. Moreover, if pupils do know that they are not good at some lessons as their classmates, it may reduce their self- esteem. Everyone has different abilities and would not it be right to develop them each individually. Moreover, of course, it helps to be very versatile, but if pupil have not any interests on these particular subjects. Art can lose its uniqueness in the eyes of the students. Perhaps it would be better if such a science as an art will be something very lofty and noble.

  • CON

    But all of those are artistic because I did something...

    CMV: Most attempts to dismiss a medium or work of art as "unartistic" only serve to validate it further, since it's challenging the detractor's expectations of what art is, ergo it is art

    I think that a piece absolutely *can* be art by being unartistic or anti-art. But I think that is a function of the artist's intent, not of the detraction itself. For example, Duchamp's Fountain is art *because* it's a criticism of what could be displayed in art installations at the time and was clearly "not artistic", but it wasn't art *because* people said it wasn't artistic. To put it another way, if I said "this pair of earplugs on my desk is not art", I have not given the earplugs the essence of "art" because they've made me evaluate what I do and don't consider art. They're still just earplugs. Maybe earplugs could be art, if I put them in a display symbolizing my life, or if I arranged them just-so and gave them a title, or if I took a nice picture of them, or even just put a packet of earplugs on an empty display in a museum and waited to see if the janitor would clean them up. But all of those are artistic because I did something that communicated an intent to create a message; even if people disagree that they're art, I've still tried to say something. But simply saying something isn't art doesn't mean it is, if there really was no artistic intent whatsoever to begin with.

  • CON

    they're might be some deep games" It doesn't matter that...

    Video Games are the new art form

    Video games can give deep insights "While I agree with this point, I don't see it as a valid argument for saying that video games are not an art." Whether people agree with you or not about video games being an art, it is obviously not taking over regular art and is "the new art" based on the statement we both agree on. "Developers spend years working on a game, spending more time than they have to so that their game is amazing." How does this prove that they intend to give deep insights. They spend most of their time making it fun not so we can learn a lesson. "There are tons of books and movies that very loosely resemble our way of life, yet still are deep." True, but my point was that the majority of people playing video games, voters out there who play video games correct me if I'm wrong, will not say "How would I like it if he did that to me." "the go to game series for anyone opposed to video games" I'm assuming you think that I am against video games and that is a false statement. I believe they haven't contributed to society aside from providing some people with money but I like some video games like Grand theft Auto. Call of Duty, Pac Man, Galaga, Doodle Jump. None of these games I have asked myself "How would I like it if they did that to me? "they're might be some deep games" It doesn't matter that there might be some deep insights within some games. But there is no doubt that video games, for most people, is not a reference for insight. Now, let me tell you what is: Literature books, Religious books, philosophers writings etc. "not every video game is great." Grand Theft Auto is actually a really popular game a quick Google search will prove my point. One of the most popular games out there is Call of Duty. What deep insights does it give you? Video games can be interpreted differently dropped Video games are art I'm assuming you agree with what I said. Video games sound great "they let relatively introverted people interact and be social in an environment they feel comfortable in" Whoa!!!!!!! You think this is good?! For people who are shy just crawl in their room and play video games instead of being with friends. I'm inferring you are not a very social person. "they can teach you advance problem solving skills" Can you elaborate a little? Do you mean everyday problems that come up? If so, being in your room playing video games doesn't help. Reading books might and studying the problem. "they teach people how to work towards and achieve a goal" How? "they touch a multitude of idea that can make a player think about them in a different way" So does literature and hearing different Ideas "they can teach players about real world subjects, be it math or terrorism" So does school "they can lead players to have much more strategic thinking" So does sports which all parents prefer over playing video games because they like their kids being active. So far no legit points of what video games provided "just because someone is addict to something or not does not determine whether it qualifies as an art" Fine, but if they were to become the new art it would be bad because of the many addictions and bad things video games have caused. "The fact is that people are going to school for video games every day" What are you talking about there is no video games class?! Video games have no academic benefit I really hope everybody agrees with that. This is not a fact. "There's no doubt that schools have embraced video games as a new art." Do you see in art classes any video games? I'm pretty sure literature teachers tell their kids to read and not play video games. I'm sure that all teachers say no video games until you finish your homework. If you would like to convince me that teachers "embrace video games" give me proof.

  • CON

    so therefore I don't see insights in most video games....

    Video Games are the new art form

    I wish my opponent luck. Video Games can give deep insights My opponent mentioned within a fairly long paragraph that video games can go into several deeper subjects. Now, 1) The majority of players playing video games, correct me if I'm wrong, often do not look for a "deeper" meaning as they play their video games they just play it to have fun and I believe most creators of videogames do not intend so either. You mentioned a game called "The Mass Effect Series" where during your gameplay, you were thinking "How would I like it if they did that to me?" 1) It's a video game not real life. 2) If you take a video game like the "Grand Theft Auto Series" When players are just killing random civilians, running over pedestrians, stealing cars, etc. I don't think one person is saying "How would I like it if they did that to me?" so therefore I don't see insights in most video games. Video Games can be interpreted differently So can just about everything else. Video Games Are Art Not a great idea to state that considering you are willing to debate about that. This is a complete opinion. Video Games Sound Great Also an opinion although I agree with you. As for so therefore I don't see insights in most video games. Video Games can be interpreted differently So can just about everything else. Video Games Are Art Not a great idea to state that considering you are willing to debate about that. This is a complete opinion. Video Games Sound Great Also an opinion although I agree with you. As for art: Art provides expression, communication, exploration, imagination, cultural and historical understanding, the list goes on and on. What does videogames provide aside from entertainment. For many students, Art is their prime motivation for coming to school whereas kids do not complete their homework because they are too busy playing video games. Also, with video games there are hundreds of stories of people not getting a job because they are addicted to video games. Look at this http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... Now, video games are fun with moderation. Good Luck!

  • CON

    Unless the majority of those paying tax money support the...

    should street art be allowed in public spaces

    Public spaces are owned by the public of any county/state/city etc. Unless the majority of those paying tax money support the particular piece of Unless the majority of those paying tax money support the particular piece of art, the piece of art thus should be rendered illegal to disgrace the public space with. Street art is about the individual producing whatever art they want, no matter how explicit and is entirely the inverse of left-wing ethos. Right-wing ethos and that of private spaces is that the individual who owns it should be as free as is legally stretchable to permit but left-wing ethos, which is the ethos on which public spaces are based, is that the community's will should supercede that of any passionate individual be they an artist or not.

  • CON

    Some kids will never be able to solve very very difficult...

    At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled

    There is a reason why some artists are very famous and a lot of money would be paid for their art work, and other people's art isn't as popular/famous. In school, when a kid is not as good as another kid at math, sometimes no matter how hard they try, they will never be as good. Some kids will never be able to solve very very difficult mathematical problems, and some kids will never be incredibly artists. Those subjects both are graded in school, because that is a way to allow you to know which one is better than the other. Saying all art pieces are just as good, is undermining the subject of art. My drawings will never be as good as Piccaso's or Dali's. Art is harder to measure, just like it's harder in a history test to say if the answer you gave should be graded 80 or 90, and in math it's rather straightforward -how- you grade it. That doesn't mean that there is no one that is better than the other in art, it just means you need to think harder to know how to grade it. Usually, school standards allow you, even if you are very bad at something, to hold decent scores, because it's fit for the average kid and not for the brilliant one in each subject. In that way it doesn't majorly harm you if you are not amazing in arts, or for that matter if you struggle in history/math.

  • CON

    This piece was chosen not because of technical...

    Art Critique Debate! (Not Drawing Competition)

    Technical superiority is hard to top, unless of course you are wanting to show what art is as opposed to how its made. As you may recall from the previous round, Contender stated that the chosen art draws you in. Art forces you to look at a concept, rather than brush strokes. Art should require the observant to look back, to get into what they are viewing, to feel immersed, as though they are going on a journey. As such, Con would like to say 'Pack your bags'. Submitted, 'Things are queer'. Duane Michals shot the nine prints in 1973. This piece was chosen not because of technical superiority, such a thing for a photographer would be impossible to achieve when an applied to the desires of this installation. In keeping the camera slightly out of focus, the photographer is able to maintain a subtle degree of surreality while being able to take (or in this case, kidnap) the viewer to take them on a small journey. With regards to photography, the most compelling factors are to make use of reasonable depth of focus to the subject, establishing depth, and use of gray scale. You will find that the key factors for continuing from one point of the journey to the next is highlighted by being close to center frame, but just enough offset so as not to be the 'star of the show'. The dominating figure in one frame is just a supporting cast member in the second, and then background singer in the next. In addition, due to the nature of a camera, you will notice that focus is shared amongst those two competing but complimentary subjects before their importance is a fleeting thought in the observer's proverbial rear view mirror. Lastly, in each photograph, despite the varying levels of white and black balance from image to image, you will find that all points from stark black to blank white are met without a violent 'jump'. In the end, the viewer of the piece has been transported into the artist's world, traveling on a trip, but being deposited back where they started, seeking only to confirm that indeed, where they started from was where they ended. http://www.reframingphotography.com... Sadly, due to the nature of the piece, and respect for the host's space, following a link would be mandatory.

  • CON

    But, I really am tired of this debate. ... It was the...

    Bioshock is a work of art

    I have a rebuttal for each one of your points. But, I really am tired of this debate. It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are But, I really am tired of this debate. It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are art. I concede defeat. Thank you for debating, and good job. I will happily debate you again in a subject where I am more knowledgable. P.S. I have never played the game Bioshock.