Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewTaekwondo is Not a Martial Art
While this is not exactly one of the "Big Issues" DDO purports to deal with, I am still getting a feel for the website, and I thought I would try my hand at something that is a bit of a hobby of mine. My resolution is that Taekwondo is not a martial art, but rather, it is a sport.
Trolling is a form of art.
Resolved: Trolling is a form of art. Definitions: Trolling: "deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame. The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help. Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll." http://www.urbandictionary.com... Art: "A skill acquired by experience, study, or observation; an occupation requiring knowledge or skill... the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Rules: 1) Neither the definition of "trolling" or "art" may be questioned by debaters. 2) Sources in text. Structure: Round 1: Introductions. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals to opponents arguments in preceeding round (i.e. rd. 2) Round 4: Responses to rebuttals and concluding arguments. No new arguments may be introduced. "When we are born, we cry that we are come To this great stage of fools" King Lear; Act IV, Scene IV
Portraits art challenge.
Opponent must upload art to debate.org and then post here. It can be a portrait of anyone, in any style or medium. Opponent must state why they have chose that person, style and medium (can just be a simple explanation :) )
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
I apologise for the faulty youtube links, it seems they don't work when copy and pasted. I’ll fix this issue. The video which brought my attention to the abuse in martial arts is below My opponent says “he'd have to prove that one instance of abuse occurring means that all martial arts are taught this same way”. So Con thinks that every single martial art instructor must be abusive for it to be banned for children, and also thinks that I cannot show any more than one instance of abuse despite showing many links (which unfortunately didn’t work). He then goes on to say “if they were deceptive, surely they’d be successfully hiding the fact that they were bullies and he wouldn’t be raising the point”. So Con thinks that because I can tell when a martial art instructor is abusive and he can’t, they are not deceptive bullies. This is a very unconvincing and poor argument. Martial art instructors are deceptive because they claim to teach confidence and respect. Learning to be obedient or doing what you are told e.g. bowing, does not teach you to be respectful; it teaches you to be submissive, and this is the opposite of what confident is. What they teach is not as useful as they claim e.g. it does not reduce bullying or crime. However it does raise the chance of someone being killed by trying to be a hero by stopping an armed robber. When a student is asked to close their eyes before being knocked out, it should be clear that the student is being abused. Con states “Very few martial arts ever actually involve any real striking of the body in training as opposed to tournaments or practise fights.” Here are some examples of people being abused during TRAINING I could find many more videos highlighting abusive instructors in every style of martial art, but I won’t as they are all codified systems of fighting techniques claiming to teach the same thing. Just encase you still think abuse does not occur in dojos, and it’s all fake or normal training I have made a link below. If you still have doubts whether it is real, and want to study the full graphic version without subtitles click the link below – warning very graphic Con says “people begin martial arts are either because they themselves are bullies and are rather unruly and need a good outlet for their anger that is disciplined or they themselves are victims of bullying and want to learn ways to stick up to the bullies without outright killing them” People who enjoy hurting others should not learn martial arts when they are growing up, they are more likely to become abusive instructors. Teaching children how to fight is not the best way to tackle bullying, it is like giving Americans a gun to solve murder, it doesn’t work! And is completely unnecessary! Children who are taught martial arts are less likely to tell a teacher or parent, or scream for help, and are more likely to deal with something their self by arranging fights. Anyone can be a bully, the fact instructors can be abusive shows this is true. Children under 18 are suffering more pain than they would if martial arts were not taught when they are young. It is irresponsible to expect children to not misuse these fighting techniques. If children were encouraged to do other things they would be friendlier to each other instead of experimenting moves (and dangerous made-up ones) on others. My opponent talks about dojo’s being a safe controlled environment however there are many trainers who abuse their position of trust. Here is just one example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Students often call teachers ‘sir or miss’ but they do not have to form a line and take it in turns to shake their hand, bow or thank them like in Dojo’s to be educated like in the video below: There is no way a student can know whether their instructor is a good role model, because not all of them are, and they do not all have respect for others despite receiving more training. If martial artists are taught respect, why are so many abusive? Here is one more video I’d like you to look at: Should every student be taught how to knock someone out or learn how to revive someone on the off chance they will start their own dojo without telling anybody? This trainer clearly performs these moves for personal reasons. He deceives everyone around him and does not have his students interest at heart. Sadly this is true for most martial art instructors; all they care about is taking your money or abusing you physically, mentally or sexually. It is true that some parents abuse their own children. However abusive martial art instructors are a significant risk to the public!! I doubt many dojos allow cameras or phones whilst training, and much is unreported because their mind is conditioned to accept abuse, and it may not always be uploaded. Places for childen to learn English, Maths, Science etc are needed but it’s not necessary for children to learn a martial art. Con simply simply wants to believe it is, there are better ways to receive exercise and you are less likely to be injuried. My opponents last argument is purely wishful thinking. Parents are not sent flyers advertising the abusive nature of martial arts. Trainers will always want people to believe what they teach is important, and so will the students taught it. The truth is, in these times it is not, and it just spreads violence. Cage fighters learn martial arts. Deceptive bullies learn martial arts. Abused students learn martial arts. Many thanks for reading.
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.
i think your explanation says it best "art CAN be defined as" another definition as provided by Oxford English dictionary is art-"the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." First, the fact that there are multiple definitions for this one word "art" that do not necessarily correlate with each other means that its relative to the person defining it. As such it cannot have a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art. Second, your definition assumes that everyone has found something beautiful. If one person in their existence has never found something beautiful, then art doesn't exist. Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence. your other point i never said Third, taking your definition, someone can believe something aesthetically pleasing and someone else can believe it is hideous, thus making it based on a personal opinion. much like a religion, people believe in it based on nothing but a feeling and a personal belief, no actual definitive evidence. your other point i never said art was non existent. i said art was an unproven concept and based on belief. an you hit the nail on the head by saying "it exists if only in a persons mind". i also said i didn't believe in it.
should street art be allowed in public spaces
street art is a form of expression, it is not just names or tags its creative and beautiful. street art is for the people that were told they weren't good enough or didn't want to follow other peoples rules or go by what they wanted no street art is for people that just want to make art and have fun with it. its free to see and amazing when you find the right one it could be deep or fun.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool
Students need exposure 1.) Although you may not use art in your future life/career, nor is it everybody"s cup of tea, same as you may not need and or like other core required academics, it is helpful that students are at least exposed to the subject, for it may come up in future ventures. Art is a form of communication Your primary academic class for communication is English, in which you get four credits. But, art and design are also effective and alternative forms of communication, like for different forms of advertising. It is difficult to avoid using this skill in anyone"s life. Art is also is a form of relaxation and is exceptional when in practice. Gives an alternative for forms of genius This applies more to students who excel at art and gives the desired student better self-esteem and gives perfect-A students who excel at computing a challenge in the academic field.
Video Games are the new art form
This round I going to repudiate some of my opponent's points. 1. "The majority of the players... do not look for a 'deeper' meaning" While I agree with this point, I don't see it as a valid argument for saying that video games are not an art. When people watch films or look at a picture or read a book, most of those people aren't looking for the deeper meaning either, but yet we still consider art forms. If someone can enjoy an action movie without seeing it underlying message about war, its equally true that someone can play a video game and not see its underlying meaning(s). Most art doesn't have a deep meaning unless you really look for it, something not enough people do in video games. 2. "I believe most creators do not intend so either" (in the context of creating deep games) I assume this statement means that you believe that when developers make a game, they don't actually try to make it deep, and any depth in game is there by pure coincidence. I can tell you for a fact that this is wrong. Developers spend years working on a game, spending more time than they have to so that their game is amazing. They go over all parts of the story, game play, art style, and music a thousand times; its no accident that games have this amount of depth. Please note that many game writers are actually novelist who have decided to write for games now. They inject as much depth and complexion into the story in the video game as they do in any novel they write 3. It's a video game not real life Something doesn't have to be real for it to be deep and have meaning. There are tons of books and movies that very loosely resemble our way of life, yet still are deep. None of these books, movies, or even art is real, but yet we still find a deeper meaning in it. 4. "'Grand Theft Auto Series'" You use this series (the go to game series for anyone opposed to video games) to say even though they're might be some deep games, most of them are not. But asking for every game to be deep is like asking every song to win a Grammy or every movie to get an Oscar; the simple fact is that not every video game is great. The video game industry has had its share of flops (Duke Nukem Forever) and senseless titles (COD MW3), just as with any other art form. Every video game shouldn't be expected to be a masterpiece. 5. "What does videogames provide aside form entertainment" Here's just a few I thought up on the spot they let relatively introverted people interact and be social in an environment they feel comfortable in they can teach you advance problem solving skills they teach people how to work towards and achieve a goal they touch a multitude of idea that can make a player think about them in a different way they can teach players about real world subjects, be it math or terrorism they can lead players to have much more strategic thinking 6. "For man 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" (and you go on further to talk about video game addiction) First and foremost, just because someone is addict to something or not does not determine whether it qualifies as an art; they have no correlation. You argue that people go to school for other arts, video games only take away from school. The fact is that people are going to school for video games every day and getting degrees in everything from video game design to production. There's no doubt that schools have embraced video games as a new art. Thanks for responding to my initial argument and I wish you the best of luck in your response!
Money wasted on art works is absurd
Invisible art- HAHAHA Just stare at a blank wall lol. http://www.cbc.ca... Time on 1 painting = money I have painted on one canvas for 3 years. It is trash since I am no artist, but the auction starts at 2 million. Pay me now. History Not often so. What does a blank blue canvas, Mona Lisa or a goat gotta do with culture? Furthermore, you could easily photocopy the paintings, mass produce them and sell them. The portrait of Jesus Christ is one example. If you want to immortalize culture, give it to everyone so that everyone remembers, not just to a few filthy rich who would forget about it in a few days and the world wouldn't get that info through art as you claim. Arguments Gap between manufacturing and sale value Let's admit it, paint, canvas, paper and artistic tools barely cost 500-9000 dollar at top-notch quality. Yet the same artworks are sold for millions, or sometimes billions of dollars. This is a far too wide profit margin. Any middle class will find this highly unreasonable, yet the filthy rich waste their money over this trash. Undeserving artists Half the artworks are absurd and not really great, but sold because the artist has good fame. Look at my sources for more info. A ridiculous blue canvas with a line sold for millions! And that certainly didn't take time nor represent cultures. I would sell graffiti at a better price than it is now, but too bad its not counted as art by most. Graffiti may be called vandalism, but it is the best art form according to me. It even has a blending of text and pictures. http://cavemancircus.com... http://www.bloomberg.com... https://www.bloomberg.com...
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools
No, i think that there are some other important reasons, which will support the idea that art and music classes should be mandatory. Firstly, i already mentioned about that the child who had the lessons of art and music can find their talent. Moreover, according to the international researches, children who attend more art and music class in early years of childhood, have the tendency to hold an positive attitude towards the world. So, as it can be seen, these lessons help create a personality, which calls sustainability to the difficulties which the person may face in his or her whole life. Additionally, there is an another point. That is when the pupil have the classes of art and music in the schools they will know more about the beauty and human beings. As you know, the pupil used to have the classes like math, physics, which will teach only the principles of the world, but art and music classes give them an opportunity to know more about the whole world, not just the rights of human. In conclusion, i want to say that according to these reasons the art and music classes should be obligatory.
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.
Lets first examine your definition "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." Breaking it down "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium" This is exactly what my definition is saying that something worth seeing and brings you happiness the other portion of your definition was showing examples but wasn't absolute as to what can be defined as art. Also you said "a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art" Thats what I am saying there are not any standards to art but it ties in with point two where everyone has known happiness so everyone knows art. But all definitions meet this basic standard for art, that everything is art. For the second point its not an assumption, if not now at some point you were happy you found something wonderful that you couldn't take your eyes off. Whether 10 or 20 years ago. On the third point its all personal opinion but everyone knows art, you might think somethings hideous but I might say other wise and vice versa. But yes there are all different opinions but they are all on the same basic standard listed above. For this final point art is existent if only in our minds it still exists. Its proven anytime you see something and you think wow thats cool. To deny that it has never happened would be like saying the sky isn't blue
Video games are a serious art form.
Note to contender: I don't mean for this to sound inflammatory, but since you're expressing admiration for certain video games, always make sure you capitalize their titles. Anyways, in his/her conclusion, the contender defined the video game as not only a serious art, but also the art for a variety of reasons: 1. It is interactive. 2. They combine multiple artistic mediums. 3. They are available to your doorstep/screen. 4. They entertain. 5. They transport the gamer from their life and into the life of the protagonists. So I'll admit one thing: the technical production of a video game is a display of creativity. OK, but I will be arguing against the judgement that the theory of the video game as a serious art is supported by any of the five reasons mentioned above. 1. "It is interactive art" Good enough. We must, however, remember, that if something is interactive, that typically means that whoever is experiencing it can change the outcome. When F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby, he was making a commentary on the American borgeoisie. (The following three sentences are typed in vague terms so that nothing is spoiled.) There is a break-up. Then there is an accidental death. Then there is a murder. No matter who read it, and no matter how quickly they read it, the same events occured at the end. When Stanley Kubrick directed 2001: A Space Odyssey, he wanted to warn us, as stated before, about the dangers of AI becoming too advanced. No matter who saw the movie, and no matter over how much time they saw it, the ending would be the same. Games, in a broad sense, are not like this. There are rules, and there is an objective. This is the primary difference between the video game and a high art like cinema or literature. Yes, people play video games with the intent of experiencing the atmosphere and the visuals, but the main motivation (and intended motivation by most game developers) for most people to keep playing is the desire to win the next level or beat the game. If something is expression, then the outcome should not be able to be changed all that much, whereas the way someone plays a video game could, in some cases, affect whether or not the entire game's universe ends. If people could change the ending of The Great Gatsby (like you can change the outcome of a video game by pressing the right buttons or going to the right places), F. Scott Fitzgerald's expression would not be much of an expression, because he would not actually write what it was he was trying to make commentary about. Likewise for Stanley Kubrick if filmgoers could change the outcome of 2001: A Space Odyssey and keep HAL 9000 obedient -- not all of Kubrick's vision would actually have been filmed. If someone could make Romeo not drink the poison by pressing the A button enough times and fast enough, would the ending of Romeo and Juliet have been half as emotionally profound? Video games are literally programmed to change themselves based on what the person playing them wants. 2. "They are a mix and mash and show the co-operation of next to all other artistic medium [sic] available to the common man" [...] "we [sic] have sculpturing [sic], architecture, CGI [...]" Okay, so video games combine music and visuals. Music: has any video game music had much of an influence on separately-released, commercial music? Also note that nearly all video game music is instrumental (if not, there are some vocal chants) and composed only to fit the tone and/or action of the game. In other words, video game music is generally made simply as accompaniment to something else. In addition, none of the music in the YouTube videos linked above compare to a "five-star orchestra piece." The first song linked is not even an orchestra piece; it is a piano piece. Few things grant it any more attention than elevator music. OK, so maybe the last one linked sounds as if it could have been played with five or six different instrumentalists. But this is not "five-star." The great composers of two hundred years ago, on the other hand, were estimated to have often used over 100 people in an orchestra. Visuals: some game designs are quite impressive, but not even the best are comparable to the best paintings or sculptures. Most visuals are made to make the game more visually appealing to gamers. 3. "They offer art right to your doorstep and to your screen" This is not a video-games exclusive; just about all of today's popular arts have some form of availability to one's home. Books/e-Books can be purchased and kept on a reader's bookshelf. Albums can be bought, then shipped to your doorstep and imported to iTunes so you can play any of the songs from your computer screen whenever you want. Movies can be viewed with a Blu-ray/DVD player. 4. "Video games [...] entertain you" So do sports. But nobody calls basketball an art. We all refer to it as a sport, which is something that has rules and an objective, and an outcome that can be changed... 5. "Video games [...] transport you from your life and into the life [sic] of the characters that inhabit them" This goes back to the argument issue of games being "interactive" (mentioned in rebuttal to quoted reason #1). Heavy Rain (2010) was not about teaching the gamer what to do for someone they loved so much as simply seeing what the gamer would do for someone they loved...that's even pretty similar to the game's tagline: "How far will you go to save someone you love?" Rather than making a statement (like art does), it asks a question. The narrative completely changes based on what the gamer wants, meaning it is chaste -- something Pablo Picasso once said art can never be. Oh, and I never said that art MUST influence other art. I simply typed that video games not having as much crossover influence as music, film, et cetera is a sign that the video game is not a high art form. Bobby Fischer wasn't afraid to admit that chess was a sport. As with chess and other sports, video games: 1. are limited by rules. 2. have objectives. 3. have outcomes that can be changed according to what the person playing them wants. The design of a video game may show artistic talent, but video games are called video games for a reason. They are not made to satirize or comment; they are made to be played. Notice how when you go to a museum, you are not allowed to touch the paintings? What about when you listen to an album, and the disc is in the player where you finger can't reach it? Games operate the opposite way; they are made to be modified by people who didn't make them. I won't pull a Roger Ebert and stubbornly say that video games can NEVER be art, but so far it's not impressive enough. No video game designer has made a game worthy of comparison with the masterpieces by Orson Welles, F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Velvet Underground, etc. Maybe the defink this is what makes the average gamer appreciate the games he/she plays. If you took away his/her ability to change the outcome, a gamer's temptation to keep playing for five/10 more minutes than planned would not be half as strong. [1] 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Prod. Stanley Kubrick. By Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Geoffrey Unsworth, and Ray Lovejoy. Perf. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968. Blu-ray Disc. [2] Fitzgerald, Francis Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, NY: Scribner, 1925. Print. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.ign.com... [5] http://www.metacritic.com... [6] http://www.rogerebert.com... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. District of Columbia: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2004. Print. [9] Wikipedia
Art Challenge (1/2)
I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to ruin it. I was very excited for your art challenge and am just a little spacey and my emails weren't alerting me I did this. Anyway, if any redemption is available, here is my piece on people, it's called "Attacking your Roots." http://www.debate.org...
Video Games are the new art form
I'm not sure which comments to address so I will address all of them. "Answer those questions and you'll understand my argument." First, I will state your questions: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas? Is it the only way that people can learn something? And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" Now, the title of this is "Video games are the new art" This isn't relevant to the title and to your introduction. Of course I brought it up and thereby you coming to ask these questions but, I don't think you could say I'll understand your entire argument from just those questions. As for each question: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas?" As of now, most people and teachers, will continue to express literature being the prime source of people's ideas. At least this is what they are trying to influence kids. When you read in school, often teachers will tell the kids look for a deeper meaning hence, expanding their ideas. When children play video games, no one influences them to think like that. Whether they should or shouldn't is a debate I would not like to get into. But this must be noted and is a fact for the majority of people. "Is it the only way that people can learn something?" What made you think I said that? Please quote where I said that. I don't think at all literature is the only way people can learn something. And most popular literature books do not possess academic benefit but more spiritual benefit and morals. If you would be able to say what you said above, I could ask you "Is video games the only way that people can learn something?" But of course you meant to say that sometimes you could learn something academically on the side although I disagree with you. "And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" 1) You are still not living it by playing video games just because of good graphics. It's like saying you're living it because of good imagery. Of course people reading novels will often say, "It's like I'm living what happened" but it's just an expression. 2) That is an opinion and I agree with you but not in all cases. It's good to read about something or maybe even play a video game before you live it. I asked the same thing in my previous debate and opponent made a good point so I will quote him "you probably have never read the book "Desert Flower" but ill break it down for you to the basics. Its about a Somali girl dealing with her genital mutilation by her father who runs away from her home searching for truth. Now when you said 'experience helps you deal with it, not reading about it', tell me Pro, when was the last time you had to deal with your genitals being mutilated? Would reading about genital mutilation still have an impact on how you would deal with? Experiencing it first hand would be far more emotional but reading about it would still have an impact on your perception over the matter, and that cannot be denied..." "'living' it is entirely different." Okay and I will stress the answer to your point again: Playing video games is not living it. Playing video games is not living it I will say it in Spanish jugar juegos de video, no está viviendo get the picture. "when someone enjoys something, they're much more receptive to it." Name me common video games kids "enjoy". I bet you very few of them have academic benefit. No one is their to explain to them what academic topics come up in the video game if there is. The child might not be capable of understanding it. "The potential to teach people with video games is enormous and if ever harnessed effectively, could change how everyone learns on a day to day basis." I'm going to focus on the word "if". As of now they aren't. There are few like leap frog, or jump start but those aren't extremely popular nor do they have benefit for a little older kids over 8. "I challenge you to find a sport that is more strategic than games like Starcraft 2" This is off the top of my head. Basketball: I'll name you zones, which are strategies. 2-3 zone, 3-2 zone 1-3-1 zone, box-1 zone, diamond-1 zone... This is all strategic thinking. Football: The best quarter backs like Aaron Rogers (Best in the league) or Drew Breeze (Good luck on Sunday) are strategic thinkers. They have to think of hundreds of plays. The list goes on and on. "the website of a college only for video games" 1)Okay, there is a football school. Does that mean football has academic benefit? Of course not. 2) I meant in everyday classes. "The people who spend tons of time on video games would have probably been anti-social any way and this just selves as the best means of entertainment." So parents should just give up and not prevent it and try to help their children be more social? A good parent would not give up and I hope the majority of people disagree with you. "being online" dependent on if you're talking to your friends. "playing video games with someone else" In moderation I agree with you but, if you just play video games, that won't make you very social. "TONS of games have puzzle aspects to them," It might warm up your brain this is true, but it doesn't help you with everyday problems. "And this is much better than reading it in books" It's not because books make you think more. "and Don is much more powerful than just simply learning." Right there! Video games do not have "simply learning" Your point on video games helping one work toward and achieve a goal If you need to rescue someone, like you might in call of duty, playing the video game doesn't give you the military training or help you at all. (Aside from strategic thinking which is just a tiny head start in military training), "it will be widely accepted as the art that it is." They don't give as deep insights as the other things I have listed. Some video games give insight this is 100% true. But it is not a primary source of insights nor does it have as much insights as the things I mentioned. "Just because a game is popular don't mean it has to be deep." I said that because you said every game being great is like every song to win a grammy and a grammy is usually won from how good the song is not the insights. So that is why I asked my question. I didn't feel your simile was relevant. "don't really know what you're trying to say here" I'm trying to say that one of the reasons it's not taking over as the new art right now is because most people aren't looking for a deeper meaning thereby rejecting it as an art. The name of this argument is "Video Games are the new art form" meaning currently while you are saying it is going through its process of becoming a new art and you are changing your words at the end of the debate. Currently, it's not the new art. "Yes the majority of game developers..." That's why movies and tv aren't a prime source of insights and neither are video games. This went under the topic Video games give deep insights. "For something to be an art it doesn't take a majority to care about it." Well the majority of the world has to agree that it's an art for it to be an art so if they don't care about it, it can't be an art right now. "and that's enough for it to be considered art." Because the majority of the world agreed on it being an art which is why it is a mandatory class. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I hope the saints beat the 9ers. (Please don't not vote for me if you're a 9ers fan. Good look to them too.
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School
Before I get to my conclusion, I just want to correct my opponent on what he said previously. The concept of wood shop class is different from the concept of art class. In wood shop class, you are there to make something useful and beneficial. In art class, you are primarily there to create something beautiful and for appearance only. You can make something useful in art, but you are in art class purposely to create something for appearance usually. In wood shop, once you make the product, you can be artsy with it, by coloring it, etc. However, you are primarily there to create something useful than for beauty and emotional power. You can make your product in wood shop beautiful, but that is not the point of the class. The point is to make something that is beneficial. In a regular arts and crafts class, you are making something only for appearance. Examples would be macaroni art and watercolor paintings. In wood shop, you use more than just your hands, you use machines, such as a belt/disc sander and a miter saw. These tools are not included in art class. Arts and craft classes are not taken as seriously when compared to wood shop classes because in wood shop, you use complex machines and also use computer-aid design to draw your model. To answer your question, I did make a hammer in wood shop and a box. Not to mention, you don't use just wood, but also materials like plastic and metal. A wall shelf does make life easier. Instead of putting books randomly on the floor, you can organize them on a shelf. Your cutting board was beautiful simply because you made it that way. It wasn't necessary, but you wanted to. Your sources are unreliable because pottery isn't made in wood shop. Clay is not part of wood shop class at all. You use plastic for more products than just a pen. My conclusion is that the products you make in wood shop can become art if you wanted it to be. Not to mention, what you may think is art may not be the same with the next person. Art is not part of the original concept of wood shop as mentioned above. In wood shop, you use both hardware and software. When making products in wood shop, you use mathematical techniques to figure the measurements of the product, not in art. You generally use a computer-aid design program before you even build. What you make out of wood shop class is primarily to be used in everyday life, not art. Making it art is simply a choice, not a requirement of the class. Not to mention, another term for woos shop class is Tech Ed because again, you use both hardware and software. I enjoyed this debate. I wished my opponent can spell my username right, (K-Lew, not K-Kew). My sources can be found here: http://fabworks.eng.uci.edu...
Road kill is better than art
I accept. But if you cannot what is good and bad art then.. it's a circular argument? Bring it on!
Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools
Studying art and music in this period is a waste of time. Students who are interested in art and music can specify in the area they really like by learning from other sources and practising in clubs. Those who are not interested will have more time to learn the subjects they like. They will make a better decision on choosing a job in the future. High school students should be able to choose what electives they want to do during school. High schools making Students who are interested in art and music can specify in the area they really like by learning from other sources and practising in clubs. Those who are not interested will have more time to learn the subjects they like. They will make a better decision on choosing a job in the future. High school students should be able to choose what electives they want to do during school. High schools making art and music classes mandatory would not be a good thing. It will make it harder to find work if students mainly study art and music. Students also won"t be as interested if they"re not willing to do the class. Art and music class should be treated like a club and should be chosen to be taken during school or after school. In the end, students being able to choose their electives, it will make it more interesting for the students. Thanks to my opponent to a well thought out debate.
No Game no Life is better than Sword Art Online
Argument: "I have to say, No Game no Life is like a better version of SAO in every way," Rebuttal: My opponent has stated that the anime No Game no Life is a better anime than SAO (Sword Art Online) in every way. Since my opponent has made such a sweeping statement, the burden of proof is on Hisoka to prove that No Game no Life than Sword Art Online in every way, including having better animation, music, commercial success, and critical success. In order to debunk my opponent's argument, I will have to show one way that SAO is better than No Game No Life. 1) Commercial success: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com... All these sources show the constintancy of the popularity of Sword Art Online magna, which feeds into the popurality of the Sword Art Online anime. No Game No Life is not even on any of these lists, therefore, Sword Art Online is a bigger commercial success than No Game No Life, thus negating the resolution that No Game No Life is a better version of SAO in every way, since it makes more money and is more famous.
Are Videogames Art
thankyou tsm, that was an intriguing response. now to begin : MY OPPONENT:"Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display." this painting, like others, is one that takes times and creative thinking to understand the point. most all of the famous paintings made have secret meanings behind them in which the viewer must analyze and and survey until they have found this. for example, the mona lisa's meaning was not found until someone gave great thought and consideration into the true meaning of the painting, so finding out which both sides of the background signified. death, life, evil, good. etc. next i am going to combine these two quotes from my opponent because they go along with each other and it will save time rebutting. MY OPPONENT:"all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is." "the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work." do the gamers really learn inspiration, choices leadership, and teamwork? for when someone goes out and buys this game i guarantee you this is not what they are interested in when buying the game. you wouldnt hear some one talking to his friend and saying "lets go buy mass effect because i want to be inspired!" it would probably be more along the lines of "did you hear about the game mass effect? yeah it has tons of cool weapons and bad guys to kill!" the purpose of these games is for the gamer to kill, and if there was no action whatsoever in the game, i can almost guarantee you know one would buy it. this is why a game can't be considered next i am going to combine these two quotes from my opponent because they go along with each other and it will save time rebutting. MY OPPONENT:"all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is." "the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work." do the gamers really learn inspiration, choices leadership, and teamwork? for when someone goes out and buys this game i guarantee you this is not what they are interested in when buying the game. you wouldnt hear some one talking to his friend and saying "lets go buy mass effect because i want to be inspired!" it would probably be more along the lines of "did you hear about the game mass effect? yeah it has tons of cool weapons and bad guys to kill!" the purpose of these games is for the gamer to kill, and if there was no action whatsoever in the game, i can almost guarantee you know one would buy it. this is why a game can't be considered art. because when some one goes out to buy a video game, they have no desire to learn teamwork. their main goal is to watch cool new graphics, and kill enemies. most the time people skip the cut scenes (if the game lets them) so they can proceed to get on with the violence. because that is truly all video games inspire. if "the legend of zelda, had no action and adventure in it, it would not be as popular as a game it is. however when going to buy a piece of artwork, an individual is looking for learning and inspiration. when buying an "enya" cd some one is looking forward to be enlightened by the sweet voices, and positive lyrics. Thankyou TSM this has been one of few debates where i actually enjoyed myself debating. I would like to thankyou for 1. being a good opponent and staying on topic 2. being curteous to your opponent 3. not making pre-judgement as to the rounds winner like alot of my opponents tend to do 4. not pressuring voters to make a decision against their own will i would very much enjoy debating with you again. -philosophical
schools shouldn't cut art from the budget
I would like to thank Cf9498 for presenting his arguments. I. Art Isn't Important "School is supposed to be an academic environment. But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds. Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music."[1] II. Art Can Distract Students "The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can."[1] III. They Would Have to Cut more Important Subjects if Art was Kept "The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math." Cutting But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds. Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music."[1] II. Art Can Distract Students "The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can."[1] III. They Would Have to Cut more Important Subjects if Art was Kept "The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math." Cutting art means more important subjects. IV. Artists, phooey! Artists make little money, waste college funds, feed off the government, raise the debt, paint horrible pictures (today), are "artsy", are weird, eat their paintings when they are hungry, and so forth. Why should we promote them? V. My Opponent's Argument My opponent said, "it encourages children to go to school every day." I hated art. I got a C in it the last time I took it. If I had to take Art again, I would be MORE inclined to skip school. And so would a lot of other kids. Thank you. Sources: [1]: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com...
