Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewBullfighting is a cultural art form, not a sport
Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."[
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
My opponents main arguements for children having a right to learning martial arts for self defence are: 1. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce crime 2. teaching kids martial arts helps reduce bullying A criminal with (or without) a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate. But this kid might die trying to be a hero. We will always hear stories about kids preventing murders using martial arts but not the ones who died because they did. There are a lot of children who do martial arts and a lot of children being bullied. Teaching kids a martial art just makes bullying worse, children are prevented from knowing when someone is abused, and will be less likely to call for help (either by screaming, or asking). 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 at that age. 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 on others and similar things. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are too many martial arts to talk about individually, but they are all similar in what they claim to teach. I do not need to establish that all instructors are bullies because whether it should be banned for children or not is not just a question of how many children are abused by their instructor. There are many children who go through life without being able to recognise when someone is abusing them or when someone else is being abused right in front of them because they took up a martial art and had their mind conditioned to accept such things. Bowing, doing what you are told is not respect. People need to wake up! Worryingly my opponent (who is learning a martial art) and others like him do not think the videos I have shown are legit including the graphic video showing a martial art instructor stamp on a mentally ill mans head, knocking his head against a metal post despite hearing him hit it, and being able to see his blood! These videos should be taken seriously because people are being abused. What can someone learn from being knocked out? Obviously there will be much more of this happening than we can see because I doubt many dojos allow cameras or phones whilst training, and much is unreported, or not uploaded on the particular site I've looked at. Hopefully I have summed everything up, I apologise if I have miss some points out. Finally I'd like to leave you with a question: Can someone be abused if they are paying for something? Feel they are learning something? And enjoying it regularly? My answer of course is yes. Many thanks for having this debate. Please leave your comments and don't forget to vote!
Illegal art should be made accesible
Illegal art must be made accessible to those who whish to view it. It will enable increased cultural interaction over issues. Deliberation is paramount.
Brevity Debate: Art is essential to society.
You have 500 characters per round to make your case. First round is acceptance only. Con must argue that First round is acceptance only. Con must argue that Con must argue that art is not essential to society.
Sword Art Online is a Good show
Well that's disappointing. I'm sure Con had perfectly good reasons on why she forfeited so I ask voters to disregard it if they would. This is also is a biased topic but oh well. Overall I'm sure Con had perfectly good reasons on why she forfeited so I ask voters to disregard it if they would. This is also is a biased topic but oh well. Overall art and animations. The overall art and animations of SAO were decent. I have seen better work and have done better work myself but it wasn't too bad. Music The music was very fitting to the moments in the story. An example of this is in SAO II, Asuna, Kirito, and Yui decide to buy the house that they lived in during SAO. The song playing during that scene wen't perfect with the mood. I can't think of anything else. So here you go.
Mark Rothko's art is valid and genius.
I would like to thank my opponent for taking on this debate as it is not one easily disputed, requiring at least a modest understanding of Rothko's art and the field in general. I will now begin my argument. My opponent has stated that I must not single out "one or two gems" and I will not, nor was this my intention. There are many things I could argue, Rothko's fame is intrinsically a testament to his genius as a painter; maybe I could go with the monetary value of his paintings, speaking that since they are worth very large sums of money they must be valuable and genius. I will, however, take neither of these routes. My opponent has stated repeatedly that his nephew has created works "just like" Rothko's. While I highly doubt that his nephew had access to oil paints and a fine canvas, that is beside the point; my opponent has argued that because of his ability to create a similar work his nephew's talent is comparable and equivalent to Rothko's. Now many people can produce fakes, a Swiss collector Ernst Beyeler called a fake Rothko from Queens a "sublime unknown masterwork" in 2005 and hung it in his namesake museum. The reproducibility has little to nothing to do with the art's value as a whole. To say that it does is to say that just because Gustave Eiffel designed a world renowned tower his work is not genius because his nephew at a later age could do the same thing after seeing the tower. My opponent has also stated that "the works are not particularly well-suited to their purpose, presuming the purposes of art are to be adored, to make people think, to create emotions within people, etc." This could not be farther from the truth, as his works have been honored in many forms, including a six Tony award winning play (including best play) titled "Red." I have seen people brought to tears by his works and while my personal testimony holds little weight, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit and admire his works each year definitely does. To close I would like to state that the simplicity of his art and its ability to bring about such strong reactions in people is simple proof of his genius. To say that the art is not genius is to state a personal opinion. While your opinion is ignorant and unpopular it is your right to hold it. I would advise caution expressing it in the future, as a spot on your refrigerator may be worth eighty million dollars to someone else. http://www.nytimes.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.markrothko.org...
Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.
Art, much like Christianity is something that a person believes in versus something that is a proven fact. Its relative to an individual and solely based on ones faith and preference. I do not believe in art.
Students should be required to take art classes in highschool
I thank my competitor for the rebuttal Art is a wonderful thing and that's a main reason why it should be required I don't believe it is a waste of time, because even though if your career involves art and you do need that art course on college the high school class will give you a head start and may cause you to use less time & possibly less money. I see the validity in your third statement, but I feel like the application of everyday encounters it would be beneficial in the sense of understanding what their conveying. But leaving this as an optional class most students would choose to deny the class and it gives the opportunity for the students to become interested, It is not Required that you must be interested in that area. Maybe to discover a hidden talent that a student might pass up because they chose not to take the class. It's true that it takes time after school to give full effort, but high school is the biggest part of your adolescent life, & it is out of my control of how much homework the American school system gives, and generally speaking, art classes don't give much homework other than practice. I assume next is closing statement?
Taekwondo is Not a Martial Art
I thank Con for accepting this debate. I would like to apologize from the get go; I should have either made this debate longer or put my opening arguments in R1. Oh well, its all a learning experience, right? The word martial is defined as “relating to, or suited for war” [1]. Therefore, in order to be considered a martial art, Taekwondo has to employ techniques that are useful in combat and/or self-defense. Now I don’t deny that Taekwondo pays lip service to such techniques, but as I will presently show, the foundations of modern Taekwondo are not martial techniques. The two things that modern Taekwondo is known for are Olympic Style Sparring, and high, acrobatic kicking. Sparring is the cornerstone of martial arts training [2]. However, modern Taekwondo sparring divorces itself from most useful martial techniques. The only techniques allowed are punches to the chest, and kicks to the chest guard and face. No open hand techniques, no punches to the face, no grabs, no takedowns, no throws [3]. These prohibited techniques are exactly the kind of thing that one would need in order to become a proficient fighter, and Taekwondo not only doesn’t promote them, it outlaws them. The other point I will address is the other aspect of Taekwondo that the sport is known for: high kicking. [4]. It is necessary to warm up the large muscles used in such kicks, or one risks injury [5], which would certainly damage your chances in a fight. On the street, there is no time for such warm ups [6], so performing them would be suicide. High kicking may be pretty, but it isn’t martial technique. I have shown that the core aspects of modern Taekwondo, Olympic Sparring and acrobatic kicking, are not martial techniques. Therefore, Taekwondo is not a martial Therefore, in order to be considered a martial art, Taekwondo has to employ techniques that are useful in combat and/or self-defense. Now I don’t deny that Taekwondo pays lip service to such techniques, but as I will presently show, the foundations of modern Taekwondo are not martial techniques. The two things that modern Taekwondo is known for are Olympic Style Sparring, and high, acrobatic kicking. Sparring is the cornerstone of martial arts training [2]. However, modern Taekwondo sparring divorces itself from most useful martial techniques. The only techniques allowed are punches to the chest, and kicks to the chest guard and face. No open hand techniques, no punches to the face, no grabs, no takedowns, no throws [3]. These prohibited techniques are exactly the kind of thing that one would need in order to become a proficient fighter, and Taekwondo not only doesn’t promote them, it outlaws them. The other point I will address is the other aspect of Taekwondo that the sport is known for: high kicking. [4]. It is necessary to warm up the large muscles used in such kicks, or one risks injury [5], which would certainly damage your chances in a fight. On the street, there is no time for such warm ups [6], so performing them would be suicide. High kicking may be pretty, but it isn’t martial technique. I have shown that the core aspects of modern Taekwondo, Olympic Sparring and acrobatic kicking, are not martial techniques. Therefore, Taekwondo is not a martial art. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.martialartssparring.org... [3] http://www.taekwondo-information.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.thekickerscorner.com... [6] http://news.menshealth.com...
Art MasterPiece Challenge!
I choose.... *drum roll please* From my deviantart account, 9king, link here: http://9king.deviantart.com... GRANDER ART GALLERY. As explained from the deviantart page, I worked on one drawing per day until I finished this, so it wasn't very hard. But I estimate the difficulty would be near-impossible if I tried everything in one go. Each drawing has its own name and different style, desgined to look like someone would look at this and say "there's no way the same guy drew all of these". DRAWINGS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AND UP TO DOWN: "FATHER TIME": The surrealist piece meant to make you say "Well, I've got an idea of what I'm getting into." "MALICIOUS BUSINESS MAN": The cool and funky caricature that stands out of the otherwise realistic gallery. "WALL FLOWERS": The realistic roses. These were much easier than I had expected. "BIRD GODDESS": The epic watercolor meant to divert your attention from the "Grand Masterpiece" and meant to be calm and smoothing, just like the coloring employed onto the paper. "THE LIVIN' ROOM": A simple piece of furniture and a lamp beside it gives you time to rest before you meet the final three (rather chaotic) drawings "POLICE ROBOT": This is where we first see the action happening--a cool wooden "robot" telling you to stop, before your eyes go blind from seeing the "Grand Masterpiece". :P "BREAKING 5TH WALL": The "Grand Masterpiece" that is probably the first to draw your attention. It almost looks like the fist is really breaking out the glass holding it, and the strong 3-D really makes it seem it's the only one to pop out of the wall, the only one to surpass them all, both physically and drawing wise. "SCHOLARSHIP TO VASE ACADEMY": Another surrealist piece that is arguably more realistic than "FATHER TIME". The cool shading reminds you of all the different pieces and the realism involved, and the variety of colors brings a nice "conclusion" to the art gallery.
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools
As I mentioned earlier,making music and art compulsory subject, may take a considerable amount of time and energy of students which otherwise he or she can devote towards main subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Devoting time to main subjects is a paramount importance for success in the examinations and future career. Hence and art and music may be optional but not compulsory. Fact of the WORLD and the behavior of it's objects and people may surely be obtained by cultivating Science.Again all children may not like music or art which if treated as compulsory subject may also lead to severe stress and divert them from their main goal of learning.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
Intro After some hard thinking about how to approach this last round, I concluded that the best way to demolish Pro was not to go all-in and smash his case to pieces but rather to lay his case out bit by bit and slowly jab at each and every point making his case bleed, gradually to its ultimate demise. After all, beating someone up strategically and energy-efficient is one of many martial arts techniques that Pro has yet to learn and appreciate. Pro’s First R4 point: Children need an education i.e. attend a school, but they do not need to attend a martial arts class. We had martial arts and fighting techniques before we had formal education. Humans have a basic innate need for self defense in any dangerous situation in life either to attack efficiently or defend an attacker efficiently. You will 100% both need and use martial arts in some way in your life even in manual labor positioning and warm ups to be efficient at it. You will not necessarily use any part of your education and humanity has had education far less than it has had martial arts and combat so if we’re arguing which is a need and which is a social construct for children, then education loses by miles. Pro’s second R4 point: It seems Con is confusing domestic abuse with abuse caused by martial art instructors. They are not the same. Oh I know they’re not the same, I clearly stated and provided evidence supporting that domestic abuse is far worse. Perhaps Pro would know this if he didn’t skim-read my arguments and instead read them in-depth before daring to rebut them. Pro’s third R4 point: [This is how Pro attempts to prove that abusive martial arts must be stopped by banning children from it altogether but abusive education and domestic abuse must not] Abusive martial art instructors pose a significant risk to the public, they can abuse a whole room full of young impressionable and vulnerable people, then another room full, and another after that before being caught. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that school-based abuse is far more detrimental to the public and a teacher at school can damage them far more as can a foster parent in wide-scaled abuse of multiple children rather than setting an unruly student straight to give them a good taste of discipline which positively toughens them up without scarring them or having any long-lasting trauma from it. Pro’s fourth R4 point: In fact they could continue to abuse people throughout their career because nobody is able to recognise abuse! This is why it is so serious and why it must be stopped! So could anyone in any career, this is not reason to ban anyone from it. Pro’s fifth R4 point: I have proven that a lot of abuse occurs inside dojos, it is not just a few cases No buddy, you only proved a few case-by-case studies in the form of randomly filmed YouTube videos half of which were probably set up in some way because no sensible instructor would allow filming of his/her classes simply because they earn less if their lessons and way of practising are expose dot the public for free. Pro’s sixth R4 point: If it happens on camera it will obviously happen off camera too and probably be worse Why would it be any worse off camera if you are saying these videos were not acting/set-up and were genuinely filmed in the moment of abuse without the instructor’s knowledge? Pro’s further (ironic) ‘proof’ of his sixth point: It will obviously happen off camera too and probably be worse; possibly like the graphic video I shared. So your video is proof that it’s worse off-camera… Was your video filmed with something other than a camera? I didn’t think so. Pro’s seventh R4 point: Each video shows students unaware of being abused (including adults), proving how easy it is for martial art instructors to deceive and abuse their students. How can someone be unaware of being abused… On top of this, why not ban it for adults too then? You are conceding that adults get just as deceived and abused and yet are only banning it for children… I’m truly at a loss as to what on Earth this point was trying to prove or signify. Pro’s eighth R4 point: Learning a martial art is not useful for children. I’m sorry… but what did you just say? So, all the health benefits, psychological benefits and life-skills that are gained through martial arts (and which I previously mentioned and supplied reliable sources for) are non-existent now? There are numerous benefits of martial arts, please rebut my point raising all of them instead of using a sweeping statement in retort that proves absolutely nothing. Pro’s ninth R4 point: Con has failed to show how a child learning to be overconfident or able to defend himself/herself for self-interest means they will help others i.e. prevent bullying. I never once said it would help them to help others but it would give them an ego-fuelling outlet for their aggression if they win fights in the ring regularly and would make them not need to bully nearly as much, if at all, to fulfil what they lacked psychologically beforehand. Pro’s tenth R4 point: Children are irresponsible by nature (they are not responsible adults yet) and will use martial art techniques to hurt others, and even try their own dangerous moves outside of a dojo. First of all, a Dojo is for Japanese martial arts only. Other martial arts do not use dojos and it is very ignorant of Pro to use this term as if all martial arts are taught in one. Korean martial arts are taught in Dojangs and the Chinese vary from temples to schools to shrines but never dojos. Secondly, this is completely ridiculous and has no evidence in support of it so I’m going to ask for evidence and automatically defeat it since there’s no further round for Pro to supply it. Pro’s eleventh R4 point: Taking up a martial art to stop bullying is not the answer, people need to be more aware of abuse and know how to act appropriately when they see it. Anyone can be a bully. The fact instructors can be makes this clear. If anyone can be a bully should we ban all things since they can all be subject to bullying and abuse? I’ll give you a clue, the answer is not ‘yes’. Pro’s twelfth R4 point: Learning a martial art will not reduce crime either, it raises a child's chance of being killed by trying to be a hero instead of calling the police, running or screaming. When did I say it reduces crime? Is this a new point in the last round being raised by Pro? You can’t raise new points in the last round and this is simply rebuking something I didn’t even raise. Pro’s thirteenth R4 point: Bullies should take up friendlier sports rather than be allowed to do what they enjoy - hurting others. If they take up friendlier sports, they won’t be using it as an outlet for their rage or ego-deficiency. That’s like saying, give a cigarette addict some sugar to get a rush rather than supplying them with nicotine patches in order to cope with withdrawal (as if being addicted to sugar is somehow as good a solution). Pro’s fourteenth R4 point: My videos prove that respect is not taught, something they all claim to teach. In all your videos the victim is taught to respect the perpetrator. Pro’s fifteenth R4 point: Trainers do not respect their students and often use them for demonstrations, make them bow, sexually assault them etc. What in Bruce Lee’s name does this have to do with anything? Demonstrations and making a child bow respectfully before a fight are not even remotely abusive. Sexual abuse in martial arts is not proven to exist by Pro, no stats or anything is supplied. Maybe once in a blue moon it may occur but his is no reason to ban it. Et voila.
Graffiti Art
Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. Although it was never explicitly stated, I assume that the main point of this argument is to deem whether or not graffiti should be allowed. I will be arguing against this. Graffiti is, by definition, "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." (1) Illicitly, of course, means illegally. This is exactly why it should not be allowed: It is vandalism, pure and simple. It is the same as keying somebody's car or carving curse words into the desk in middle school, except graffiti is almost always done on a much grander, larger scale. I hate to use such a cliché, but how would you feel if someone did it to you? How awful would it be to wake up and see vulgarities or gang signs on the side of your house for the sake of "sticking it to the man?" In some cases, this would be enough to get shot by the wrong people. To allow this anywhere would be absolutely ludicrous. On that note, I will admit that graffiti is sometimes pleasant to look at. I'd never say that graffiti can't be admirable simply in an artistic aspect. Although graffiti, by definition, is illegal, it is of course not illegal to do it on your own property. This is where street I hate to use such a cliché, but how would you feel if someone did it to you? How awful would it be to wake up and see vulgarities or gang signs on the side of your house for the sake of "sticking it to the man?" In some cases, this would be enough to get shot by the wrong people. To allow this anywhere would be absolutely ludicrous. On that note, I will admit that graffiti is sometimes pleasant to look at. I'd never say that graffiti can't be admirable simply in an artistic aspect. Although graffiti, by definition, is illegal, it is of course not illegal to do it on your own property. This is where street art should stay: On your own stuff, on your own house, with somebody's permission, etc. But to mark up somebody's house or the overpass is unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to go against society and get stuff done. Graffiti should not be allowed simply based on common courtesy. 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School
First of all, art class is different than woodshop class. In art class, you create products that are only for their beauty. In woodshop, you can make something that is not only beautiful, but can be useful in your life. For example, I can make a wooden hammer and use it because it beneficial when I have to remove, or put in a nail. In art class, you make something, but you primarily don't use the product. Products made in woodshop are suppose to be beneficial and used in daily life. Stuff in arts and crafts are only for appearance, nothing more. In woodshop, you do design and build materials. I just gave you an example with the wooden hammer. In woodshop, you use a computer-aid design program to design your product. Once finished, you build the product, so there are two parts to woodshop. Woodshop should be considered an engineering/technology class because you are designing and building a product for use, which is what you do in engineering. Technology not only means "advancement in computer technology", but it means advancement in society in general. The products created in woodshop advance society because they are beneficial and can make life easier. The products made in art are only for show and emotion. The concept of woodshop is not based upon this. It is based upon creating materials for everyday life. Your sources are unreliable because they are only talking about art, not woodshop. Woodshop does not require making clay pots. In woodshop, you use hard materials such as wood, plastic, or metal. Woodshop is practical use. The government doesn't take woodshop seriously and takes it as arts and crafts instead, which is a mistake, with my reasoning above. Making products such as pens, and wall shelves are way more of engineering/technology than crafts because again, they are extremely beneficial in society. Once, again your sources are unreliable.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )
I want to remind voters not to let your own opinion affect your voting. Art should be graded. Schools generally grade art based on student knowledge and appreciation of techniques and variety of art. A student's own artwork is not heavily judged. But knowledge of art is a skill in of itself. If you say it shouldn't be graded because some kids have a personal problem then fine, Schools can make exceptions. But this debate is talking in generalizations. In general, Schools should grade art. If they don't, Then why even have it as a subject? If schools have art as a subject, They should grade it, Otherwise they're wasting people's time. People can learn and do art at home.
Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )
"Then remove art. My point is that art shouldn't be graded, Wether or not it should actually exist, It isn't my point, I don't care, I would be okay for art to not even exist. It isn't my point at all. " It's important whether or not it exists. That's my point. If art is a subject, It should be graded. Your title: "art should not be graded at school" implies that art is a subject in your point. That's your whole case: Art (a subject) in school, Should not be graded. Otherwise it's: "Art (which I do at home) should not be graded in school" which is nonsensical. So let's be very clear here, Pro is stating that art, As a subject, In school, Should not be graded. We have to get this very clear, if we want an actual debate. Otherwise, come chat with me on a forum. This is a debate. "I don't know where do you come from, But in Canada atleast, Your art is judged. Your knowledge of art don't matter and you can throw it in the trash. I never learnt a single thing about the story of art. I get given a paper, And then you need to draw something. This surely is not a single case and a large number of people probably have the same thing as I" Alright, Well now you've actually lost this debate. Next time, Build your case properly and be specific. Art should not be a graded subject in Canadian schools, For example. Because I accepted this debate on the assumption that we are talking of general principles. In layman's language: "Hey, Hypothetically, In schools, If art is a subject, It should be graded like the other subjects right? ". In debates, It's important that both parties know exactly what is being debated. Anyway, As to your point, There are more skills than just knowledge of art. Your accuracy matters. If the school says to do something, It grades you based on if you accomplished it. Yes, We can exceptions to disabled people, But in general, The school can grade the students. That's how it works for other subjects anyways. "It can't. They can't just not grade a whole subject, And most teachers are apparently too retarded to understand that some people have problems with art, And it isn't something you can ' study ' about ( well you can but it's time confusing )" Yes they can not grade a whole subject. It's called many things but for example, Learning disability support. A student can be exempt from subjects, Put in a special class. But for the rest of the kids, It's the same normal grading system. Maybe teachers in your school d
Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
A conclusion to the art of communication
Am I detecting a not very well hidden agenda here? The nuances of speech may be innate in some and readily acquired by others. But the The nuances of speech may be innate in some and readily acquired by others. But the art of vocal expression is not every ones cup of tea. We concentrate our minds on a wide variety of interests and vocations. These interests and vocations do not have to include, the skill of articulation. Let story tellers tell stories, let singers sing and let scientists study, observe and experiment. Most of all let people behave as individuals and be allowed to express themselves as they see fit. I would suggest that the notion of "monotone abuse" is being used here as nothing more than a personally derived criticism, aimed at something that for some reason doesn't sit easy within Pro's mind.
Children Should Be Allowed to Learn a Martial Art
I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. I should have added another round really, oh well, we can counter arguments in the conclusion and sum up points there. 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, they enter a sumbmissive 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! Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. 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. 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. 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 as shown 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 burgular 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...
At school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded/levelled
yes, people should draw whatever they feel like, at home. In art class, the point is to teach you, when they grade you art work badly, they should give you feedback as to why you got that grade, what would have made it better, perhaps if you added color or shadows. You don't need to accept their criticism, but if they grade all ok art pieces a very high grade, no one will learn. It should be thought of as a professional's opinion, I do think the teacher should explain in class that it's her personal opinion and although somewhat professional, it might be that other people disagree with her. She should say that if you get low grades it doesn't mean you are a bad artist, in fact, most really successful people kind of failed in their fields in school. Because there are better and worse pieces, I do think people should be graded, as long as they are given feedback and it's a learning process.
