Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    I also agree with that everyone has different abilities,...

    Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

    Thank you for my opponent for debating with me. I agree with that some people have talant some not, but we can also say that some people have talant to solve the problem on math, and some have not. But it does not mean that we should remove the item from school program. I also agree with that everyone has different abilities, however I do not agree with that we should develop each individually. If they develop each individually, then how can they be versatile generation? People do not know in what they capable and if they have not a talent, they can evolve it with the lapse of time. Second argument, which can be provided as in favor, is when humanity looks at the portraits or pictures that created with many color, or listen various types of music, it manipulate their moods, and also help to grow morally. People can understand the feelings and emotions of an artist and composer by every piece of art and music. That is why, when people look at the creation of an artist, they can communicate with him without words. It is a big opportunity to grow spiritually, because it explains the deep meanings of artist creations. The I also agree with that everyone has different abilities, however I do not agree with that we should develop each individually. If they develop each individually, then how can they be versatile generation? People do not know in what they capable and if they have not a talent, they can evolve it with the lapse of time. Second argument, which can be provided as in favor, is when humanity looks at the portraits or pictures that created with many color, or listen various types of music, it manipulate their moods, and also help to grow morally. People can understand the feelings and emotions of an artist and composer by every piece of art and music. That is why, when people look at the creation of an artist, they can communicate with him without words. It is a big opportunity to grow spiritually, because it explains the deep meanings of artist creations. The If they develop each individually, then how can they be versatile generation? People do not know in what they capable and if they have not a talent, they can evolve it with the lapse of time. Second argument, which can be provided as in favor, is when humanity looks at the portraits or pictures that created with many color, or listen various types of music, it manipulate their moods, and also help to grow morally. People can understand the feelings and emotions of an artist and composer by every piece of art and music. That is why, when people look at the creation of an artist, they can communicate with him without words. It is a big opportunity to grow spiritually, because it explains the deep meanings of artist creations. The art can permit to see the beauty of life, nature and people. In addition, art has a power, which can influence our state of feelings, because of colorfulness, structure, and lines of paints. Physiologists assert that looking at the picture with an aggressive color, it makes heart rates increase. If person looks at picture with calm colors, it lowers blood pleasure (Flynn). According to Debra Levy music aids to ameliorate breathing and hand mouth coordination. Because of it, we can call art as a regulator of our moods. http://www.denverpost.com... http://www.wisegeek.com...

  • PRO

    Because the students who DO need to be prepared, and...

    Tourney Round 2, Debate No. 12: Art and/or Music are Important in Grade School

    First, a small quibble. Grade school refers to more than just K-5. In fact, grades up through 8th are numbered. I understand your confusion, but I think you're getting "grade" school mixed up with "elementary" school, which is K-5. If I'm reading correctly, your three arguments are, (1) Art- and music-dependent jobs make up only a small portion of the job market, (2) the State education system does not require art or musical ability, and (3) art and music are better taught not alone but in integration with other subjects. I believe I have already addressed the argument you make first. I have already conceded that art and music related jobs ARE a small portion of the job market. Several times, in fact. However, I fail to see why that means they should not be taught in grade school. The mission of the school system, as I'm sure you know, is to educate a student for every field he is capable of going into. A ten-year-old does not know with certainty what he wants to do in life, and that's why we teach a wide variety of subjects throughout the course of a K-high school education. This is why there are shop classes in high school: to prepare students for jobs they may or may not get in the construction industry or something like it. The majority of these students won't go on into these industries, yet we still have shop classes. Why? Because the students who DO need to be prepared, and because shop skills are handy for everyone to have. Notice the parallel here? Art and music skills are handy to have in life, even though most people won't go into art or music. Unlike shop classes, however, art and music are skills that can be almost infinitely fine-tuned, and, most importantly, they require an early start. Saying that art and music should not be taught in grade school is like saying mathematics shouldn't be taught in high school: 99% of the necessary math skills to do 99% of the jobs in the world are taught in grade school, which makes Algebra and Geometry seem unnecessary. However, we still teach them, and for the same reasons I expressed above. Art and music may make up only a small portion of the job market, but it's larger than the "mathematics" teachers job market, which I presume is basically math teachers and professors, and accountants. However, we still teach Mathematics in school. Art and music, therefore, being different but not unimportant skills, should be taught in school. Art and music ability are not mandated by the state because they are skills which are hard to measure. It's hard to imagine a art- or music-based variant of the SAT test, for example. You see what I'm driving at? It's not because these skills are not thought important, it's because they are hard to measure. In fact, I think it's safe to say that if the school systems thought art and music were unimportant in grade school, and thus making this a strong argument for you, they would not teach it! In fact, most every elementary school offers art education at least, and probably music as well. So, a lack of state standards for art and music is not actually relevant. In your third argument, you appear to equate art with creative, right-brain-centric, learning. This is not the case. In fact, creative thinking and art are both right-brain activities, but they are not the same thing. I reject your assumption that children can learn what they are now learning in art classes from "creative" teaching and learning methods in other subjects. To accept your premise, right-brain-stimulation would have to be the only motive for art education. However, art builds up skills that are neither right or left brained. The Right brain-left brain issue is not actually part of our debate, but I hold that right-brained teaching methods are distracting to left-brained children and vice versa, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that separate methods should exist. This, however, has very little bearing on the debate at hand. It is possible to teach art in a right-brained way, and to teach mathematics in a left-brained way, and so to treat the issue as simply one of method is irrational. The website I cited was merely meant to show the importance of right brain education, and in actual fact, the right-brain "controls artistic abilities." (http://toys.about.com...) In conclusion, art and music are skills which, like mathematics, have limited direct application in finding a job or choosing a career, but which are extremely beneficial in the long run. (Musical students consistently test higher on IQ tests than non-musical students.) Music and art have been and continue to be taught in grade school. My opponent has thus far not provided any compelling reasons why it should not be.

  • PRO

    In Con position you will be defending the show from the...

    Sword Art Online was a horrible show

    This debate is about an anime called "Sword Art Online". In Con position you will be defending the show from the criticism. Although all arguments are welcome, please refrain if you can from completely subjective opinions like: "I had fun with it" because it doesn't prove the quality of the show.

  • PRO

    schools shouldn't cut funding for art in there budget...

    schools shouldn't cut art from the budget

    schools shouldn't cut funding for art in there budget because it encourages children to go to school every day.

  • PRO

    Whereas art, you spend years making one painting. ......

    Roads kill is better than art

    Roadkill is very easy to make. Just run over the animal then you've got roadkill. Whereas art, you spend years making one painting. Also using the dailymail isn't the best source for facts. Drinking paint can kill you while eating roadkill wouldn't. Drinking 3 gallons of blood wouldn't kill you but drinking the same amount of paint would easily kill a human. Not very much people dispose of roadkill for a while as you can see on the motorway or highway.

  • PRO

    These days, people for some unexplained reason can't tell...

    Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

    These days, people for some unexplained reason can't tell the difference between quality modern art and some trash, which is why when you drop a glove in a modern art museum, people walk around it because they don't know whether it's art or not. Guys like these are the worst, I mean, why do you need to enforce unrealistic standards of beauty in art? The pressure on paint-splattering beret-wearing philosophy degree-owning sixth formers to produce art that isn't rubbish is terrifying. Artist seems like the perfect name for this bigotry that's not fit for the 21st century. Not only does it have the same suffix as other fun words, like racist or sexist, but it was also used in the dark ages to mean someone who does art, but I think all of us Liberal Green Party-voting university students can agree that those sorts of people belong in the dark ages (not that there's anything wrong with being dark, another idea that belongs in the dark ages). Thank you.

  • PRO

    I believe that having mandatory art or music education in...

    Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!

    I believe that having mandatory art or music education in high school is good. I am Pro on this issue. Thank you.

  • PRO

    Students can barely put together a sentence in college,...

    "Art projects" in English classrooms do not help students and weaken their writing skills.

    Art projects in English classrooms at the high school level do not help students learn how to write well. Students can barely put together a sentence in college, and the first few weeks of many college classes are wasted re-learning basic grammar and writing techniques because frustrated professors want students to write at a college level when many of them cannot. I personally find these "Art Projects" frustrating because they hurt my grades in high school. We were graded on our ability to draw and make posters and other "creative" projects, rather than our talents and skills in crafting well-written essays. I believe that English classes should have more of a focus on writing and less of these "art projects" which should only be utilized in classes specifically meant for art.

  • PRO

    First off music and art classes are classes that children...

    Schools need music classes or other art classes and they should not be cut.

    Many music/art programs are getting cut from school's budgets, but these classes are the ones that may be the most important for children. First off music and art classes are classes that children enjoy so if they are taken away from them children don't have much enjoyment in school, they don't get that little break to relax from the academic pressures they are subjected to all day. Children especially in poor, low income communities may not have that many opportunities to have fun or relax, some students have to deal with divorce of parents, living in poor conditions, and having to worry about their home life so school might be their only escape, those music and art classes play a large role in these children's lives because they can relax, imagine, and maybe express themselves through art or be eased by the subjection to music or art. The Arts allow children to imagine, be creative and there have been connections made between high academic standing and students that play an instrument. The Arts allow students to stimulate different parts of the brain and take a break from sitting and working in a classroom all day.

  • PRO

    I think it is unfair to give someone a low level on a...

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

    I believe at school pieces of art work shouldn't be graded. I think it is unfair to give someone a low level on a piece of artwork if the soul creator is happy with the piece of artwork. Every bodies interpretation is different so I find it unfair to grade a piece of work.

CON

  • CON

    I believe that martial arts should not be taught to...

    Children Should Be Allowed to Learn a Martial Art

    I believe that martial arts should not be taught to children, my opponent (Pro) will argue why the benefits of learning a martial art at a young age outweigh the costs R1: acceptance R2: arguments R3: conclusion Good luck!

  • CON

    While it is obviously true that, generally speaking, art...

    "Art projects" in English classrooms do not help students and weaken their writing skills.

    Warmest regards to my opponent; I accept this debate. My opponent states that "art projects in English classrooms at the High School level do not help students learn how to write well". I disagree. While it is obviously true that, generally speaking, art projects are unlikely to focus on syntax and grammar, there is far more to expressing oneself than simply those basics. In a way, DDO's 7 point voting system is a perfect example of this; only one point in seven is devoted to dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Of far more importance to the vote is the ability to be persuasive and, when appropriate, quote one's sources. This need to be persuasive is present in most college essays, as well. According to the Harvard College Writing Center, the core point of an academic essay is "fashioning a coherent set of ideas into an argument" [1]. If one were to compare use of the English language to playing the piano, the syntax and grammar could be seen as analogous to the actual notes on the page of sheet music. The act of fashioning that coherent set of ideas, however, is more analogous to the rhythm and pitch of the pianist pouring expression into the notes on the page. In plain terms, it's an artistic talent. One of the ways in which a smart teacher can help students express that artistry is through the use of While it is obviously true that, generally speaking, art projects are unlikely to focus on syntax and grammar, there is far more to expressing oneself than simply those basics. In a way, DDO's 7 point voting system is a perfect example of this; only one point in seven is devoted to dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Of far more importance to the vote is the ability to be persuasive and, when appropriate, quote one's sources. This need to be persuasive is present in most college essays, as well. According to the Harvard College Writing Center, the core point of an academic essay is "fashioning a coherent set of ideas into an argument" [1]. If one were to compare use of the English language to playing the piano, the syntax and grammar could be seen as analogous to the actual notes on the page of sheet music. The act of fashioning that coherent set of ideas, however, is more analogous to the rhythm and pitch of the pianist pouring expression into the notes on the page. In plain terms, it's an artistic talent. One of the ways in which a smart teacher can help students express that artistry is through the use of art projects that contain similar values. A diorama of a scene from The Crucible, for example, might lead a student to put more focus and attention on the imagery used by the play. Ideally, this would show the student the value of that imagery, and encourage its replication if they were asked to describe an equivalent modern environment. My opponent makes other arguments, but they lack a certain relevance (IE their personal high school experience does nothing but show their own inherent bias to the concept of art as a learning tool, and their observation that college professors must be redundant in their initial lessons is certainly true, but they have failed to make a connection between a few art projects and that typical student failing. Summer vacation is arguably a far more culpable factor). In conclusion, art projects do help students, because they enforce good creative writing techniques. As such, they serve to strength the writers' skills. [1] http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu...

  • CON

    My argument will be that music and art takes logic as...

    Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art

    My argument will be that music and art takes logic as well. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that music and art teach skills that can't get in math or science and that these skills can help people get good paying jobs. Your floor

  • CON

    That is exactly the same thing, art is subjective to...

    Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

    I am going to pull out the "Freedom of Expression" card and say that art is a form of personal expression, and is subject to opinion, not fact, which is where the popular saying, "It is an art, not a science" is derived from, meaning that the object or idea/ideal that the saying is describing is not definite, it has no solid facts, there are no regulations set on it that makes it "art" or not. This is just like humor. You and your friend in school or the workplace may have an "inside joke" based on one of your past experiences that the both of you went through together. You may be in the middle of the room, with a large amount of other people in it. You tell the joke, and a random listening bystander comes up and tells you that he does not like your joke, and that it is "not real humor." That is exactly the same thing, art is subjective to opinions, and if you like a glove, that is your thing. Some may like paint splattered on a canvas, and some may like a nice, pastoral, neat country scene painting. The human brain is a diverse and beautiful thing.

  • CON

    Speaking on a technical level, Dali dabbled in various...

    Art Critique Debate! (Not Drawing Competition)

    I too, am starting of with a rather popular work. something pretty much everyone knows, even when you couldn't quite grab the title. I submit Salvador Dali's "The disintegration of the persistence of memory". This is the surrealist painting we all know and love, there are few who wouldn't be able to envision the piece in their head just by stating 'melting watches'. The light bulb goes off, and the nod of recognition soon follows. But, is that the picture you had in your head? Please, read on. Speaking on a technical level, Dali dabbled in various expressions from pointillism, to holograms, with his mastery of stylizing the real growing each time the muse descended. While you might not see individual brush strokes, you will see a host more. Subtle repetitions that seem slightly off, disjointed and impossible perspectives; this piece literally forces you to try and reconcile what you are looking at to what you think you have looked at. It draws you in, which as an artistic piece, should do. Dali was tortured, to say the least. From being pelted by grasshoppers in his youth, to being haunted by the death of a brother, his early challenges are what lead to some of the most fascinating works modern Speaking on a technical level, Dali dabbled in various expressions from pointillism, to holograms, with his mastery of stylizing the real growing each time the muse descended. While you might not see individual brush strokes, you will see a host more. Subtle repetitions that seem slightly off, disjointed and impossible perspectives; this piece literally forces you to try and reconcile what you are looking at to what you think you have looked at. It draws you in, which as an artistic piece, should do. Dali was tortured, to say the least. From being pelted by grasshoppers in his youth, to being haunted by the death of a brother, his early challenges are what lead to some of the most fascinating works modern art history has seen. Dali and surrealism go hand in hand, but its the name, and the function of the piece that I want to specifically call attention to "The disintegration ..." inferring that what you see are the leftovers from something else, which I feel is what makes this a superior piece. Personally speaking, when I realized the title (as a younger lad), its what drew me into art. Dali's stated symbolism (and some of the Freudian) seem at odds with each other in the way of an explanation. The disintegration of the persistence of memory was supposed to be about a recognition of science (with the Persistence of Memory becoming in a way obsolete), and marked the last of his surreal-at-the-core works, but like Van Gogh's affliction causing him to see yellow darn near everywhere, there was probably something a bit deeper at play. With the first inklings of his wife drifting off into senility, perhaps the surreal hit a bit to close to home, and something like this became the result. Or, dude was impotent. Melting things and soft things and nearly erect but wave semi flaccid things are a common theme in his work, featured here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Link if I screwed up the placement.

  • CON

    He simply states that art and music are somehow essential...

    I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.

    Alright I will offer my conclusion as briefly as possible. Level 1: My opponent completely drops my argument thereby proving that he does not agree with anyone or anything. Level 2: My opponent once again drops my argument in order to reiterate his points. He simply states that art and music are somehow essential with no evidence to back this claim up at all. My points from earlier thereby all still stand. Being: 1. Not everyone is good at art and music. 2. Other activities offer the same benefits as art and music. 3. Being in art and music potentially detracts from other activities an individual would like to do. 4. Individuals should have freedom of choice, a right to choose what activity best suits there needs and capabilities. Extracurricular activities should pushed by school administration as desirable. With all these points still standing I see nothing but a Con vote. Thank you.

  • CON

    Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if...

    We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art

    Whilst it is the case in individual instances that, if one piece of art is censored, another on a different topic may be produced, when looked at in a wider context this is not the case. If we restrict artists in all cases where someone is disgusted, an enormous quantity of subjects will be off limits. This will have, not only a negative impact on that artist, but a deleterious effect on whole branches of art. Further, restricting any art that could cause social disgust is an unreasonable restriction to place upon society (or gallery curators, or grant allocation committees). It is difficult to know at what point a piece will cross the line from simply ‘provocative’ to ‘disgusting’. Consequently, people will be forced to err on the side of caution, leading to an excessive caution and restriction: overcensorship. When weighed against these harms, it is far from clear that individual disgust can be elevated to this extent! 

  • CON

    The surveyed people indicate whether or not they play a...

    Tourney Round 2, Debate No. 12: Art and/or Music are Important in Grade School

    Throughout this debate, I have repeatedly stressed how music and art are simply not necessary in grade school education. And I wish to end what has been a spirited and excellent debate with the following four points. 1. Art and music do not prepare a person for the workforce, which is the goal of the educational system. 2. Music has not been proven to raise children's IQ's. 3. Curricular music and art will not help those who are gifted - the Renoirs and Beethovens of our age. 4. Art and music achieve exactly the same thing as reading, writing, and arithmetic, but without actually learning the reading, writing, and arithmetic part. My first point is that art and music are not needed by the workforce. For the 97% of the workforce that doesn't go into art or music, it will not be a requirement. Please do not let my opponent belittle this point. Physics, Geometry, and Algebra are all required of those entering the workforce. Art is not. My opponent is right. Employers are looking for a good, well-rounded high school education. A well-rounded education that does not in any way have to include art or music, according to state standards. My opponent continually says that we should not remove art or music from school syllabi, but he fails to realize that these courses are not ON the school syllabi established by the state. My next point deals with an argument that my opponent hinged much of his final round on, though he included it only as an afterthought to his conclusion in his second round. My opponent says that music raises children's IQ. I disagree. Now, hear me out. I know that it's practically common knowledge that music increases IQ. "Mozart makes you smart," after all, and we play Bach concertos for our babies all the time. But let us look at these studies that my opponent points to. The study operates on a survey. The surveyed people indicate whether or not they play a musical instrument, and for how long, and then they take an IQ test. Many people have looked at the results, noted that, on average, the more musical people have higher scores, and made the argument that more music makes a person more intelligent. After all, what else could it be? Well, read the explanation that the authors of the study cited think cause it. "Schellenberg isn't sure why music lessons are associated with higher IQ and stronger academic performance, but he has several theories: Children with higher IQs have more cognitive ability to handle the mental challenges of music lessons and school, so music lessons probably exaggerate that advantage. School itself boosts IQ, so the school-like features of music lessons such as learning to read music might also lead to improved intellectual functioning, Schellenberg speculates." So what is it that makes students in music classes more intelligent? Schellenberg doesn't hypothesize that music is what makes them more intelligent. He says that it is the school-like setting of music courses which boosts IQ. And if a music class will boost IQ, how much more will another course (like science or math) boost it? You see, IQ isn't raised by more music classes - it's just that people who are, on average, more intelligent, take more music courses and stick with the music courses they take. I'm willing to bet if we took another survey, students who had more science or math would also have an even more marked difference in IQ's than that caused by an increase in art education. But where could we find students like that? Hmm... Oh, I don't know. Maybe Japan? And if, as my opponent claims, it is IQ that we should be attempting to raise, then aren't we shooting ourselves in the feet when we teach classes that don't raise IQ as much as a class like math or science? Something to think about. One of the assumptions my opponent makes is that music and art classes will greatly benefit parents with truly gifted children. But do you honestly think that Renoir is worse off because he didn't have an in-school doodling time? Or that Mozart would have been so much better if he had only played the kazoo in grade school? The fact is, most of the great artists and musicians of the world didn't learn their talents in grade school. Musical prodigies are born with an innate sense of music - they don't get it from early teaching, but from within themselves. The great artists of the Renaissance and the Classical period of art didn't learn their techniques from their fourth-grade teachers, but through apprenticeships to the grandmasters of the time. Those who truly want to learn music or art, those who are truly driven by it, will get their education, with or without formal instruction or rich parents. Jimi Hendrix was self-taught, using a one-stringed guitar that his father found for him in a dumpster. Do you think that learning five or six chords in eighth grade (as I was required to do) would have made him a better musician? Third, there is something with which I wholeheartedly agree with my opponent on. In the last round, he wrote, "art and music are merely more esoteric ways of achieving the same goal as reading, writing, and arithmetic." And though he was doubtless just trying to stress the importance of art and music, I urge you to look at what I have said throughout this debate. The skills and tools we learn in art class can be learned in our other classes. And in these other classes, we can learn much more than just how to touch a crayon to a piece of paper, but in addition, we learn about history, science, language, and math. School curriculum should not be divided into right-brained art classes, and left-brained math or science classes. By doing so, we actually handicap our creative minds by hindering their ability to attain the skills they will need in order to be successful in life. The skills that are actually required and needed; the skills that are (I think I've probably said this at least twenty times now) significant, consequential, and important. Instead, we should integrate both right- and left-brained teaching methods into our traditional core subjects. My opponent is right. We do not learn the same things from creating a papier-m�ch� volcano as we do when drawing while listening to Beethoven. You see, in the first example, we learned how a volcano worked. In the second, we developed our Crayola stick-figure-dragon-drawing abilities. I can draw a mean Trogdor. But in the meantime, cast your vote for Con. Because art and music classes just aren't important in grade school. Once again, I thank my opponent for this excellent round.

  • CON

    Thank you for participating...

    music and art education made compulsory for all school students

    Thank you for participating ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As people are being forced to study music and art education, they get stress which is highly not beneficial to a person's health When people are being forced to do what they do not want to do, they obviously would get stress. These stress causes many diseases such as diarrhea, irritable bowl syndrome, high blood pressure etcetera. I think that music and art is not that important to us to risk our own health while doing what we do not want to do.

  • CON

    Children should not be taught a martial art because they...

    Children Should Be Allowed to Learn a Martial Art

    Children should not be taught a martial art because they might be abused by an instructor, not learn how to really respect people, and teaching kids martial arts leads to them trying it on others in an unsafe environment. Thanks for reading. Finally... My opponent has no argument to make and made it impossible for me to counter any argument.