Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt (including music) is a commodity just like precious metals and coffee beans!
I think the blood stains left on the walls and floors of a train depot just after a Chechen rebel sets off a bonb belt and kills a bunch of communist kunts, makes beautiful art. And just in case you were wondering icebear, I think your a kunt too!!! I would love to see a Chechen make art out of YOU!!!!!
Music and art should not be cut from education
More and more schools continue to cut funding to the art and music departments. However, sports and athletics suffer very minimally. Why is this? Neurologically, both are beneficial and are important to have as opportunities to students. Although statistically more students are involved in athletics than not, all should be given the opportunity to be involved with what they want. Please understand that this is my first debate so this may seem a bit amateur.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.
Well, first off I would have to disagree due, not only, to the fact that my opponant is not going directly to the point, but also because the issue in this deabte is about MUSIC AND ART. Music should be provided in all institutes, public and private. It is essential for the growth of a proper, knowledgable, and creative minds. Art inspires creativity and helps the students to create there own person.
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it....
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it. If art is not good enough to be popular, then government should not reward it for its failure. The success of the unsubsidised popular music industry in Britain contrasts with the failure of the subsidised British film industry. Why should London have five symphony orchestras if there is not enough demand to justify them? The arts in the US are largely unsubsidised and they are thriving and popular.
Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition
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."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10) In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10) Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9) This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1) The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8) The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10) This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10) Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(
Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist
My opponent seems to be extremely confused on what freedom of expression means. Freedom of expression means everyone has a fair say. You can't say art isn't people, because that is also very artist but in a completely different way. You wouldn't kick a guy in a wheelchair and then claim freedom of movement, it just wouldn't be fair. For the same reasons, you can't use freedom of expression to justify cruelly imposing unrealistic standards of what doesn't look rubbish on Modern Art. Thank you
music and art education made compulsory for all school students
You mention developing stress from doing activities we don't like, yet there are many students who aren't such big fans of courses like math, science, or english. If you'd enter a random classroom, chances are, they'd probably claim hate it. So, does that mean that they should not be compulsory? Second of all, music is shown to lower stress. Many turn to music for comfort, and for relaxation. And, sometimes, it just sort of inspires you. Music & arts are very important. If they weren't, would they play such an important role in our lives today ? If art & music are not important, are you claiming that people like painters, dancers, writers, actors, and musicians are not important as well? There are many people, who were involved in the arts, that contributed greatly to our society. Art isn't just painting. It's also writing, cooking,dancing ,acting and designing. It's everything from a novel, to the shows on tv, The world without art, would certainly be rather dull. I ask you, is that what you'd like our future to be ?
"Art projects" in English classrooms do not help students and weaken their writing skills.
I will admit, before any further arguments, that I am inherently biased against artistic and creative projects because of my "non-verbal learning disability" or "hyperlexia". I excel with vocabulary and written expression, but when it comes to context and social interaction, I can struggle. Others, especially those with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, would likely do better with art projects than essays. The fact remains that the amount of writing required with an artistic project is much less than that of a traditional essay. With a diorama or storyboard, there might be about one page of written material provided by the student, usually backed up by the other materials. An essay would usually be five pages. It would be beneficial to encourage more writing at a high school level because in college, students will be expected to write 10+ pages, many more for a dissertation or in a major heavily focused on writing. There is a benefit to art and other creative exercises, but there are already required classes such as "Elements of I excel with vocabulary and written expression, but when it comes to context and social interaction, I can struggle. Others, especially those with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, would likely do better with art projects than essays. The fact remains that the amount of writing required with an artistic project is much less than that of a traditional essay. With a diorama or storyboard, there might be about one page of written material provided by the student, usually backed up by the other materials. An essay would usually be five pages. It would be beneficial to encourage more writing at a high school level because in college, students will be expected to write 10+ pages, many more for a dissertation or in a major heavily focused on writing. There is a benefit to art and other creative exercises, but there are already required classes such as "Elements of Art" that cover such areas.
Public funds showing bias towards certain art forms
By making tax payer contributions fund galleries and museums in order to keep them open for free, Government is showing an inherent bias towards certain art forms and information. It does not fund theatres or music concerts, only galleries and museums. This is inflicting the public with the view that visual history and arts are more valuable than those that incorporate sound and other modes of expression. All art forms should be given the same amount of funding to prevent this bias. Therefore, aggressive fundraising for museums at their front entrance would alleviate this apparent bias and would lessen the amount of public funds used to keep these buildings open.
Schools need music classes or other art classes and they should not be cut.
Music stimulates parts of a child's mind that may not be normally be used. There have been many studies throughout the years that have connected the skill of learning an instrument to success in other classes like Language and Math. Cutting these courses can result in less achievement or success in students that don't have access to music education, or musical instruments. Music has structure and rules and so does our language. It could even be stretched to say music is a language. When a child learns how to read music it is like learning a new language and it has been proven in several cases that music can improve the way that students learn. Nursery rhymes, and songs have rhyme, they have patterns and by listening to a song a child might be unconsciously be picking up on these patterns and structures. 2. Without music programs children in districts that are low income may never be introduced to music, or art. If music and art was cut from a school in a very affluent community learning an instrument might still be accessible to those students because their parents could afford private lessons and they could also afford Cutting these courses can result in less achievement or success in students that don't have access to music education, or musical instruments. Music has structure and rules and so does our language. It could even be stretched to say music is a language. When a child learns how to read music it is like learning a new language and it has been proven in several cases that music can improve the way that students learn. Nursery rhymes, and songs have rhyme, they have patterns and by listening to a song a child might be unconsciously be picking up on these patterns and structures. 2. Without music programs children in districts that are low income may never be introduced to music, or art. If music and art was cut from a school in a very affluent community learning an instrument might still be accessible to those students because their parents could afford private lessons and they could also afford art supplies for their children to use at home, but in poorer communities children want to go to school, they might not experience certain things if they didn't go to school because their guardians might not be able to afford to take them places, or buy them crayons. School and especially these music and art classes are a students escape from academic pressures, from problems they may face at home and they just offer a fun yet educational break for students.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.
Well I will start out by attacking this case on two levels. I'm not sure exactly how you intended this so we will just have to see. Level 1 You state that, "I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in schools, public or private. It is a way to bring culture and education into children minds." Yet you offer me no one that you agree with. Were you simply intending to say that "Art and music should be essential to learn in schools"? Level 2 (Assuming you are trying to argue that they should be.) You say that it should be in schools because it brings culture and education into children minds. However what the community needs to keep in mind is the fact that many things do this all to different degrees. Music: Yes it brings some education. It also brings a lot of culture. Music goes back a very long way. Art: Maybe not as much education? Has quite a bit of culture. Foreign Languages: Lots of education, and a very great deal of foreign culture. Debate: Lots of education, a lot of culture (you need to know about every society to potentially debate well) Soccer: Not so much education, lots of culture though if you would like to get into it. Religion: Lots of education no matter what religion you choose, lots of culture obviously. World cultures: Same. Dance: Some education, lots of culture. Cheer leading: Nothing. Anyways my point is this. There are a great deal of activities that offer education and culture but clearly there is not enough time to do every single one of them in school. You say that it is essential yet I disagree and advocate instead for the freedom of choice. For some people art and music just isn't their thing, they need the opportunity to branch out. For some, having these classes mandated would simply be an aggravation every day. I would say instead that joining extracurricular activities should be strongly encouraged because of educational, cultural, and physical value. Thank you.
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School
You misunderstand my argument; I'm not saying there shouldn't be any music and art programs, I'm just saying students shouldn't be forced to take them. You stated that "If they don't like it then they don't have to continue the next Quarter." In Elementary School, they take music and art year round; they can't just try it, and if they dislike it drop it in a month or two. They're forced to take music and art lessons for the duration of the school year. And it's not typically just one school year; it's 1st- 5th grade. That's up to 5 years of doing something they dislike! In most of the Middle Schools I've visited, art and music is completely optional, and students only have to enroll in them if they chose to. But I've yet to find an Elementary school that doesn't make it mandatory for students to take these courses year-long. It's a waste of schools funding, to have to provide for so many unwilling students. It'd be much better for schools at an economic standpoint, to only provide musical education for the children who want it. Also, you say that "if they need money/a job they have a talent to fall back on." Have you ever heard of the term "starving artist"?Statistically speaking, becoming a musician or an artist is one of the lowest paying jobs in America, and you have to be extraordinarily gifted to make a decent living. Unfortunately, most people aren't extraordinarily gifted. You can't master an instrument at school anyhow, it takes hours upon hours of practice to get into a school of The Arts such as Julliard; spending a mere hour each day won't get you there. Many Julliard students practice over 5 hours each day.
Football is an art not a science.
Goal Line Technology such as GoalRef is instantaneous. The project intended only for a signal to be immediately sent to the system it's hooked up to and into the referees watches. Upon receiving this signal (all this happening in a split second), the referee would know for sure the ball crossed the line. HawkEye also takes a literal split second, unlike your typical video review. While HawkEye requires a request to spit out its "Goal" or "No Goal" answer, it is still lightning fast. A coaches appeals system to the 4th official would work nicely here. Both of these methods are in the final levels of testing for use in professional play. I am a referee myself. I understand it's an art. This debate is over GOAL LINE technology though. Not "fix every call the players don't agree with" technology. *No* Article wrote:Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision." *No* Article wrote:"Was it a handball, did the defender play the ball or take out the man, which way should the throw in be awarded, should it be a corner or a goal kick, was the forward marginally offside or not etc..." These are all subject to the interpretation of the official. Do we want to stop the game for every debatable decision? Of course not! Flow of the game. But is the ball going over the line a debatable decision? No. There is no gray area. It is either all the way over the line or it is not. There is LITERALLY a line. Calls on the field: Interpretation of the referee. Examples: "Was there intent?" "Will the player gain advantage?" "Was that shoulder to shoulder contact or did he push off with force with his hand to send the player down?" BUT, with all this in mind: Ball going over a line (ESPECIALLY a goal line) is this or that. It did go over or it didnt. White team did earn that goal, red keeper did fail to save that goal. OR. White team did not earn that game winner, good save by the red keeper. Goal line calls are this or that. Because the human eye is sometimes incapable of seeing it, this is one area where technology can improve our skills. Are we asking the technology to make the calls on the field for us? No. They are to the interpretation of the official, as always. But over the line or not? There is no interpretation. It is, or is not.
Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!
I thank my opponent for this debate. First, some definitions: High School: In the United States a high school is an upper secondary school which educates children from grade nine through grade twelve, in other words, from the age of 15 to 17 or 18. [1] Mandatory: Authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory [2] Good: healthful; beneficial [3] In this debate Pro has to prove two things: 1) That Art\ Music education is beneficial, or "good", for a student. 2) That it should be mandatory for all students. Failure to prove both of these means the resolution has not been affirmed. Indeed, I shall now show why Art\ Music shouldn't be compulsory in high school. == As a Mandatory Subject == Students should be free while in school to choose subjects which they enjoy and should not be forced to take any subjects by force. If the students does not desire to be learning that subjects it ll hinder their overall education. As discussed here, "Many learning theorists believe learning is most profound, satisfying, and thorough when students engage in it for intrinsic reasons. " [4] It's logical that a student would be far more interested in learning a subject of their choice than one forced upon them. To do otherwise would be detrimental to their education, as well as beg a misuse of their time while in school. The aim of a schools are to teach students, as per the definition of school, "A school is an institution designed for the teaching of students (or "pupils") under the supervision of teachers." [5]. If schools do not teach a student as deficiently as possible than it is contradictory to the idea of a school. == Mandatory Education == Indeed, there is no reason why high school education should be compulsory at all. If a student opts to not do high school that is completley their choice. They will have to bear the consequences of not completing high school, which effects them and only them. There is no necessity to send some to learn with the threat of force, as this would mean student is in a school in which he does not want to learn, becoming a problem for their teacher and their fellow students. I await my opponents response. [1] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] = http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] = http://www.publicschoolrenewal.org... [5] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art
Sadly, but for understandable reasons my opponent has to forfeit this debate. I ask that he not have conduct points deducted for this; and otherwise ask for the vote in this debate.
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
I think I see the problem here particularly after reading some of your responses to others. The view you have of usefulness disregards many things other human beings find very useful. I don?t think I could change your view of art unless I changed your idea of usefulness which I think may be too subjective to be possible. I will, however, challenge you on the idea that something factual cannot also be art, and reassert that art will get a point across in ways that cold facts cannot. In fact one of the most common usages of art is to inform. Ex: A lot of people hadn?t heard of the Tulsa massacre until Watchmen featured it heavily. So here is the dictionary definition of ?art?: ?the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/art You will notice it does not preclude works of art from being based in fact and the last sentence means an artist can present anything they deem more than ordinary significance. I also noticed you changed my example of an artist capturing something factual from a photorealistic painted portrait to an actual photograph. I do believe a photograph of a live event can be art, but I?d love it if you?d address my point about the portrait because I think it illustrates things pretty well PS - I disagree the massive counter culture hasn?t done anything. I think again your looking for a metric that doesn?t exist and then saying that means there was no effect at all
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
Building things is art. Also, what makes you think at least half of humanity isn't like you. Even if it's 10% of humanity that is like you, it's 700 million people for whom Even if it's 10% of humanity that is like you, it's 700 million people for whom art is useful. Is art the most useful thing for humanity? Maybe not. It is, however, far from useless.
Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!
Thanks, Pro. Hopefully I can change my opponent's mind about his overly critical and narrow-minded view of rap music. I will begin by responding to Pro's 4 arguments, and then providing contentions of my own... 1. The word rap by definition has to do with crime and punishment. While Pro provides 2 definitions of the word rap, he blatantly ignores the second listed definition from the dictionary. This is intellectually deceitful as he intentionally discluded the definition that would undermine this argument all-together. Included in the defnition of rap is: to utter sharply or vigorously; to rap out a command [1]. Uttering out sharply is indeed what "rapping" is. Hip-hop refers to the subculture including rap music, break dancing, graffiti art, etc. Rap music refers to music in which the artist raps (sharply delivers) usually in rhyme schemes over a particular instrumental. Nonetheless, the point is that this argument has been negated, as rap does not necessarily refer to crime or any particular theme, per se. Instead, it has to do with a tone and is merely a descriptor of word delivery. 2. Pro says rap music talks a lot about violence, sex, drugs and other negative or potentially inapporpriate themes. A) First, rap music is in no way the only genre of music that explores controversial themes. Rock music in particular is known to be just as crude. For instance, one of rock legends' Ac/Dc's most famous songs is called Big Balls which is not so subtly a sexual reference [2]. Sometimes songs may be less subtle but still have mature themes. Lady Gaga's chart topping pop song "Poker Face" is a song about being able to keep a poker face on so that she can be with a man, but sexually fantasize about a woman [3]. In other words, there are questionable lyrics and themes across ALL music genres, so it's unfair and non-sensical to single out rap music specifically. Even country songs curse [4]. If you say rap is inappropriate because of the language and content they use, then this must extend across all genres. B) Not everyone is a parrot. In listening to rap music I hear "the N word" a lot, but that doesn't mean I go around repeating it in my everyday life. A parent could easily teach their child that the words they're hearing are not appropriate everyday language. The media provides entertainment in many forms. Just because people shoot guns in movies doesn't mean kids should imitate what they get out of the arts industry for entertainment value. C) Rappers are entertainers and do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about. Eminem for instance talks about killing people in many of his songs, yet if those lyrics were remotely true he would have been in jail a long time ago. Likewise, actors who kill in the moves do not necessarily exemplify the traits they personify on screen for entertainment value. Pro doesn't mention that celebrities of every kind are not always the perfect role models, nor should they have to be. 3. Children shouldn't be exposed to this kind of music... A) It is up to a child's parents to protect what they are exposed to. Parents cannot protect children forever, and eventually people should be free to make their own choices about what kind of music they like and want to hear. B) Exposure to these themes is not necessarily inappropriate. These are the facts of life. In fact many people are exposed to certain themes early on, and rap music is art that helps express and reflect their experience. Some songs such as "Hip Hop Saved My Life" suggest rap music helped profusely as an outlet and potential escape from a potentially dangerous alternative [5]. C) Censorship is bad for society at large. D) Censorship also stifles both creative and personal expression. More about this later when I talk about the meaning of art... 4. Rap is a bad influence; it advocates gang recruitment. A) Anything could be an influence/catalyst propelling one to make bad choices. It would be wrong to single out rap music and ignore all of the potential good of the genre. B) Pro hasn't proven that it's rap music specifically which has led to the statics he described. In fact, there are a plethora of other more reasonable contributions, including but not limited to poverty rates and other economic turmoil that directly cause gang activity. C) Many Catholic priests have been known to molest young children [6]. Would Pro suggest that religion is therefore inappropriate for children because some people associated with religion specifically have not always made the right choices? As I said, parents are responsible for raising their children - not the entertainment industry. And people are responsible for their own choices which are influenced by everything around them (not just rap music). D) A lot of rap music promotes POSITIVE themes. Many rappers specifically encourage staying in school in their songs [7], and some like Lauryn Hill are known to encourage and empower women in a positive way. Pro ignores in his analysis all of the positive influences and messages rap can/does have, focusing solely on the negative which is dishonest and unfair. == Arguments For the Con == Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions and intellect [9]. Music is a form of art, and music refers to a medium of sound vs. silence. It's common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythym (associated with concepts such as tempo, meter and articulation), dynamics and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture [10]. Rap music deals with every single aspect of "music." At it's basic core, rapping refers to delivering words set to a specific beat or set of beats. Therefore, rhythm, tempo, meter and articulation are certainly important. The texturing of vocals over the instrumental as well as other possible harmonies (such as when you have a collaboration of 2 or more artists) play a significant role. Rap songs frequently sample instrumentals from other genres, including but not limited to jazz, classical, rock and more. Therefore, if you argue that those are legitimate genres of music, rap must be also. Like all art, rap expresses emotions and ideas. People tend to express their ideas and emotions through words, and rap probably has more words per song than any other genre. It is a legitimate form of cultural and artistic expression. Since I've already proven that music constitutes as art, and rap music is in fact music (it contains all the elements of music), then therefore rap artists are in fact artists. However again I'd like to reiterate the purpose of art. It exists as a mode of expression from one's individual conscious experiences and interpretations. It is culturally and psychologically invaluable. Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means. To "rap" merely means to speak in a rhythmic tone over music, and said style can be used to depict a variety of themes including very positive ones. Music has been known to positively influence people in many ways, including rap. We can not single out and focus specifically and only on the bad. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.lyricsdomain.com... [3] http://www.examiner.com... [4] http://www.lyricsfreak.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.rapbasement.com... [8] http://www.softcup.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
>(admittedly I am Canadian, and I still don't understand how that stupid system works). In America the election is decided by a final catwalk where the candidates compete with the glitziest accoutrement./s You're correct though, the poster itself is not power. As a work of street art, it is simply free marketing to show support of the candidate. In terms of actual impact, the profits made from sale of the posters were used to create more merchandise to promote the campaign, giving Obama supporters a strong aesthetic to rally behind. > Is this really 'art?' Look them up, yes it's really art. They have a movie that is called "The Yes Men Fix the World". The practice is called culture jamming, and uses artistic process + performance and infiltration to create an aesthetic or tell a story. I'm not sure I jive with your definition of art presenting itself as fictitious. There is a wealth of examples of art appearing as reality to the extent that there is a well known phrase about this relationship: Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? DOW lost a lot of stock, and more importantly it helped to spread the news of what had happened. It also demonstrated something very insidious: that doing the right thing is not profitable. I'm not sure how much this specific instance helped to turn the corner, but this is now on DOW's website: https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/about/legal/issues/bhopal.html
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School
Students should not be required to study art and music in secondary school. Most Americans will not become musicians or artists in their life, so it is a complete waste of their time to be studying a topic that they probably have little to no interest in. Skill sets such as Math, or Science, are important to be taught in school because they can potentially lead to a multitude of different career options. There are very few career choices available for someone with an incredible drawing ability, and they are very low-paying jobs at best. Schools should have art and music as optional courses for students to take if they want to pursue that course. But as for the majority of the student populace, who most likely will not become artists or musicians, they should not be wasting their time with things they don't enjoy or wish to spend time learning. I'm not trying to say that schools should remove all musical and artistic programs, I'm simply stating that they should not be made mandatory for all students; just the students who want to do them.
