Music & art education should be compulsory, because they...
music and art education made compulsory for all school students
Music & art education should be compulsory, because they are equally as important as math & science.
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO It is just plain common sense that should stop you, you...
Illegal art should be made accesible
Firstly I would like to thank the opposition for accepting this debate and I look forward to, and welcome their response. In retort to your question �€˜How are you going to make it accessible?�€™ I envision through both as you said, physical galleries and online museums. �€˜What sort of art do you think should be accessible, art like Bill Henson�€™s child photography/pornography?�€™ As for the question of sexual content, In Henson�€™s work, it has been argued that the human figure regardless of age, form, stance or intent has a sexual element to it as a representation of a sexual being. We humans are sexual beings and that is one the attributes of the human form. That does not make the portrayal human figure vulgar or pornographic regardless of age from an artistic point of view. It is implored that common sense be used in the Henson case. People would not take nude photographs or make nude images of the neighbor kid or family friend, with permission of the parents and expect we could publish those images. You know that if you live in the civilized world that if you did that the authorities would be knocking on the door, eventually. It is just plain common sense that should stop you, you should know better if you are a fifty something year old mature established artist. Not in the case of Bill Henson. I can say with certainty that the general public knows better and certainly anyone with pedophilic intention knows better. �€˜Doesn't it just spit in the face of the offline codes of legal and moral practice that protect artist's rights to show and profit from their own work?�€™ Yes it may well however it must be made clear that creativity and innovation always builds on the past. Walt Disney stole the original idea of Mickey Mouse from a writer and now stifles any attempt for this character to be represented without permission. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it, Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past, Ours is less and less a free society. Never has creativity been more controlled. Take the addition, the changes, the copyrights turn, take the changes to copyrights scope, put it against the background of an extraordinarily concentrated structure of media, and you produce the fact that never in our history have fewer people controlled more of the evolution of our culture. Think of the consequences of this. Look at Google for example they have a monopoly over the online publishing industry and payed peanuts for it ($125M). What gives them the right to control culture? I think you are correct when you say �€œAllot of material could fall in the category of "banned" or "illegal"�€ï¿½. And this is the very point. A lot of work is being controlled thank you for making that clear. Culture production is being stifled through creative repression and copyright. In 1774, free culture was born in a case called Donaldson v. Beckett in the House of Lords in England; free culture was made because copyright was stopped. Don�€™t let 2009 be the end. Have a look at this video... http://www.youtube.com... References http://randomfoo.net... Open Letter from Ms Alison Croggon, Writer, Melbourne, Australia Ibid http://www.petitiononline.com...
-
PRO You can only create a standardized test around...
NCLB tests what is testable; art and music is not testable.
While music, art, culture, and physical education are important, they are not testable. You can only create a standardized test around information that is common and fairly objective. No Child Left Behind does this, focusing on history, math, and reading comprehension. It cannot be blamed for not testing arts and music. These subjects are not testable. Schools should, however, teach them, and not merely focus on teaching to the NCLB test.
-
PRO It seems that my insomnia has caught up with me and I do...
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art
I would like to forfeit this debate. It seems that my insomnia has caught up with me and I do not have the mental capacity nor the enrgy to carry on a serious debate at the moment. I apologize to my opponent and would like to re-debate him at a later point.
-
PRO If it would be okay with my opponent I would like to...
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art
I look forward to this debate and very much enjoyed our last debate. Good luck! If it would be okay with my opponent I would like to further clarify on a point in the resolution. The word 'lesser' has not been defined and might be a source of confusion coming up in the debate. I felt this term needed to be defined as my opponent set aside the first round for definitions and so it would be a violation of the rule for my opponent to define this term any later in the debate. Therefore, I would like to define that term here. Lesser: Smaller in amount, value, or importance, especially in a comparison between two things[1] I sincerely hope that this definition is satisfactory to my opponent in that he specifically made it a rule that we can not argue over definitions.
-
PRO While I dislike losing debates, I believe my opponent has...
Digital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art
While I dislike losing debates, I believe my opponent has provided a sound argument in favor of his resolution. He clearly knows what he is talking about.
-
PRO Sir, of course The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures,"...
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.
Sir, of course The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures," ought to be passed in the State of Arkansas, for the sake of employment, healthcare costs and various other reasons which I'll look into.
-
PRO Not only would the toro bravo disappear as a species...
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure
Con states he believes I cannot be right by any definition of the word "ought" as bullfighting is exploitative, cruel and brings harm unto others. I recognize I will be asking our readers, as well as my opponent, to make a judgment contra cultura, against their culture's common perceptions. My argument will hinge upon convincing you of two things: first, that tauromachy is an ethical form of expression and second, that it is not a bloodsport but rather a form of art that transmits something valuable. In this first round I will merely outline the argument, in hopes we can go into further detail as the debate goes on. I will also leave sourcing to the later arguments as here I will only give a general case. Bullfighting as an ethically sound activity The statement that we "ought not to do harm unto others for personal pleasure" both confuses the respect due a human with that due an animal and reduces art to pleasure, when it is a valuable tool for the transmission of cultural values and complex philosophical concepts. One of these is precisely that although animals deserve respect they are not humans, and therefore to respect them is to treat them according to their nature, and not our own. I noted, when looking through my opponent's previous debates, that he is a defender of vegansm. I am glad to say that this is not a concept extraneous even to his own tradition, as vegans also engage in some degree of phylogenetic discrimination every time they eat a fruit salad. All life does not require from us the same treatment, vegetable life does not have the same capacities as insects who do not have the same capacity as reptiles who do not have the same capacity as mammals etc. Even amongst mammals there are different degrees of intelligence, and different modes of interaction are required. One must not, for instance, treat a wild animal as one treats a domesticated one, or ignore their physical capacities and natural instincts in making a value judgment as to their treatment. In the case of tauromachy, the specific animal used is not a common bull. The toro de lidia (fighting bull) does not follow the same evolution as the common bull, but rather descends directly from wild aurochs and lives in a state of only semi domestication. They are domesticated in the sense that they live in private dehesas (vast areas of grassland in Spain) and are bred by livestock farmers, but in every other way they live wild. Bullfighting exists because of their temperament and territorial nature, and is structured around the bull's bravía (roughly, aggressive courage). Con then must show not that it is generally undesirable to harm animals, but that it is specifically unethical to fight the toro de lidia. Although I do not have space to extend myself here, I will also note that there is a difference between being an ecologist and being an animalist, and that these tendencies are often opposed to each other. Animalists often conflate humans and animals and regard each individual animal as an object of protection, whereas ecologists consider that our duty of stewardship is towards groups and not individuals. The elimination of bullfights would be destructive to the biodiversity of those areas in which it is practiced. Not only would the toro bravo disappear as a species uniquely linked with bullfighting, but as tauromachy is a millennial (or, in places such a Mexico or South America, secular) activity around which much wildlife has evolved to live in the habitat of the dehesas, which would disappear along with the activity. Bullfighting as an art There are those who try to portray tauromachy as a mere bloodsport, which exists for the viewers to derive pleasure from the bull's pain and death. This is fine as a slogan or political tactic, but anyone with a love of truth, howevermuch they oppose bullfighting, must oppose that tactic. To reject something one must understand it, and one cannot understand bullfighting if one does not see its artistic dimension. In the course of its history bullfighting has attracted a great number of artists, not as bloodsport but as an art. From Goya to Mario Vargas Llosa or Gabriel García Marquez passing through Dalí, Picasso, Miró, Valle Inclán and Federico García Lorca, the greatest defender of bullfighting as an art form. Even foreign artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles were captured by the aesthetics and the transmission of values of tauromachy. Welles so loved bullfighting, and had such an intense friendship with the torero Antonio Ordoñez, that he asked his ashes to be placed in his friend's estate in Ronda. This list is not an improper appeal to authority, but rather a challenge. If these people, poets with souls as sensitive as García Lorca or Picasso (who would often say "el toro soy yo", I am the bull) could see the value and beauty of bullfighting, we must at least attempt to see what it is that tauromachy truly represents in the broader culture before condemning it. 1. Man's relationship to nature: respect and dominion The first time I went to a bullfight I went believing the propagandized view of it as a gladiatory bloodsport. I had assumed the people would cheer every wound inflicted, and would especially cheer the bull's death. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the beginning, the comments of those around me were centered upon the bull, and the torero's capacity to understand him. The incessant comments about the bull's personality, tendencies, physical characteristics and family line were all tinged with a note of respect I had never expected to find. The moment of the bull's death in particular was met with a complete silence, and when I later asked why I was told by an old man with a cigar in his hand: "Hay un torero que va a arriesgar su vida por el arte, y un toro que ha luchado con nobleza. Si no se respeta eso no se respeta nada" [There is a torero who will risk his life for art, and a bull who has fought nobly. If one doesn't respect that one doesn't respect anything"]. The worldview bullfighting advances, then, is one in which man is certainly above nature. It is the bullfighter who marks the different steps of their dance, and it is generally the case that the bull dies at his hands. He knows himself, however, to be nature's custodian and not its master. One must respect the bull as an opponent, and in facing him, the bullfighter must risk his own life. This parallels what man's behavior towards nature must be generally. Yes, we must exercise dominion over it, as we till the land, build our houses from wood and stone and mine the earth. We must never be fooled into believing ourselves the master of it, however, and always treat it with the respect it deserves. 2. Facing death «temple» [/tem-pleh/] The bull, as a symbol of nature, is also a symbol of death. Tauromachy has its roots in pagan times, but it comes to us through Catholic Spain, and we cannot expect that to have happened without affecting its meaning. We must always face the possibility of death, and yet the message of the bullfight is twofold: first, that a man must face death with what we call temple, or calm assertiveness in the face of danger, and that death is, while formidable, defeated in the end by putting oneself in the position of suffering it. It is in the final stage of the fight, when the torero reveals his chest and heart to the bull's horns, when the bull is finally defeated. 3. Victory of civilization over barbarism Bullfighting shows the intelligence of a patently weaker being defeat the brute force of a stronger one. It is, in that sense, the triumph of civilization. A man facing an animal who weighs over 1,000 pounds must use his faculties and inventiveness to the utmost in order to avoid death. This runs parallel to the triumph of Civilization against barbarism. At first glance civilized values such as cooperation, respect for the weak, the rule of law run contrary and are inferior in a pinch to the simple law of the jungle, by which it is the strongest who succeed. By the bull's defeat at the hands of the torero, what is shown is that civilization has a quiet power which, although challenged seriously by barbarism, finally triumphs. Conclusion: In an aesthetic display of shapes, movement, color and music; bullfighting represents the transmission of cultural values which enrich those who understand it. In this introduction I have shown some of these values, along with a prima facie justification from an ethical point of view. Sadly, most arguments against bullfighting ignore its cultural dimension and are based more on sensibility than reason. I am sure that will not be the case in this debate.
-
PRO If you do not show any indication of your decision, and...
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)
Okay I am assuming that this debate has no structure whatsoever due to the fact that there are only three rounds, and Kathy did not bring any opening argument to the table in round one. I will write my opening argument in Round 1. I propose that Kathy write her opening argument in round two without any rebutting of what I said in Round 1. I will use my round 2 to rebut Kathy's opening argument, Kathy uses Round 3 to rebut my opening argument, and I will forfeit my round 3. If you accept this, say so in the beginning of your next turn. If you do not show any indication of your decision, and rebut anything of my opening argument in round 2, then I will not forfeit round 3 and you will be at a disadvantage because not only will I get the last word, but an extra round to debate as well. You have been warned. This topic is very close to home as I am an artist myself, specializing in space ceramics (a form of visual art). I have many pieces featured in museums around the world, and even one in the Louvre. I admit that much of the population finds going to museums and such very boring. However, there are very many other forms of visual If you do not show any indication of your decision, and rebut anything of my opening argument in round 2, then I will not forfeit round 3 and you will be at a disadvantage because not only will I get the last word, but an extra round to debate as well. You have been warned. This topic is very close to home as I am an artist myself, specializing in space ceramics (a form of visual art). I have many pieces featured in museums around the world, and even one in the Louvre. I admit that much of the population finds going to museums and such very boring. However, there are very many other forms of visual art very popular. This is because essentially everything is visual art. Tables are visual art and are very important to today's society, and are pretty popular considering that many people love eating and you place your food on a table. Food itself is a visual art. Just go on Instagram and search #delicious. Thousands of pictures of plates of food that many people find aesthetically pleasing can be found. Virtually everything that humans create is visual art, so all you have to do is take everything that humans find popular, subtract performing art, and you get the popularity of visual art, which is higher than performing art, because performing art takes up a smaller fraction of what humans find popular. Heck I could even argue that performing art is visual art itself, but I won't due to my excellent sportsmanship. Humans themselves are visual art, forged in the beauty that is the uterus. And look at just how aesthetically pleasing and popular humans are. http://blogs.psychcentral.com... . Also, nature is a visual art created by the lord Jesus Christ, and the Great One. No, not Wayne Gretzky. Calm down Canadians. No, not Daunte Culpepper. But he was pretty great. I'm talking about God with a capital G. Many people enjoy going out for a hike and being in nature. Reddit's 19th most popular sub-reddit is /r/Earthporn, a subreddit entirely devoted to beautiful nature scenes. How awesome is this? http://imgur.com... Would you rather experience that, or watch a movie? Thanks for your time Kathy.
-
PRO Only pretentious "artists" would disagree. ... Artists...
Art (including music) is a commodity just like precious metals and coffee beans!
Only pretentious "artists" would disagree. Artists like to think they are skilled, but if you think about what art is, and what its purpose is, then anybody who possesses any ability to communicate is an artist!!!!!
CON
-
CON I will accept this debate as the con. Hats in Team...
Team Fortress 2 hats are destoying the art style
I will accept this debate as the con. Hats in Team Fortress do not take away from the art form Valve has created, but rather allow players to express ideas and (in more basic terms) themselves in a game where you can't see the person on the other end of the internet playing with you. Hats come in many forms, and usually derive from popular Internet memes and games which make up the Steam Library. Hats also provide special bonuses within the game, allowing new forms of customization within the world of TF2. With the creation of weapons, maps, and character models/skins being available for downloads, hats become another part of a very creative and diverse world. Hats also come from the users of the game, which allows the person to feel a "half-way connection" with the person they are controlling. The colors brightly pop to infuse the game with the player's personality and feelings. With hundreds of hats, its easy to find one that matches the player and their beliefs within the gaming world
-
CON If art fails the intended purpose by the artist, but...
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
Okay I think I understand your position better now, because of the question "What's the goal?" Of course, if the only goal of a piece of art is to end a war, and it doesn't end the war, it was pracitcally useless *in regards to that specific goal*. Maybe this was a speech barrier problem, but to me, useless means "absolutely no use, in no respect whatsoever". Does "useless" only mean "not usefull for the intended goal right now" for you? Thats why your question puzzled me a bit. I think goals are completely irrelevant to your argument, that art is useless. If art fails the intended purpose by the artist, but instead enriches the lives of millions, or even only one person (the artist him/herself), how is it useless? It has been made use of! Maybe not the intended one, but there are an inconcievable amount of other possible und potential uses. If your Thread would have been something like: "Art never reaches it's intended goal, if this goal is anything significant in the area of politics", my argument would miss your point, but thats just not what you have said, right?
-
CON Furthermore, then like you said even performing arts...
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)
My opponent mentions someone of 'Kathy'. This is for humor or what? Pro talks about visual art being present everywhere, such as food and table designs. But I talk about the main form, which is painting and sculpturing. Furthermore, then like you said even performing arts would fall in visual art, hence there shall be no reason to debate. Blindness is a symptom everyone would want to avoid due to high amount of visual stimuli received. But I talk about the visual ARTS, which is mostly painting, coloring and sculpturing. Performing arts include plays, movies and music, which are the extremely popular forms of art. Visual art has only museums that people see, and over-expensive paintings that common people can't buy. On the other hand, performing arts is well known by people, is cheap for 1 person but wields large profit when many people see it, so both the sides are pleased. No common man can buy a piece of artwork though. So, due to its compatibility with the audience it has reached new heights of popularity, while the arts have not progressed on such a wide scale.
-
CON The bill that the resolution is in reference to is a bill...
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.
The bill that the resolution is in reference to is a bill in the state of Arkansas designed to place restrictions on bodily art and piercings. The Pro will argue for the passage of this bill through the Arkansas state government. Acceptance to this resolution means acceptances to the following rules: (1) First round is for the acceptance of the resolution only. (2) Forfeiting rounds will not constitute automatic loss of the debate, but any arguments that do not receive rebuttals counts as an automatic concession.
-
CON my name is Bob Fitzgerald this is my first debate so go...
Mental Health Has Affected All Great Works of Art Throughout History
MARTINEZ OUT THIS HAS GOT TO STOP A BINMAN WOULD DO A BETTER JOB !! my name is Bob Fitzgerald this is my first debate so go easy on me ahah lol I think that great works of my name is Bob Fitzgerald this is my first debate so go easy on me ahah lol I think that great works of Art are great and should be respected no matter what John Stones not good enough either, think we should cash in? Thanks for your time Bob Fitzgerald
-
CON Because while human society is very ordered and...
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
Because while human society is very ordered and structural, humans themselves are emotional. It's weird, because you are expressing nihilism against It's weird, because you are expressing nihilism against art as if all of our structured politics has some sort of "real effect." Technically everything we as the human race has ever done is made up and is, by extension, "art." On the other hand, form often flows with function. Are you a fan of any certain types of car?
-
CON Although some people will value the arts highly enough to...
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it....
Without subsidy, many of the arts would not survive - local theatres would be forced to shut, film industries would shrink, national theatre, opera and ballet companies would disband or merge, museums would close their doors. Although some people will value the arts highly enough to pay a market rate for them, they are too few to maintain a diverse and extensive artistic sector which can improve the quality of life for all. In addition, exposing the arts to the full winds of the economic cycle means that skills and institutions lost during recessions can never be reestablished successfully when business improves - art is not a commodity.
-
CON If you look at the Mona Lisa or any other style of art,...
Why is the Mona Lisa considered a popular, beautiful work of art
If you look at the Mona Lisa or any other style of art, what is the main reason they are considered famous, usually it's either the person was famous or social opinion has made it famous. I looked it up and the main reason the Mona Lisa is popular is because her smile is telling and mysterious, however who said this, why can't a third graders self portrait that they put a lot of time and effort into, be considered famous, you could say that there face was telling or something like that. What I'm trying to say is that social norms have made the Mona Lisa and other things not limited to artwork, beautiful.
-
CON I agree with you about math and science. Music and art...
Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art
I agree with you about math and science. Music and art exercise special recognition, Which is a good quality for architects, Computer programmers, Drafters, Etc. They also teach muscle memory, Which give them the ability to perform complex, Repetitive tasks, Much like the ones that you would expect to see in manufacturing jobs. Painters make great surgeons because surgeons have to succeed on the first try and so do painters, Etc. The least we can say is that these subjects are far from useless.
-
CON Also making a movie or anime pleases parents even more,...
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)
'Kath...hold up a minute' that is Lord_Starscream to you. Definitions- The conventional form of visual arts is paintings drawings and ceramics. Now does food art coming in your mind before these when visual arts is being said? I'll post my definitions from next time though. I probably have lost this debate already. I didn't say museums were boring, but they are certainly boring compared to the great movie theater. The famous artwork is expensive, why do they come in news otherwise. And when a child makes that sketchy drawing and parents smile, they do it to please the child, they actually find the artwork very unattractive and unskilled. Also making a movie or anime pleases parents even more, and singing or playing music can be praised as well. Although visual art is present everywhere like Pro says, it is not exactly acknowledged everywhere. Therefore I can try and add more things to performing arts. One could be television, which has no other form to match its popularity. Even dance can said to be a performing art. How can visual arts have more popularity than these?
