args

Art and/or music are important in grade school.

Greetings & Good Luck! Because the character limit restrains me from providing an adequate opening argument, instead I will get right to the punch: In regard to my opponent's first point, I agree with him entirely that young minds are like sponges that are able to absorb knowledge and information at a higher rate than older individuals. Therefore it is necessary to promote education at a young age. However, one must ask themselves why receiving an education is so important in our society and around the globe. History and Anthropology alike show us that one's education has a lot to do with their success in life; brain power is increasingly becoming favorable over brawn, even in blue collar jobs where workers are now required to read and write more than ever before, in addition to working with computers and dealing with a large amount of paperwork. Additionally, higher levels of schooling lead to new job opportunities and open more doors for an individual. This is a fact. Over time, different aspects of education were included to reflect the views of society. For instance, religious education was taught in public schools during the colonial era in the United States; at other points in history it was essentially required that women attend finishing school to learn proper etiquette. However the subject matters that have withstood the test of time regardless of the times are indeed the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic. Rather than spending time in the classroom finger painting or singing (this could be an option during recess, but should not take up valuable class time), I would rather children in this country practice and improve on those three R's for a number of reasons. First, it has come to our attention that education in the United States is lacking in comparison with countries from other nations. This type of set back, while not too threatening now, could pose a huge problem in the future if other nations including our enemies use their superior education to promote actions and ideas that could hurt the United States. Second, the job market in this country is becoming more and more competitive with each passing year. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain a good job and earn a decent living without receiving higher education, particularly a college degree (at least). Because it is absolutely true that one's value in the workforce is almost always judged at least somewhat by the institution they receive their education from, admission into "good" colleges is becoming more and more competitive. One of the main ways a college admission group determines whether or not a student is eligible to receive admittance into their university is that student's performance on the infamous SAT exam. The current SAT exam is divided into three parts that are composed of the three R's - not art or music. Thus, I have proved that reading, writing and arithmatic are more important than the arts. If my opponent wishes to argue that participation in regards to art and music helps stimulate the brain to better perform the three R's, I would like them to prove to me that NOT participating in art or music actually HURTS your performance in those areas. Chances are Pro will not be able to supplement such a request. This is because while some studies show that art and more specifically music can improve one's grasp of certain skills, not only is it not a guarantee but children and adults alike are just as capable of succeeding and excelling at the three R's regardless of whether or not they have any comprehension of music or art. Additionally, I would like to counter this argument by also stating that becoming so fascinated with art and/or music can actually hurt or hinder a student's performance. You see or hear of it all the time -- students becoming more interested in the arts than they are with other aspects of their education. Furthermore, not every student is artistically inclined. While this also leads to a subjective grading experience, it can also deter students from wanting to go to school or participate in other activities because of their embarassment at not being good in these particular fields. Not only will this hurt the child emotionally, but it can also lead to teasing, frustration, and the rejection of school in general. Keep in mind that grade school refers to young children; they might not have the capacity to understand why they are being forced to participate in activities that do not interest them or have any practical use in their every day lives. And finally, just because learning about art or music can help a child better grasp other aspects of education does not necesarilly mean that we should implement it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. For instance, certain video games (not just 'educational' ones) have been known to help children learn communication skills, hand-eye coordination, strategy, levels of math including statistics and of course reasoning. Not to mention that video games can also promote social skills such as winning gracefully and being a good competitor. However, would you, Pro, want to see video games included in the mandatory curriculum as well? At last I get to move on to my opponent's second point. I couldn't disagree more that an artist who took art classes in grade school had a greater competitive edge over the ones that didn't. So first, I ask that Pro show me proof that this is the case. That said, let's be real -- we don't learn advanced art techniques when we are little kids. In grade school art classes, we color, finger paint, draw, and make shapes out of pipe cleaners. Now, it is true that one who learns a skill from a young age has more of an advantage over a later learner, however, this is not always the case. Typically the skills learned that would even be useful when reaching a level of competitive art (getting into art school...?) would be taught later on in a child's life anyway, say in HS or during other outside art lessons. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that it is fair to say a child who learns a skill and then refines it throughout their life has a definite advantage. Example: Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams who have each been playing their respective sports since the age of 2. However, neither golf nor tennis is part of the mandatory curriculum in grade school. Therefore, if one wishes to hone a talent, they can do so outside of the parameters of school. On that note, I will move on to my opponent's third point: elementary knowledge of music --> composers that provide entertainment. Maybe, but not always. I'm willing to bet that not everyone who knows 'Every Good Boy Does Fine' can write or even play an arrangement close to Bach's. And speaking of Bach, do you think he learned his skill at grade school? (No, his brother taught him). My point is that while not everyone who can write will pen a best seller, writing is a functional skill that individuals apply to their every day lives, whereas reading, writing and playing music in particular are not as useful or necessary. Also, even without music education in grade school, composers and musicians will still find a way to flourish. Some of the greats don't even have ANY formal training! This negates my opponent's fourth point that jobs in art and music would be limited. If he is referring to education specifically, then yes, but otherwise artists can still be artists regardless of whether or not they are teachers. Regrettably I have run out of characters! However in this round I have responded and refuted each and every of my opponent's points as well as made an abundance of my own. In the next round I will continue by addressing how art and music education affects the economy and tax resources, as well as alternative options to removing them from the curriculum. I welcome my opponent to address these topics first if he so chooses.

Art and/or music are important in grade school.

Because my opponent did not reply in Round 2, I will take this opportunity to continue with the points I promised to address at the end of Round 1. 1. Funding Not only are art and music classes unnecessary to have in grade school, they are also very expensive. These classes often call for the purchasing of pricey supplies such as musical instruments including at least one piano, music stands, paints, oils, canvas, sheet music, etc. Keep in mind that these things (especially the art supplies) need to be replaced on a continual basis. If you add up all the costs, it could be thousands and thousands of dollars spent needlessly whereas there are other more practical and useful school programs that could make better use of the money instead. Even if that were not the case, instead of charging tax payers the burden of providing these often unappreciated classes for many disinterested students, perhaps taxes could be lowered to save citizens/residesnts money and instead put that cash back into our struggling economy. 2. Alternative Options I do recognize the value of a music education and/or art appreciation in society today. However that does not mean that art and music have to be an essential part of the grade school experience. For instance, I see all of the positive aspects of being involved in athletics. You learn teamwork, discipline, time management, good sportsmanship, school spirit, and most of all take active strides in trying to stay healthy and fit. However sports are hobbies and activities that people can choose to join and take part in outside of school paramaters. If they play a sport in school, it is by choice and many times people are responsible for providing their own equipment, gear, etc. Sometimes people even have to pay for practice time. For instance my HS was a private school; students on the golf team had to pay a local country club for using their golf course for games. And such is an option for students who wish to partake in art or music programs. Another perspective I can offer is this: Physical fitness classes or Gym are required to take in grade school. It is an important thing to learn and take part in. However sports in general are not stressed; just the act of staying fit and doing different things to promote physical wellness. In comparison to art and music, I support learning about these topics in a historical context or in a way that they relate to the school work at hand, such as if it corresponds to a lesson regarding a social science, for example. However going into detail and spending time learning special artistic skills is unnecessary. So basically, while I think it is important for children to know about Jackie Robison and his contribution to society, I don't think it is important for kids to know how to play baseball and spend a great deal of money teaching it. Similarly, I think a child should be aware of Leonardo da Vinci and his feats but not necesarilly learn how to draw or paint. Thus my proposition is this: allow for classes or programs regarding art or music to exist in grade school, however, not be funded by government spending. Instead children can be exposed to these fields via their parents, friends and family; television; volunteer programs; specialized institutions that their parents can pay for them to learn; etc. Because again learning these things is a want, not a need. Money can be better spent elsewhere in the education system today. Thank you and back to my opponent.

Video Games Are Art

You've certainly done a fine job defending video games as art... off the wrong definition. You have essentially equated artistic expression in video games to the mechanical process of creation akin to a book you'd buy called "The Art of Cooking" to help teach you how to make food. I am explicitly talking about art by the definition of expressing the imagination and abstract ideas through the form of artistic mediums such as music, movies, and novels. These are two completely different definitions and while, yes, video games are "art" in the way you describe it, that definition is no different than words such as "method", "process", "how to", and more - nothing about expression, but everything about objectively instructing you on how to get a job done. If anything you have demonstrated that video games are art through the intensive level of labor, care, and skill that goes into ensuring that every part works and makes sense - which helps reinforce my first point, surprisingly. What ultimately discredits video games as being considered an artistic medium is the fact that the elements which make a given game "artistic" in the eyes of many are elements which do not belong to video games exclusively. Not only that, but the one element that sets video games apart from other mediums carries little to no expressive opportunity. Take music, for example. It claims sound as its own unique trait for expression while vocalists write lyrics to help create a story to accompany a piece. Here we see how music and writing come together to create an artistic piece. However, music does not explicitly require a vocalist or lyrics to be expressive and artistic - as sound from instruments alone can construct entire narratives, worlds, and emotions on noise alone. For another example, film has visual movement as its own unique element. And while most films will be found including story or a soundtrack to tie those moving images together, film can express abstract ideas through camera angles, shot composition, and color. Other expressive mediums are limited in their ability to do this, as they do not have the privilege of tangible movement in their mediums. As for video games, the one element that sets games apart from other mediums is player input and control. In lets say, an adventure game, you manipulate the movement of the game's main character to navigate levels and get to the end of a game. Your own method of playing and experience, depending on the game, can change dramatically from how another person played the game due to our own unique inputs manipulating the end result of the said game. And unfortunately, that is all that video games can claim as their own unique element. Video games, especially those which many prop up as examples that the medium has artistic value, rely heavily on visuals, sound, and story to present abstract ideas and concepts since, simply put, there isn't a lot you can get out of expecting a play to press the X button at a certain point in a game. Ultimately, we praise video games on merits that video games do not claim as their own. And unlike a film where music and writing can service moving imagery to improve the meaning its creating - sound, writing, and visuals cannot service player control to enhance expression. It is the other away around. You have given credit to an aspect of video games that we, as audiences, cannot even see. The process of coding and design is skill and work that ultimately dooms video games as being accepted as an art form because, when discounting the elements of sound, imagery, and writing which are not exclusive to video games, it implies that video games can only be appreciated through a very objectively done job that audiences aren't aware of or don't even care for. Meanwhile, their appreciation is handed out to aspects of a game that you can easily find by picking up a book or watching a movie. Such as the Metal Gear Solid franchise, where eventually, the amount of cut scenes and scripted in-game events that map out each game in the series found itself being longer and overshadowing the gameplay itself. Yet you will never see anyone talk about how the gameplay itself helped cement the massive amount of themes and ideas that Kojima built up in his magnum opus. There are a few games I'd consider capable of presenting the element of player input and control as something of artistic value, instead of being there by obligation as a game to instead prop up elements borrowed from other mediums. Games such as Undertale and Hotline Miami, which use long established conventions in video games to deliver interesting stories and criticisms of the said conventions they borrow, deconstruct the nature of player control and movement by heavily breaking down the confides of their own games. Undertale emphasizes 'consequences by our actions' with a system that tracks the actions you made across multiple playthroughs and eventually, and mind the spoilers, finds your player killing the game's files themselves if you stray too far down a morally dark path - a method that has never really been seen before in a game. Hotline Miami, on the other hand, delivers a criticism on violence in video games and the pointlessness of delivering a moral in a game that would rather occupy your time with 'no questions asked' violence. The game structuring itself as a combo heavy, violent, and neon-hazy shoot them up plays into the story of a game that asks you important questions about what you're doing and why... and then eventually mocks you for trying to figure it out when clearly you were just there for the few hours of violent thrill. Other games such as Portal and even BioShock, too find themselves using elements of player control to create stories with very important and poignant morals that otherwise would not have any effect if told through other mediums. Yet, not only are these examples only a few out of thousands upon thousands of games. They are also rarely, if ever, included in discussions for games that "prove" that games are art. On top of that, nearly every single one of them when discounting Portal can only ever seem to deconstruct or criticize long standing elements of games that ironically limit video games ability to do far more on its own unique merits. Which brings games back to square one in showing that, as an art form, they are entirely limited or incapable of showing expressive meaning and artistic merits without borrowing elements from other mediums and almost always playing those said elements straight without player input contributing to them... or vice versa. To summarize basically. The most appreciated qualities in games being propped up as artistic are qualities that are exclusive to other mediums and are borrowed for video games. The merits of player control that video games claim as their own unique quality are either extremely limited or incapable of enhancing the elements video games borrow to create more amazing and expressive themes and ideas. The few games I provided examples for as being undoubtedly artistic could only ever deconstruct and call fact to the limited nature of video games and artistic expression, which hilariously puts them back at square one for proving games can be an art form.

Video games are a serious art form.

Hello, whomever opponent chooses to reply. In this debate I will be discussing two reasons why I believe video games are not worthy of being called an art form. Firstly, art is one's reaction to life. A masterpiece of rock music is 'Pet Sounds,' and most the songs on the album are about relationships and break-ups. A masterpiece of literature is 'The Great Gatsby,' which was F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the behavior of the rich class. A masterpiece of cinema is '2001: A Space Odyssey,' in which Stanley Kubrick warned us about the risks of AI becoming more and more advanced. Nothing produced within the video game industry is comparable to any of these. Some have really innovative visuals, but even the best video games very rarely have themes or commentary on society. 2. Video games do not influence art forms. We have seen music influence music (The Beatles' influence on pop). We have also seen movies influence albums (effect of the movie 'American Gangster' on Jay-Z's album of the same name). We have even seen novels influence music, and vice versa. But rarely, if ever, will you see an author, film director, or musician cite a video game as an influence for any of their works.

Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I thank the contender for going through the entire debate, always appreciated. The final round will be for the closing statements. I hope that voters will see the reasoning in my main arguments. Choice. 1.) The student should be able to decide whether they take art or something else more suited to their liking. Lack of use. 1.) Art is not used in everyday life or in most careers. 2.) A single high school art class will not do much good for someone lacking any inborn talent or passion. Cuts into educational time. 1.) The student could take classes that would benefit their everyday life or their career. 2.) Time spent after school practicing could be instead used to do homework, study, work, or catch up on sleep. And see the reasoning in my rebuttal. Lack of depth. 1.) Simple middle school art classes are enough to give the cursory knowledge of the subject and to give the student an idea of if it is their "cup of tea". 2.) If a person was going into a career for art they would have to take college level art courses regardless of whether they took high school art courses or not. Impractical. 1.) See "Lack of use". Stressful. 1.) Unless you have talent, art can be bothersome for you and for others. Choice. 1.) Again, any student that wishes to take art, whether it be because they enjoy it or because they are looking for a challenge, is free to take it.

Students should be required to take art classes in highschool

I appreciate the swift acceptance. As a senior student taking Arts & Humanities as a night class, I must set aside time each week to do the course online. This leads me to question why students are forced to take an art class in order to graduate. Art classes should be optional, not required. 1.) Art is a wonderful thing. It brings happiness and passion to many. For this reason I do not disagree with it being taught in schools, but it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not take up their educational time with it. One or two art classes will not benefit the average person after school. 1.) Not trying to be offensive, but art is relatively useless. The only people that benefit are the people that are naturally passionate or skilled and may go on to use art in their career. These people are the ones that would be likely to choose to take the classes as electives even if they were not forced to in order to graduate. Art classes take up time that could be used for other educational purposes. 1.) Art takes up an entire period of class time that could be used for a choice elective. I would much rather take Spanish III (a class that would actually benefit me in my chosen career) than Arts & Humanities. 2.) Many art classes (such as, dance, drama, and band) require after-school attention. The time spent during this could be used for doing homework, working a job, or getting the necessary sleep.

Art and music classes should be compulsory in high schools

The art is a very important for the formation of human morality. However, someone have a talent and some have not. Those who are not so successful in an art, may not get an excellent mark and deprived of the opportunity to get diploma in future. Moreover, if pupils do know that they are not good at some lessons as their classmates, it may reduce their self- esteem. Everyone has different abilities and would not it be right to develop them each individually. Moreover, of course, it helps to be very versatile, but if pupil have not any interests on these particular subjects. Art can lose its uniqueness in the eyes of the students. Perhaps it would be better if such a science as an art will be something very lofty and noble.