args

Poetry is art, art is inseparable from education; art is what makes us human, and that which makes us human is certainly to be taught in schools.

In failing schools, it IS justifiable to separate art from education. When a high number of students are struggling with basic literacy and numeracy, this is what needs to be addressed. Artistic studies will simply have to take a backseat while teaching of the basics is improved. This is a temporary measure, once teaching and abilities in basic literacy and numeracy improve, schools which have previously been failing can expand back into artistic studies. If this is not the case, and art and poetry continue to have a high profile in failing schools, what will result is a mass of very cultured high school leavers (not necessarily graduates) unable to add up in their head and with poor vocabulary, able to quote Shakespeare effortlessly but no idea how to spell his name.

the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

As I mentioned earlier,making music and art compulsory subject, may take a considerable amount of time and energy of students which otherwise he or she can devote towards main subjects like, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Devoting time to main subjects is a paramount importance for success in the examinations and future career. Hence and art and music may be optional but not compulsory. Fact of the WORLD and the behavior of it's objects and people may surely be obtained by cultivating Science.Again all children may not like music or art which if treated as compulsory subject may also lead to severe stress and divert them from their main goal of learning.

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

Intro After some hard thinking about how to approach this last round, I concluded that the best way to demolish Pro was not to go all-in and smash his case to pieces but rather to lay his case out bit by bit and slowly jab at each and every point making his case bleed, gradually to its ultimate demise. After all, beating someone up strategically and energy-efficient is one of many martial arts techniques that Pro has yet to learn and appreciate. Pro’s First R4 point: Children need an education i.e. attend a school, but they do not need to attend a martial arts class. We had martial arts and fighting techniques before we had formal education. Humans have a basic innate need for self defense in any dangerous situation in life either to attack efficiently or defend an attacker efficiently. You will 100% both need and use martial arts in some way in your life even in manual labor positioning and warm ups to be efficient at it. You will not necessarily use any part of your education and humanity has had education far less than it has had martial arts and combat so if we’re arguing which is a need and which is a social construct for children, then education loses by miles. Pro’s second R4 point: It seems Con is confusing domestic abuse with abuse caused by martial art instructors. They are not the same. Oh I know they’re not the same, I clearly stated and provided evidence supporting that domestic abuse is far worse. Perhaps Pro would know this if he didn’t skim-read my arguments and instead read them in-depth before daring to rebut them. Pro’s third R4 point: [This is how Pro attempts to prove that abusive martial arts must be stopped by banning children from it altogether but abusive education and domestic abuse must not] Abusive martial art instructors pose a significant risk to the public, they can abuse a whole room full of young impressionable and vulnerable people, then another room full, and another after that before being caught. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that school-based abuse is far more detrimental to the public and a teacher at school can damage them far more as can a foster parent in wide-scaled abuse of multiple children rather than setting an unruly student straight to give them a good taste of discipline which positively toughens them up without scarring them or having any long-lasting trauma from it. Pro’s fourth R4 point: In fact they could continue to abuse people throughout their career because nobody is able to recognise abuse! This is why it is so serious and why it must be stopped! So could anyone in any career, this is not reason to ban anyone from it. Pro’s fifth R4 point: I have proven that a lot of abuse occurs inside dojos, it is not just a few cases No buddy, you only proved a few case-by-case studies in the form of randomly filmed YouTube videos half of which were probably set up in some way because no sensible instructor would allow filming of his/her classes simply because they earn less if their lessons and way of practising are expose dot the public for free. Pro’s sixth R4 point: If it happens on camera it will obviously happen off camera too and probably be worse Why would it be any worse off camera if you are saying these videos were not acting/set-up and were genuinely filmed in the moment of abuse without the instructor’s knowledge? Pro’s further (ironic) ‘proof’ of his sixth point: It will obviously happen off camera too and probably be worse; possibly like the graphic video I shared. So your video is proof that it’s worse off-camera… Was your video filmed with something other than a camera? I didn’t think so. Pro’s seventh R4 point: Each video shows students unaware of being abused (including adults), proving how easy it is for martial art instructors to deceive and abuse their students. How can someone be unaware of being abused… On top of this, why not ban it for adults too then? You are conceding that adults get just as deceived and abused and yet are only banning it for children… I’m truly at a loss as to what on Earth this point was trying to prove or signify. Pro’s eighth R4 point: Learning a martial art is not useful for children. I’m sorry… but what did you just say? So, all the health benefits, psychological benefits and life-skills that are gained through martial arts (and which I previously mentioned and supplied reliable sources for) are non-existent now? There are numerous benefits of martial arts, please rebut my point raising all of them instead of using a sweeping statement in retort that proves absolutely nothing. Pro’s ninth R4 point: Con has failed to show how a child learning to be overconfident or able to defend himself/herself for self-interest means they will help others i.e. prevent bullying. I never once said it would help them to help others but it would give them an ego-fuelling outlet for their aggression if they win fights in the ring regularly and would make them not need to bully nearly as much, if at all, to fulfil what they lacked psychologically beforehand. Pro’s tenth R4 point: Children are irresponsible by nature (they are not responsible adults yet) and will use martial art techniques to hurt others, and even try their own dangerous moves outside of a dojo. First of all, a Dojo is for Japanese martial arts only. Other martial arts do not use dojos and it is very ignorant of Pro to use this term as if all martial arts are taught in one. Korean martial arts are taught in Dojangs and the Chinese vary from temples to schools to shrines but never dojos. Secondly, this is completely ridiculous and has no evidence in support of it so I’m going to ask for evidence and automatically defeat it since there’s no further round for Pro to supply it. Pro’s eleventh R4 point: Taking up a martial art to stop bullying is not the answer, people need to be more aware of abuse and know how to act appropriately when they see it. Anyone can be a bully. The fact instructors can be makes this clear. If anyone can be a bully should we ban all things since they can all be subject to bullying and abuse? I’ll give you a clue, the answer is not ‘yes’. Pro’s twelfth R4 point: Learning a martial art will not reduce crime either, it raises a child's chance of being killed by trying to be a hero instead of calling the police, running or screaming. When did I say it reduces crime? Is this a new point in the last round being raised by Pro? You can’t raise new points in the last round and this is simply rebuking something I didn’t even raise. Pro’s thirteenth R4 point: Bullies should take up friendlier sports rather than be allowed to do what they enjoy - hurting others. If they take up friendlier sports, they won’t be using it as an outlet for their rage or ego-deficiency. That’s like saying, give a cigarette addict some sugar to get a rush rather than supplying them with nicotine patches in order to cope with withdrawal (as if being addicted to sugar is somehow as good a solution). Pro’s fourteenth R4 point: My videos prove that respect is not taught, something they all claim to teach. In all your videos the victim is taught to respect the perpetrator. Pro’s fifteenth R4 point: Trainers do not respect their students and often use them for demonstrations, make them bow, sexually assault them etc. What in Bruce Lee’s name does this have to do with anything? Demonstrations and making a child bow respectfully before a fight are not even remotely abusive. Sexual abuse in martial arts is not proven to exist by Pro, no stats or anything is supplied. Maybe once in a blue moon it may occur but his is no reason to ban it. Et voila.

Graffiti Art

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. Although it was never explicitly stated, I assume that the main point of this argument is to deem whether or not graffiti should be allowed. I will be arguing against this. Graffiti is, by definition, "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." (1) Illicitly, of course, means illegally. This is exactly why it should not be allowed: It is vandalism, pure and simple. It is the same as keying somebody's car or carving curse words into the desk in middle school, except graffiti is almost always done on a much grander, larger scale. I hate to use such a cliché, but how would you feel if someone did it to you? How awful would it be to wake up and see vulgarities or gang signs on the side of your house for the sake of "sticking it to the man?" In some cases, this would be enough to get shot by the wrong people. To allow this anywhere would be absolutely ludicrous. On that note, I will admit that graffiti is sometimes pleasant to look at. I'd never say that graffiti can't be admirable simply in an artistic aspect. Although graffiti, by definition, is illegal, it is of course not illegal to do it on your own property. This is where street I hate to use such a cliché, but how would you feel if someone did it to you? How awful would it be to wake up and see vulgarities or gang signs on the side of your house for the sake of "sticking it to the man?" In some cases, this would be enough to get shot by the wrong people. To allow this anywhere would be absolutely ludicrous. On that note, I will admit that graffiti is sometimes pleasant to look at. I'd never say that graffiti can't be admirable simply in an artistic aspect. Although graffiti, by definition, is illegal, it is of course not illegal to do it on your own property. This is where street art should stay: On your own stuff, on your own house, with somebody's permission, etc. But to mark up somebody's house or the overpass is unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to go against society and get stuff done. Graffiti should not be allowed simply based on common courtesy. 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

First of all, art class is different than woodshop class. In art class, you create products that are only for their beauty. In woodshop, you can make something that is not only beautiful, but can be useful in your life. For example, I can make a wooden hammer and use it because it beneficial when I have to remove, or put in a nail. In art class, you make something, but you primarily don't use the product. Products made in woodshop are suppose to be beneficial and used in daily life. Stuff in arts and crafts are only for appearance, nothing more. In woodshop, you do design and build materials. I just gave you an example with the wooden hammer. In woodshop, you use a computer-aid design program to design your product. Once finished, you build the product, so there are two parts to woodshop. Woodshop should be considered an engineering/technology class because you are designing and building a product for use, which is what you do in engineering. Technology not only means "advancement in computer technology", but it means advancement in society in general. The products created in woodshop advance society because they are beneficial and can make life easier. The products made in art are only for show and emotion. The concept of woodshop is not based upon this. It is based upon creating materials for everyday life. Your sources are unreliable because they are only talking about art, not woodshop. Woodshop does not require making clay pots. In woodshop, you use hard materials such as wood, plastic, or metal. Woodshop is practical use. The government doesn't take woodshop seriously and takes it as arts and crafts instead, which is a mistake, with my reasoning above. Making products such as pens, and wall shelves are way more of engineering/technology than crafts because again, they are extremely beneficial in society. Once, again your sources are unreliable.

Art should not be graded at school ( Or atleast not depending the student's actual skill )

I want to remind voters not to let your own opinion affect your voting. Art should be graded. Schools generally grade art based on student knowledge and appreciation of techniques and variety of art. A student's own artwork is not heavily judged. But knowledge of art is a skill in of itself. If you say it shouldn't be graded because some kids have a personal problem then fine, Schools can make exceptions. But this debate is talking in generalizations. In general, Schools should grade art. If they don't, Then why even have it as a subject? If schools have art as a subject, They should grade it, Otherwise they're wasting people's time. People can learn and do art at home.