• CON

    Then remove art. My point is that art shouldn't be...

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

    "Then remove art. My point is that art shouldn't be graded, Wether or not it should actually exist, It isn't my point, I don't care, I would be okay for art to not even exist. It isn't my point at all. " It's important whether or not it exists. That's my point. If art is a subject, It should be graded. Your title: "art should not be graded at school" implies that art is a subject in your point. That's your whole case: Art (a subject) in school, Should not be graded. Otherwise it's: "Art (which I do at home) should not be graded in school" which is nonsensical. So let's be very clear here, Pro is stating that art, As a subject, In school, Should not be graded. We have to get this very clear, if we want an actual debate. Otherwise, come chat with me on a forum. This is a debate. "I don't know where do you come from, But in Canada atleast, Your art is judged. Your knowledge of art don't matter and you can throw it in the trash. I never learnt a single thing about the story of art. I get given a paper, And then you need to draw something. This surely is not a single case and a large number of people probably have the same thing as I" Alright, Well now you've actually lost this debate. Next time, Build your case properly and be specific. Art should not be a graded subject in Canadian schools, For example. Because I accepted this debate on the assumption that we are talking of general principles. In layman's language: "Hey, Hypothetically, In schools, If art is a subject, It should be graded like the other subjects right? ". In debates, It's important that both parties know exactly what is being debated. Anyway, As to your point, There are more skills than just knowledge of art. Your accuracy matters. If the school says to do something, It grades you based on if you accomplished it. Yes, We can exceptions to disabled people, But in general, The school can grade the students. That's how it works for other subjects anyways. "It can't. They can't just not grade a whole subject, And most teachers are apparently too retarded to understand that some people have problems with art, And it isn't something you can ' study ' about ( well you can but it's time confusing )" Yes they can not grade a whole subject. It's called many things but for example, Learning disability support. A student can be exempt from subjects, Put in a special class. But for the rest of the kids, It's the same normal grading system. Maybe teachers in your school d

  • PRO

    If this is not absurd, I don't know what it is. ......

    Money wasted on art works is absurd

    I get these jokes that people paid for invisible art and someone bought a blank canvas for a few million, and in another one a completely blue canvas for half a billion dollars. If this is not absurd, I don't know what it is. No semantics/trolling. No forfeiting. Violating these rules result in automatic victory of pro.

  • PRO

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with...

    A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

    [[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with symmetry/order that appeases the mind. Therefore, according to that definition/standard: beauty can be in ordinary things. However,the monetary value of that 'pulchritude' really measures 'how' beautiful and rare/unique/original it is. Art is therefore, standardized with 'price tags' : a masterpiece: a carefully crafted delight to the senses; can hold up a trillion dollar bid , where as a common rose bouquet can not. >>>>> So you agree that Art needs beauty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a yes side argument :P

  • PRO

    Although it is true that most students will not choose...

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

    Quite simply, art and music are integral parts to a well-rounded education system. Since our public schools seek to provide just this, art and music are essential to give students a preparation for any career they might choose. Art in itself is a career, and artistic skills are used in many others, such as drafting and architecture. Music is also a career in itself. It is unconscionable that music or art should be removed from our school system. Removing them would leave a gaping hole for students who wish to enter those fields, and probably cause a drop in then number of artists or musicians. Some people have argued that art and music are fringe skills, and that they shouldn't be taught because (A) most students won't be going into art or music fields, (B) art and music are unnecessary and should be extracurricular anyway, and (C) they are not "vital" skills like 'readin', writin', and 'rithmetic.' Although it is true that most students will not choose art or music as a career, they should still be offered in public schools. Why? First of all, because to not do so would result, as I said before, in a lack of art- and music-trained individuals. Second, because art and musical skills are useful in other fields; third because they encourage right-brain development. Development of the brain in a child should dwell equally on the right and left sides of the brain. Although teaching right-brained ideas is not always compatible with the institutionalized nature of the school system, art and music classes are ways we can do this. (http://www.funderstanding.com...) Most people would agree that art and music are secondary skills to mathematics, reading, writing, languages, social studies, and history. This may be the case but it is still impossible to have a well-rounded education without the arts or music. Also, most careers today need writing and reading more than, say, algebra. Does that mean we should drop algebra to free up more funds for teaching writing? Or course not! Neither should we drop music and the arts.

  • PRO

    I'm not trying to say that everyone is a great artist but...

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

    I understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to say that everyone is a great artist but I think that if someone has done a good piece of artwork and they get a low grade for it ( when it is a good piece ) they may be disheartened and think they are no good at I'm not trying to say that everyone is a great artist but I think that if someone has done a good piece of artwork and they get a low grade for it ( when it is a good piece ) they may be disheartened and think they are no good at art. Every bodies interpretation is different for instance some people think that Matisse's snail picture was rubbish while on the other hand people may like it. I mean I'm not trying to say every piece of artwork is spectucular and should be hanged in a gallery. Isn't art all about expressing your self though? So shouldn't people be able to draw, paint, sketch how they feel and not be judged for that?

  • PRO

    It also teaches you the meaning of death and how easy it...

    Road kill is better than art

    Roadkill is better because it is easier to create. You can just run an animal over and then you got roadkill. With art you have to spend years making it. It also teaches you the meaning of death and how easy it is to die. roadkill also teaches you about the anatomy of an animal as you can see the brains and guts fall out of it.

  • CON

    The nuances of speech may be innate in some and readily...

    A conclusion to the art of communication

    Am I detecting a not very well hidden agenda here? The nuances of speech may be innate in some and readily acquired by others. But the The nuances of speech may be innate in some and readily acquired by others. But the art of vocal expression is not every ones cup of tea. We concentrate our minds on a wide variety of interests and vocations. These interests and vocations do not have to include, the skill of articulation. Let story tellers tell stories, let singers sing and let scientists study, observe and experiment. Most of all let people behave as individuals and be allowed to express themselves as they see fit. I would suggest that the notion of "monotone abuse" is being used here as nothing more than a personally derived criticism, aimed at something that for some reason doesn't sit easy within Pro's mind.

  • CON

    I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. I should...

    Children Should Be Allowed to Learn a Martial Art

    I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. I should have added another round really, oh well, we can counter arguments in the conclusion and sum up points there. Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse, they enter a sumbmissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to. Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused! Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill. Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports. Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility. Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them [1] and clean their car as shown in the film - 'the karate kid' Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burgular enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art. I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response sources: [1] http://patch.com...

  • CON

    It should be thought of as a professional's opinion, I do...

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

    yes, people should draw whatever they feel like, at home. In art class, the point is to teach you, when they grade you art work badly, they should give you feedback as to why you got that grade, what would have made it better, perhaps if you added color or shadows. You don't need to accept their criticism, but if they grade all ok art pieces a very high grade, no one will learn. It should be thought of as a professional's opinion, I do think the teacher should explain in class that it's her personal opinion and although somewhat professional, it might be that other people disagree with her. She should say that if you get low grades it doesn't mean you are a bad artist, in fact, most really successful people kind of failed in their fields in school. Because there are better and worse pieces, I do think people should be graded, as long as they are given feedback and it's a learning process.