Pro vs. con view
704 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Unless you mean removing the feature from actual...

    If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

    Even if you remove the kill feature it would only be for that specific game so if someone developed another game and gave it out it could still happen. Unless you mean removing the feature from actual Nervegear device but even if you do that there will be rival companies developing the same Nervegear device but just one of those companies have to be corrupt and this whole situation will happen. Even if you have patches the person who own the device would have to accept those patches and being trapped in the world is based of each game because the nervegear connects to the game and the database made for that game, the only way to stop this from happening would be to have one company develop the device and make sure that no other company could develop the Nervegear and have a generic database that every nervegear is connected to and that would have to be constantly upgraded and maintained which is why they had different databases for each game so they would not have to constantly upgrade and have it maintained 24 hours a day. I would like to thank Kastorian for a wonderful debate and may the best debater win!

CON

  • CON

    I hereby bow before my opponent, with genuine respect,...

    In order for any work of art to have merit, it should be understandable to most people.

    I accept this challenge with honor and integrity and shall help the audience observe true talent regardless of the skill level at which my opponent shall perform. I hereby bow before my opponent, with genuine respect, and wish them the best. If I am later given reason to unbow, I shall mention it at the end of the debate.

  • CON

    Everything Trump touches dies? ... Fortunately enough...

    well they banned me from debate art so your stuck with me

    Everything Trump touches dies? Fortunately enough more and more are now throwing him under the bus, Up to and INCLUDING him very self. The irony.

  • CON

    Viewing others work is not a necessity, and if you...

    Craft is the more prominent feature of literary art than inspiration.

    Inspiration is a necessity, while craft is a tool. Viewing other peoples work does nothing more than assist a writer by teaching him a variety of rhetorical devices, and new diction. Inspiration is the motivation behind writing. One cannot scribe without motivation, therefore one cannot write without inspiration. Viewing others work is not a necessity, and if you describe it as such, then I query - How does reading another work motivate one to write? If a writer should find motivation through another literary devices than the writer is inspired by their aspiration for knowledge, and by the knowledge that the separate author has provided for them. Without inspiration one cannot write, and if one cannot write then his talent will rapidly decay. Craft is purely a tool used by an eager writer to improve, but is not a necessity.

  • CON

    In the middle of your argument, you stated in reference...

    Craft is the more prominent feature of literary art than inspiration.

    "Practice makes perfect" I couldn't have said it myself. This, as you put it, "inspired drivel" has guided people throughout history. Within the numerous people this saying inspired, is the basketball player, Michael Jordan. According to Advisortoday.org Michael Jordan devoted, "thousands of hours of practice" to develop his nearly perfect shot; proving that the rule of practice makes perfect is genuinely true. What you need to realize is that those hours were not spent watching and critiquing the shots of other basketball players, but instead were spent physically on the court with a ball in his hand, shooting at a metal rim. Similarly, you cannot rely purely on what you read to influence how you are able to write. In the middle of your argument, you stated in reference to a child learning to speak, "Of course he have the ability to speak, but if he don't use it he will lose that ability forever." Similarly, you may have the ability to write, but if you spend 50 years of your life reading philosophical novels' and then attempt to scribe what you have learned, you will find that your writing skills are in a derisory state, and that you will not be able to adequately describe your discoveries through writing. Also note that you did not address the comment that I made, "inspiration is motivation." If you are motivated to do anything, it is derived from inspiration. Using your example of a child learning the English language, this child is motivated (inspired) by innate feelings of curiosity. Of course you would not be able to write without words, but you would not have words without innate inspiration. Additionally, you answered my original question, "How does reading another's work motivate one to write?" by describing the situation of a writer with a case of writers block, after completely scribing all of his beliefs. You then suggested an easy fix for this case would be reading another authors work to "evoking" the "ideas" of the writer. Well, isn't "evoking ideas" a synonym for finding inspiration? There is no other way to put it, without inspiration a writer cannot write. Furthermore, if a writer cannot write then he will lose all of his writing talent.

  • CON

    He didn't even mean to affect the specific change he did....

    CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.

    Oh no, it definitely tells a story about the plight of a fictional working class man. It just has factual depictions of the meat industry. Hah, the author actually was trying to make a statement about the need for socialism and the evils of capitalism. He didn't even mean to affect the specific change he did. But even though it didn't make the change he expected, it still did create major social changes due to its creation.

  • CON

    I wasn't talking about Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was talking...

    CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.

    I wasn't talking about Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was talking about Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. You can literally look up the book and immediately fond multiple sources talking about how it directly spurred the effort to regulate the meat industry.