args

music and art education made compulsory for all school students

I am not saying that music or art is not important. As some people may like music and art, some students may not like music or art. My argument is that students needs to get the chance to choose not forced to learn them. If music and art is so important, only people who like it or are good at them could take the class. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, as you have been rebutted to my argument, talking about math and science, however, it is not appropriate in this debate because it is talking about music and art education, not math or science, english. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I have been mentioning, mandatory subjects can give lots of stress. When students are forced to do what they do not want to do, they obviously get stress. An research showed that stress causes the genes to change to cause diseases. Obviously, music and art is not that important to risk the student's health or even their lives. To conclude, music and art should not be made compulsory because it can give damage to the health.

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

What we must determine in this debate is whether or not music and art classes are important at the grade-school (k-5) level. I would first like to draw attention to the word 'important.' According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 'Important' means "of much or great significance or consequence." (I got this definition from Dictionary.com) I would also like to add that in the context on this resolution, an "important" class in an elementary school is a class that is of educational value, and of value to the student. Now, I turn to the question - are art and music classes important at the grade school level? I have three main arguments. First, only a small percentage of jobs in America are held by professional artists and musicians, hardly a "significant" number. Second, the State educational system does not require proficiency in art or science, and third, art is better learned not in a class of its own, but in integration with other classes. My first point: Only a small percentage of jobs in America are held by professional artists and musicians. Elementary training only gives a disproportionate weight to these arts. Let's take a look at the numbers, shall we? Number of artists employed in the United States = 218,000 Number of musicians, singers, and related workers employed in the United States = 264,000 Source: Department of Labor Number of Americans employed in the United States = 142,000,000 Source: EconBrowser.com Once we do a few calculations, we find that this is only 3.4% of the American workforce. We must remember that the primary purpose of the educational system is to prepare youth for the workforce. The ability of any course to prepare a student for the world of work is truly the best way to determine whether a course is "important" or "significant." My second point is that State Educational Standards do not require art or music. Though there are state standards in education in history, geography, math, and science, there are none for either music or art. The state does not require ANY proficiency at all in either art or science. The lack of standards for schools in both music and art speaks volumes about how "much consequence" it has to education. Feel free to check this lack of standards out for yourself at http://www.education-world.com... Neither the state of South Dakota nor the state of Wisconsin requires any proficiency in art or music from the ages k-4. Thirdly, right-brained children are better taught not in an art class, but with the use of right-brained teaching methods. Our children can express themselves creatively and with a purpose in classes like science and math. Children can work creatively in these classes, which can help to foster the right-brain in a child's education. It is not necessary to actually have an art class to be able to work creatively. Many schools and teachers are working harder than ever to integrate styles of learning that appeal to every type of learner and both sides of the brain. In fact, in the article my opponent mentions, Bernice McCarthy says that we should work to integrate right-brained activities. She says, "teachers should use instruction techniques that connect with both sides of the brain. They can increase their classroom's right-brain learning activities by incorporating more patterning, metaphors, analogies, role playing, visuals, and movement into their reading, calculation, and analytical activities." Please note that NOWHERE in the article does she suggest increasing participation in art or music will help right-brained students to learn. Instead, she urges that we add more right-brained learning methods to our reading, science, and mathematics curriculum. For these three reasons - that art-related jobs are a tiny minority in the workforce, that State Standards do not require art or music proficiency, and that right-brained children can be just as reachable with creative teaching methods as their peers are by conventional methods, I must strongly disagree that music and/or art are important in grade school.

should middle school have an art class

no art class is a waste of time because all you do is draw. do it on your work.

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

First of all, I would like to point out that my definition of grade school is accurate. Dictionary.com provides the following definition: "A school for the first four to eight years of a child's formal education, often including kindergarten." So you see, we are both right. And though I think there is a significant argument for grade school being equated with elementary school in conventional usage, I will concede that grade school can mean the first eight years of education. In the preceding argument, my opponent made several arguments. They are, as best I can tell, as follows: 1. Art and music classes are just as essential to a child's education as mathematics. 2. Just because a class is not mandated doesn't mean it isn't important. 3. Art is not to be equated with right-brained thinking. Children cannot learn in other classes what they learn in art classes. Before I go any further, I would like to make a major point of clarification which is vitally important in this debate. My opponent has said several times that "we should not remove art and music from schools." But this is entirely beside the point. Look to the resolution. "Art and/or music ARE IMPORTANT in grade school." I do not have to necessarily support removing music or art from the school system. I must merely prove that art and/or music are not "of much or great significance or consequence." And now, on to the debate. In my opponent's first argument, he says that though art and music only make up a small portion of the job market, they are still important. He says that the mission of the educational system is to prepare a student for every possible career. And with this I agree. But I must add one significant detail. The school must do this in a proportionate manner. It does not make sense for a school to emphasize art and music when they are not nearly as employable a skill as mathematics. That's right - I just said that mathematics is an employable skill. In fact, it is difficult to get a career - even a blue collar career - without a sufficient understanding of mathematics. Take a look for yourself. Requirements for iron workers: Recommended high school courses include Algebra, Geometry and Physics. Requirements for electricians: Recommended high school courses include Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry and Physics. Requirements for sheet metal workers: Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry and technical reading Requirements for draftsmen: Recommended high school courses include Geometry and Trigonometry. Sources: American Diploma Project, 2002; The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) http://www.agc.org.... You see, 99% of jobs in America DO require more than an elementary level of mathematics education. Even skills like metal working and drafting require high school courses like Algebra and Geometry, especially if one wants a decent wage. However, one requirement you WON'T see on an iron-working application form is some sort of training in arts or music. All the evidence points to the fact that training in mathematics is far more important, significant, and consequential than art or music. Which leads me to the point I made about art and music not being required by State Standards. My opponent said that the reason they are not required is because it would be difficult to test proficiency in these areas. But this is not the case. State standards do not require a certain sufficiency on a specific Standardized test, but require the passing of a high school course with a curriculum that meets certain standards. It would be easy for a state to mandate that every student take and pass one or two semesters of art or music. States mandate a certain amount of coursework in science, mathematics, and communication skills. But neither South Dakota nor Wisconsin has mandated any coursework in art or music. The reason is that art and music are simply not necessary for employment. In fact, in many nations, instrumental and choral music is not integrated into schools at all. It is something that is done completely extracurricularly. My good friend Masa, a foreign exchange student from Japan, plays the violin extremely well, but he was simply shocked by the amount of curricular music in our school system. Can anyone argue that Japanese students are more dumb than Americans because of their lack of curricular music? No. In a 2007 New York Times article, an international test found that Japanese students consistently test much better than American students in high achieving states like Massachusetts and North Dakota. http://www.nytimes.com... This directly refutes what my opponent said at the end of his first round: "it is still impossible to have a well-rounded education without the arts or music." An educational system without curricular music can and does work well - whereas an educational system without math wouldn't. And as important as my previous three points are, (that art is insignificant compared to skills like mathematics and science, that state standards do not require art or music, and that education without curricular music can work) I believe that it is this next point which is the most important in the debate. My argument is that right-brained learning is best served not through art or music, but through right-brained teaching techniques. And no, I do not equate "art" with "right-brained teaching methods." I say merely that those students whose right-brains are being reached with art can be more effectively reached with right-brained teaching methods in other classes. My opponent says that students cannot learn what they learn in art classes in other subjects. Well, let's take a look: What is it exactly that an art class teaches us? 1. Art class promotes self-expression. (You make a self-portrait that describes your personality.) 2. Art class teaches problem-solving. (You learn how to mix colors and apply them to the canvas in a pleasant fashion.) 3. Art class gives us self-confidence by allowing us to express ourselves. (You try, you make mistakes, you try again, and ultimately triumph.) I am not saying that these are not admirable lessons, but we must ask ourselves, "Is there any other way to learn these things?" The answer is that yes, there are. 1. We can express ourselves through a Science project building an exploding wire-mesh volcano. 2. The Scientific Method teaches us how to creatively solve problems and find answers to our questions, like what gives bubbles their shape. (Mathematicians can be some of the most creative people. Think Einstein and Relativity.) 3. Creating a creative video presentation about Edgar Allan Poe in English class and presenting it to the class can give students self-confidence of expression. This goes back to the very first round of this debate, when my opponent said, "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." But you see, right-brained teaching methods can be used in EVERY subject, not in just art or music classes. All three of the activities I named above allow us to express ourselves and learn using the right side of our brains, yet all three of these activities were done without the benefit of an art or music class. But did you notice something else? In these three activities, in addition to learning the three main things art teaches us, we learned three other things. We learned how volcanoes work, what quadratic equations control bubble shape, and about how nearly everyone Edgar Allan Poe ever knew died of tuberculosis. It is clear that art and music classes are not important, significant, or consequential in grade school.

Resolved: Budget Cuts to Art classes are justified

The resolution comes down to two central questions: What are the conditions under which we call something “justified”, and do the budget cuts to art classes fulfill those conditions? Let’s start out with a few definitions: justified 1 based on sound reasoning or information 2 being what is called for by accepted standards of right and wrong [1] The art classes budget cuts are the direct result and fault of the education budget cuts, which are part of a larger campaign of budget cuts, which is called the Sequester, according to the White House [2]: “about $1 trillion in automatic, arbitrary and across the board budget cuts”. The Sequester is the result of the President and the Congress not reaching an agreement on a plan to reduce the US deficit by $4 trillion. The sequestration is generally responsible for the education and arts classes budget cuts. [3] If sequestration is not justified, then - in extension - the budget cuts to arts classes cannot gain justification out of nowhere and must be considered “not justified”. In order to be justified by definition 1, the budget cuts must not be unreasoned. The Sequester is admittedly “arbitrary”, which means it lacks basic reason for its selections and therefore is not justified. The Sequester is but one extreme example of the general policy of budget cuts. My research has not come up with any given reasons for specific cuts to art classes budgets. It appears that they are just cut for the sake of it, along with many other budgets. Which shows that all those budget cuts are arbitrary, for all we can tell. By definition 1, all these cuts are hence not justified. By the second definition, in order to be justified, the budget cuts must not be unfair and undeserved. The purpose of education is, among others, established as: - To prepare children for citizenship - To cultivate a skilled workforce - To teach cultural literacy - To help students become critical thinkers - To help students compete in a global marketplace [4] It is suspected - not ever explicitly admitted by schools, though - that art budgets are cut because ”a common cost-cutting measure is to slash funding for arts education, prioritizing what are deemed more essential subjects such as math, reading, and science.”[11] So, if I can show that arts classes substantially aid the above purposes, cutting their budget must be considered undeserved and unfair, as other subjects are prioritized wrongfully. Business expert Daniel Pink argues in his best-selling book “A Whole New Mind” that our society is now in “a Conceptual Age where our problems no longer have a single verifiable answer. [...] education is still firmly geared towards the needs of the Information Age, a quickly disappearing era. It’s as if our children are moving along an assembly line, where we diligently instill math, reading, and science skills and then test them [...] Today, a successful member of society must bring something different to the table. Individuals are valued for their unique contributions and their ability to think creatively, take initiative and incorporate a global perspective into their decisions.” [4] Online Colleges has compiled no less than ten scientific studies that support art education. [12] According to those, art education: - increases performance in reading, writing and math. Thus enhancing all those subjects that are most often deemed “more important”. Specifically, “students who received more arts education did better on standardized tests, improved their social skills and were more motivated than those who had reduced or no access”, based on 62 studies. - makes children “better on six different categories of literacy and critical thinking skills” - “helps students improve visual analysis skills, learn from mistakes, be creative and make better critical judgments” - “can actually help connect [children] to the larger world, ultimately improving community cohesion”. - makes pupils “more cooperative and expressive and enjoy a better rapport with educators”, who in turn are happier and more satisfied with their jobs. - “has a quantifiable impact on levels of delinquency, truancy and academic performance”, leading to lower dropout scores and more graduations - “can be a valuable education reform tool, and classroom integration of creative opportunities could be key to motivating students” - “can help rewire the brain in positive ways”, increasing fluid IQ measurably. - is denied to more than 50% of all pupils, especially underprivileged ones who might profit the most So art classes teach creative thinking, problem solving and focus less on competitive thinking, making our children more inclined to cooperate. [5][6] We have major problems to solve in the future that need creative solutions. Creative thinking is at the core of innovation, and with conservative energy sources running out and the demand for energy increasing ever more, we need very innovative ideas if we want to keep our way of life. Media are also a huge business, and growing fast. [7] By cutting art classes, we do not prepare our children for a future in the media industry. The results are showing already. Despite the US producing one billion-dollar movie after the other, most of the visual effects which attract large audiences are outsourced to Australia, Asia and New Zealand. [8] This means billions in revenue and taxes going to other countries. So in cutting art classes, the US forfeits a lot of money its people could better use practically anywhere. Art classes are a long-term investment in the future of entrepreneurship. In 2010, the director of the Arts Education Partnership reminded readers in her report: “The arts are also defined in federal legislation as a core academic subject and an important component of a complete and competitive education [...] they must also possess a deep and broad knowledge of [...] the arts. The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce noted: ‘In fact, mastery of the arts and humanities is just as closely correlated with high earnings, and, according to our analysis, that will continue to be true. [Arts] and economics will give our students an edge just as surely as math and science will.’”[9] Fundamentally, if we are to assess the importance of art classes, we must also assess the importance of education as a whole. The UN have also established the importance of education: “Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to education”. Education is not only a right but a passport to human development. It opens doors and expands opportunities and freedoms. It contributes to fostering peace, democracy and economic growth as well as improving health and reducing poverty. The ultimate aim of Education for All (EFA) is sustainable development.” Education for All Goals Goal 1: Expand early childhood care and education Goal 2: Provide free and compulsory primary education for all Goal 3: Promote learning and life skills for young people and adults Goal 4: Increase adult literacy Goal 5: Achieve gender parity Goal 6: Improve the quality of education”[10] Cutting the education budget AT ALL is thus damaging to the basic rights of those it affects, reducing the quality of and access to education. Hence, cutting the budget of art classes is in extension also wrong on the same levels. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...

Aikido is not an effective martial art

I would invite anyone who is interested in knowing why Aikido IS a great martial art, especially for self defence, to PM me for my personal opinion. I will only respond to users who have profiles with "real" content, forum postings, debates, friends etc. The philosophy within Aikido is as important as any physical training or methods of defence. Being "at one" with one's opponent is what Aikido aims to achieve. In doing such one can avoid provoking an opponent to a level that self defence is neccesary in many instances. When physical defence of self or a loved one is needed to be applied, that same "at one ment" with an opponont can serve to position the opponents force against him/her, and also utilizes the force of gravity. I really wanted to discuss this subject with an opponent, but maybe a future debate will give me that opportunity. These links will give more info: http://www.stenudd.com... http://www.stenudd.com...

Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

Dear Opponent, I am not confused in any way as to the meaning of "Freedom of Expression". I will, though, admit that I misunderstood and under-read your first argument, and believed that you, in fact, were placing unrealistic standards upon art, and I apologize for my mistake. Furthermore, I did not intend for it to be placed in an analogy with you deciding to "kick a guy in a wheelchair" and claim that it is "freedom of movement." (Which, in fact, does not exist in our current bill of rights, but I do not wish to debate about that, only the topic at hand.) Anyway, I simply, believing that you were imposing the "unrealistic standards" that you mentioned earlier, meant for it to be read into as follows; You may not like another person's painting, or sculpture, or any sort of art piece, and you most certainly could complain about it, and you are constitutionally given the unalienable right to do so. You may publish your grievances, you may protest, you may do anything you like. I just believe that in the end of it all, art is art, and there will be standards, but each person will have separate standards that they deem fit in their own minds, because you can think whatever you like to. I do not have standards. I think that art is not a material thing, such as a painting. A painting could be considered a work of art, but not art itself. Art is a way to express your thoughts in a way that you, and other people may understand. You may paint a skyline scene, or a stable scene, or you may paint an abstract of calming colors such as blue and purple, in order to display your mood. In the end, I agree, you are correct about there being several people imposing those standards, but I do not think that it is as prominent of a problem as you think. Thank you.

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

Rebutalls Pro has failed to establish why all instructors are bullies. I'm not going to refute this anymore because I have a feeling Pro is just repeating himself. Most of his arguments are emotion to appeal. Just because people learn to take hits, it doesn't mean we all should consider it as accepting abuse. That is just Pro's interpretation of what a martial art instructor is. Let the student decide what he wants. You keep showing random youtube videos. I have no idea whether this is legit, or some guy trying to put something up for views. So I can't take it seriously. Argument sakes, I will though. First of all, this doesn't represent all martial arts teachers. Simply saying children should be banned from learning because a bunch of nutjobs were doing something is not a good argument. Sometimes, calling the police isn't an option. If you are in the park, and some guy apporaches you, are you going to ask him if you can borrow his phone to call the cops? Nobody is training them to be assassins. Martial arts is about self-defense. Ok? And that has what to do with what I said?