args

Mark Rothko's art is valid and genius.

Thanks to Treadsoftly for starting this debate. As my opponent has yet to post an argument in support of his resolution, I could go the "burden of proof on those making the claim" route for this round, but that would be a waste 1/3 of this debate. So I'll go with what I've got, which is the resolution itself. The use of the conjunction "and" in the resolution means that if I can successfully counter either my opponent's proposed descriptions of Mark Rothko's work, the resolution itself is countered. With that in mind, I concede "valid". I'm no big art guy, but I don't think a piece of creative work could ever really be defined as a valid or invalid piece of art. Or meh, perhaps it could, but I'm not the guy to do it. So yes, I will concede that the work this man created is valid as art, if he so chose to call it that. I will therefore focus my attention in this debate on "genius". My opponent has not specified any particular piece of work by Mark Rothko, so the resolution can be taken to mean that ALL of his works are works of genius. Or at very least the bulk of his work, the defining stuff. Basically, no singling out one or two gems he may have had here and there. Otherwise it would be akin to arguing outright that "Billy Ray Cyrus' music is popular" based on that one song he did in the 90's, and that's as nonsensical as the fact that Billy Ray's mullet was once envied by men and swooned over by women. Lest We Forget. Now to define "genius" (or, more formally, "ingenious", as we are referring to a thing and not a person): 1. (of a person) clever, original, and inventive. 2. (of a machine or idea) cleverly and originally devised and well suited to its purpose. [1] We are interested in the latter, as we are not arguing the genius of Mr Rothko himself, rather that of his work, his "ideas". Therefore, my opponent must show that the work of Mark Rothko is: i) Cleverly devised; ii) Originally devised; and iii) Well suited to its purpose These terms are subjective and unable to be proven absolutely one way or the other, so this debate will come down to who can better-convince the voters how well Mr Rothko's work stands up to these descriptions. For those unfamiliar with Mr Rothko's work, this page is representative enough for our purposes here: https://www.google.com.au... Again, I'm no scholar of the arts, but he essentially made a career painting a bunch of colourful rectangles. That is as kind as I can be in describing his work, because that is precisely what it is. There is not a four-year-old on Earth who could not reproduce it. I'm certain my nephew has even created a few just like that, didn't even warrant a spot on the refrigerator. As for our requisites for ingenuity: i) This work is not at all clever, regardless what Mr Rothko or my opponent would have to say about his methods and his inspirations, let alone the "underlying meaning" of the works and that sort of guff. That stuff is all beside the point. The works of MC Escher are clever, the colourful rectangles not so much. ii) The works are not at all original. My four-year-old nephew has done some very similar stuff indeed. My opponent may counter that the works of Mark Rothko were around before my nephew was, so perhaps my nephew stole Mr Rothko's artistic style and is now claiming it as his own to score chicks at daycare. I would counter that my nephew created these drawings unconsciously whilst half asleep and simultaneously watching TV. They really are just colourful rectangles placed in some sense of arrangement. iii) The works are not particularly well-suited to their purpose, presuming the purposes of art are to be adored, to make people think, to create emotions within people, etc. Again, they are just colourful rectangles, none of that stuff going on here. I will leave it there for now. Can I please ask those voting for spelling/grammar to keep in mind that I am from Australia and so my spelling of the word "colourful" is indeed correct, at least to me. Thanks. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Children Should Be Allowed to Learn a Martial Art

I believe that martial arts should not be taught to children, my opponent (Pro) will argue why the benefits of learning a martial art at a young age outweigh the costs R1: acceptance R2: arguments R3: conclusion Good luck!

"Art projects" in English classrooms do not help students and weaken their writing skills.

Warmest regards to my opponent; I accept this debate. My opponent states that "art projects in English classrooms at the High School level do not help students learn how to write well". I disagree. While it is obviously true that, generally speaking, art projects are unlikely to focus on syntax and grammar, there is far more to expressing oneself than simply those basics. In a way, DDO's 7 point voting system is a perfect example of this; only one point in seven is devoted to dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Of far more importance to the vote is the ability to be persuasive and, when appropriate, quote one's sources. This need to be persuasive is present in most college essays, as well. According to the Harvard College Writing Center, the core point of an academic essay is "fashioning a coherent set of ideas into an argument" [1]. If one were to compare use of the English language to playing the piano, the syntax and grammar could be seen as analogous to the actual notes on the page of sheet music. The act of fashioning that coherent set of ideas, however, is more analogous to the rhythm and pitch of the pianist pouring expression into the notes on the page. In plain terms, it's an artistic talent. One of the ways in which a smart teacher can help students express that artistry is through the use of While it is obviously true that, generally speaking, art projects are unlikely to focus on syntax and grammar, there is far more to expressing oneself than simply those basics. In a way, DDO's 7 point voting system is a perfect example of this; only one point in seven is devoted to dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Of far more importance to the vote is the ability to be persuasive and, when appropriate, quote one's sources. This need to be persuasive is present in most college essays, as well. According to the Harvard College Writing Center, the core point of an academic essay is "fashioning a coherent set of ideas into an argument" [1]. If one were to compare use of the English language to playing the piano, the syntax and grammar could be seen as analogous to the actual notes on the page of sheet music. The act of fashioning that coherent set of ideas, however, is more analogous to the rhythm and pitch of the pianist pouring expression into the notes on the page. In plain terms, it's an artistic talent. One of the ways in which a smart teacher can help students express that artistry is through the use of art projects that contain similar values. A diorama of a scene from The Crucible, for example, might lead a student to put more focus and attention on the imagery used by the play. Ideally, this would show the student the value of that imagery, and encourage its replication if they were asked to describe an equivalent modern environment. My opponent makes other arguments, but they lack a certain relevance (IE their personal high school experience does nothing but show their own inherent bias to the concept of art as a learning tool, and their observation that college professors must be redundant in their initial lessons is certainly true, but they have failed to make a connection between a few art projects and that typical student failing. Summer vacation is arguably a far more culpable factor). In conclusion, art projects do help students, because they enforce good creative writing techniques. As such, they serve to strength the writers' skills. [1] http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu...

Education should focus on maths and science rather than music and art

My argument will be that music and art takes logic as well. Furthermore, I will demonstrate that music and art teach skills that can't get in math or science and that these skills can help people get good paying jobs. Your floor

Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

I am going to pull out the "Freedom of Expression" card and say that art is a form of personal expression, and is subject to opinion, not fact, which is where the popular saying, "It is an art, not a science" is derived from, meaning that the object or idea/ideal that the saying is describing is not definite, it has no solid facts, there are no regulations set on it that makes it "art" or not. This is just like humor. You and your friend in school or the workplace may have an "inside joke" based on one of your past experiences that the both of you went through together. You may be in the middle of the room, with a large amount of other people in it. You tell the joke, and a random listening bystander comes up and tells you that he does not like your joke, and that it is "not real humor." That is exactly the same thing, art is subjective to opinions, and if you like a glove, that is your thing. Some may like paint splattered on a canvas, and some may like a nice, pastoral, neat country scene painting. The human brain is a diverse and beautiful thing.