Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewArt (including music) is a commodity just like precious metals and coffee beans!
I think the blood stains left on the walls and floors of a train depot just after a Chechen rebel sets off a bonb belt and kills a bunch of communist kunts, makes beautiful art. And just in case you were wondering icebear, I think your a kunt too!!! I would love to see a Chechen make art out of YOU!!!!!
Schools need music classes or other art classes and they should not be cut.
Music and art programs have some of the highest cost per pupils, which strains the budgets of school districts. Not only are there significant financial costs, but these programs also distract school districts from offering courses that are necessary for national economic advancement and self-sufficiency such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology classes. School districts also have the opportunity to offer art and music programs through private/public partnerships or through after-school and extracurricular activities Therefore, schools should have the option to fully or partially cut funding for music and art programs that are currently part of a school’s curriculum. It is apparent that, as some school districts face financial insolvency, music and art programs are the first to be defunded or cut back from existing budgets. These programs are typically resource intensive as they require not only teacher salaries, but incur significant facility, equipment, and travel costs. For example, instrumental music programs require the purchase of instruments such as pianos, drums, woodwinds, brass, and string instruments. Instrumental curricula, like this, requires the storage of these instruments, the purchase of sheet music, and a facility that will prevent significant disturbance to other academic courses such as history, literature, or algebra. In 1996, analyst David Monk determined that courses in foreign language, music, and scientific instruction incurred the highest per-pupil expenditures among six different New York high schools. This excluded special education funding. Music and art education programs have had some of the lowest enrollments in their classes, thus increasing the cost of per-pupil expenditures on these programs. The largest share of school district expense is teacher compensation, which includes ever-increasing salaries and rising health care costs that are placing crippling burdens on the budgets of school districts. Thus, these programs place a large burden on school budgets. Elective courses such as music and art also have an impact on the ability of schools to offer critical courses that will directly affect earnings outcomes for students such as classes in technology and computer science, natural and health sciences, engineering, and mathematics. According to an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Science Education and Research, the United States economy is in volatile flux and continues to shift to an economy with an increasing reliance on technological innovation and proficiency, information management, and service. Thus, the need to be technologically proficient will be a universal economic need of all high school graduates. Students, as a result, will need more instructional hours in these courses. Furthermore, I do not contend that music and art programs lack any inherent value nor lack educational worth or benefit. Art and music programs, rather, can be achieved through various programs including partnerships with private non-profit music and art organizations or hiring after-school/extracurricular music instructors that do not place a heavy demand on salaries. A 1995 report from the U.S. Department of Education had shown that 98.7% of seniors from less affluent schools reported that extracurricular arts opportunities were available to them. It is very possible to make participation in arts programs viable with a combination of these strategies that place less stress on budgets and less stress on the academic curriculum. In rebuttal to my opponent, the author for the position that schools should not cut funding suggests that doing so would deny students the ability to relieve academic pressure and relax and have fun. First, there are a number of activities and programs that may help students achieve the relief of academic pressure including dedicated lunch times and/or recess, which do not require the presence of music or art programs. Additionally, the relief of academic pressure is not as important of a factor that a school board should consider when it questions whether it should preserve the arts curriculum or not. As previously stated, the ability to substitute a program, the cost of a program, and the relative economic impact of a program should be prevailing factors in the consideration of its preservation or abandonment from the academic curriculum. More specifically in schools with significant low-income populations, there has been significant evidence that private-public partnerships have worked with students who live in lower socio-economic circumstances. Additionally, lower-income communities would most want to manage costs to the school district while finding strategies to provide the greatest amount of access to music and arts programs. Often, low-income communities pay more property taxes than more affluent school districts, since school district expenditures are often uniform among various districts. This means that more residents must pay more taxes to maintain the basic level of functioning in the school district, which requires a larger portion of their income than wealthier school districts. Therefore, music and art programs may not be financially feasible for these neighborhoods. http://nces.ed.gov... http://educationnext.org... http://www.sfasu.edu... http://online.wsj.com... http://science.house.gov...
Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!
I appreciate my opponent's concession and kind words. Please extend all of my arguments. I will also include a source that lays out a handful of positive rap songs, or rap songs with a political, emotional or otherwise serious message. This will help prove that rap is indeed a legitimate medium of I will also include a source that lays out a handful of positive rap songs, or rap songs with a political, emotional or otherwise serious message. This will help prove that rap is indeed a legitimate medium of art, as it conveys one's interpretation of their conscious experience. Rap Music = Music = Art. http://hiphopnews.yuku.com...
Music and art should not be cut from education
More and more schools continue to cut funding to the art and music departments. However, sports and athletics suffer very minimally. Why is this? Neurologically, both are beneficial and are important to have as opportunities to students. Although statistically more students are involved in athletics than not, all should be given the opportunity to be involved with what they want. Please understand that this is my first debate so this may seem a bit amateur.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.
Well, first off I would have to disagree due, not only, to the fact that my opponant is not going directly to the point, but also because the issue in this deabte is about MUSIC AND ART. Music should be provided in all institutes, public and private. It is essential for the growth of a proper, knowledgable, and creative minds. Art inspires creativity and helps the students to create there own person.
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it....
Government subsidy of the arts is unnecessary as if art is good enough, then people will pay for it. If art is not good enough to be popular, then government should not reward it for its failure. The success of the unsubsidised popular music industry in Britain contrasts with the failure of the subsidised British film industry. Why should London have five symphony orchestras if there is not enough demand to justify them? The arts in the US are largely unsubsidised and they are thriving and popular.
Mandatory art/music education in high-school is good!!
It is quite unfortunate my opponent has forfeited the last round of this debate. As a brief conclusion: - There is no reason for the government to make Music or As a brief conclusion: - There is no reason for the government to make Music or Art education mandatory in high schools. - Students are able and best off choosing their own subjects to learn. - Benefits of music are not applicable to schooling. I thank my opponent again for this debate.
Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition
Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10) In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10) Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9) This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1) The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8) The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10) This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10) Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(
Censoring Art Is Dangerous
We can not expect ‘all people to be generally reasonable’, as the opposition argues – this is unrealistic. For one, the majority of the audience listening to this contentious music are under 25 years old and as recent research a 2 institutes have shown ‘intellectual maturity’ is not fully developed until the until age 25 [[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-02-20-juvenile-deathpenalty_x.htm]] It is unreasonable to assert that this kind of content is not affecting the developing values of people, least of all our youth. Music is not legally rated, unlike almost all other visual and aural media, yet it is the most accessible and inexpensive medium and people, all over the world, can access music. Popular radio marketing has chart toppers being repeated over and over again taking on an almost chant-like quality; and as a song rises in popularity we are then subjected to it’s video clip version which in these days often pushes societies boundaries and aims to shock thus increasing the song’s appeal despite its negative content. Is the opp telling us that it is OK to continue to support the connotative message ‘that violence against women is ok'” despite the facts we have already supplied in relation to this matter? The content of such music cannot be equated with art. The opp states that music cannot be limited bcecause we all interpret it differently. I would like to point out that statements such as “I may have to blow your brains out, baby. Then you won’t bother me no more” (Eric Clapton) or “I used to love her, But I had to kill her, … She’s buried right in my backyard” (Guns and Roses) or “If she ever tries to fucking leave again, I’mma tie her to the bed, And set the house on fire” (Eminem) send a very clear message that is not dependent on the individual’s perception. Not only are these examples not alone, they are among a rising population of excessively violent lyrics which are most often directed at females.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art
I can't put any arguments anymore so I'll just refute Pro's rebutalls and reaffirm mine. So, Pro says a criminal with or without a gun won't worry whether a kid knows karate, but doesn't give sources as to where he got that from. Even then, I don't know how not learning martial arts would make the situtation better. In some cases, it can save a kid's life. Thats the important part. Pro seems to think those who learn martial arts will automatically resort to violence, but doesn't give sources. I can't simply assume that all kids will die trying to fight. If that is the case, it is the responsibility of the parent, to make sure their child is mature enough to handle martial arts. Pro is assuming that all kids are incapable of learning marital arts, by banning them from learning it. So, Pro doesn't give actual statistics as to how many kids actually have been abused. To answer your question Yes, but why should people care what I think? It's their life. Their money, Their training. So far, Pro has failed to prove basically every contention. He basically is looking at a bunch of youtube videos, and then asserting that all martial art instructors are abusing their student. I have sucessfully refuted his arguments, and I hope voters think my arguments were more substancial.
