Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewDigital art is a lesser form of art then traditional art
While I dislike losing debates, I believe my opponent has provided a sound argument in favor of his resolution. He clearly knows what he is talking about.
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.
Sir, of course The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures," ought to be passed in the State of Arkansas, for the sake of employment, healthcare costs and various other reasons which I'll look into.
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure
Con states he believes I cannot be right by any definition of the word "ought" as bullfighting is exploitative, cruel and brings harm unto others. I recognize I will be asking our readers, as well as my opponent, to make a judgment contra cultura, against their culture's common perceptions. My argument will hinge upon convincing you of two things: first, that tauromachy is an ethical form of expression and second, that it is not a bloodsport but rather a form of art that transmits something valuable. In this first round I will merely outline the argument, in hopes we can go into further detail as the debate goes on. I will also leave sourcing to the later arguments as here I will only give a general case. Bullfighting as an ethically sound activity The statement that we "ought not to do harm unto others for personal pleasure" both confuses the respect due a human with that due an animal and reduces art to pleasure, when it is a valuable tool for the transmission of cultural values and complex philosophical concepts. One of these is precisely that although animals deserve respect they are not humans, and therefore to respect them is to treat them according to their nature, and not our own. I noted, when looking through my opponent's previous debates, that he is a defender of vegansm. I am glad to say that this is not a concept extraneous even to his own tradition, as vegans also engage in some degree of phylogenetic discrimination every time they eat a fruit salad. All life does not require from us the same treatment, vegetable life does not have the same capacities as insects who do not have the same capacity as reptiles who do not have the same capacity as mammals etc. Even amongst mammals there are different degrees of intelligence, and different modes of interaction are required. One must not, for instance, treat a wild animal as one treats a domesticated one, or ignore their physical capacities and natural instincts in making a value judgment as to their treatment. In the case of tauromachy, the specific animal used is not a common bull. The toro de lidia (fighting bull) does not follow the same evolution as the common bull, but rather descends directly from wild aurochs and lives in a state of only semi domestication. They are domesticated in the sense that they live in private dehesas (vast areas of grassland in Spain) and are bred by livestock farmers, but in every other way they live wild. Bullfighting exists because of their temperament and territorial nature, and is structured around the bull's bravía (roughly, aggressive courage). Con then must show not that it is generally undesirable to harm animals, but that it is specifically unethical to fight the toro de lidia. Although I do not have space to extend myself here, I will also note that there is a difference between being an ecologist and being an animalist, and that these tendencies are often opposed to each other. Animalists often conflate humans and animals and regard each individual animal as an object of protection, whereas ecologists consider that our duty of stewardship is towards groups and not individuals. The elimination of bullfights would be destructive to the biodiversity of those areas in which it is practiced. Not only would the toro bravo disappear as a species uniquely linked with bullfighting, but as tauromachy is a millennial (or, in places such a Mexico or South America, secular) activity around which much wildlife has evolved to live in the habitat of the dehesas, which would disappear along with the activity. Bullfighting as an art There are those who try to portray tauromachy as a mere bloodsport, which exists for the viewers to derive pleasure from the bull's pain and death. This is fine as a slogan or political tactic, but anyone with a love of truth, howevermuch they oppose bullfighting, must oppose that tactic. To reject something one must understand it, and one cannot understand bullfighting if one does not see its artistic dimension. In the course of its history bullfighting has attracted a great number of artists, not as bloodsport but as an art. From Goya to Mario Vargas Llosa or Gabriel García Marquez passing through Dalí, Picasso, Miró, Valle Inclán and Federico García Lorca, the greatest defender of bullfighting as an art form. Even foreign artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Orson Welles were captured by the aesthetics and the transmission of values of tauromachy. Welles so loved bullfighting, and had such an intense friendship with the torero Antonio Ordoñez, that he asked his ashes to be placed in his friend's estate in Ronda. This list is not an improper appeal to authority, but rather a challenge. If these people, poets with souls as sensitive as García Lorca or Picasso (who would often say "el toro soy yo", I am the bull) could see the value and beauty of bullfighting, we must at least attempt to see what it is that tauromachy truly represents in the broader culture before condemning it. 1. Man's relationship to nature: respect and dominion The first time I went to a bullfight I went believing the propagandized view of it as a gladiatory bloodsport. I had assumed the people would cheer every wound inflicted, and would especially cheer the bull's death. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the beginning, the comments of those around me were centered upon the bull, and the torero's capacity to understand him. The incessant comments about the bull's personality, tendencies, physical characteristics and family line were all tinged with a note of respect I had never expected to find. The moment of the bull's death in particular was met with a complete silence, and when I later asked why I was told by an old man with a cigar in his hand: "Hay un torero que va a arriesgar su vida por el arte, y un toro que ha luchado con nobleza. Si no se respeta eso no se respeta nada" [There is a torero who will risk his life for art, and a bull who has fought nobly. If one doesn't respect that one doesn't respect anything"]. The worldview bullfighting advances, then, is one in which man is certainly above nature. It is the bullfighter who marks the different steps of their dance, and it is generally the case that the bull dies at his hands. He knows himself, however, to be nature's custodian and not its master. One must respect the bull as an opponent, and in facing him, the bullfighter must risk his own life. This parallels what man's behavior towards nature must be generally. Yes, we must exercise dominion over it, as we till the land, build our houses from wood and stone and mine the earth. We must never be fooled into believing ourselves the master of it, however, and always treat it with the respect it deserves. 2. Facing death «temple» [/tem-pleh/] The bull, as a symbol of nature, is also a symbol of death. Tauromachy has its roots in pagan times, but it comes to us through Catholic Spain, and we cannot expect that to have happened without affecting its meaning. We must always face the possibility of death, and yet the message of the bullfight is twofold: first, that a man must face death with what we call temple, or calm assertiveness in the face of danger, and that death is, while formidable, defeated in the end by putting oneself in the position of suffering it. It is in the final stage of the fight, when the torero reveals his chest and heart to the bull's horns, when the bull is finally defeated. 3. Victory of civilization over barbarism Bullfighting shows the intelligence of a patently weaker being defeat the brute force of a stronger one. It is, in that sense, the triumph of civilization. A man facing an animal who weighs over 1,000 pounds must use his faculties and inventiveness to the utmost in order to avoid death. This runs parallel to the triumph of Civilization against barbarism. At first glance civilized values such as cooperation, respect for the weak, the rule of law run contrary and are inferior in a pinch to the simple law of the jungle, by which it is the strongest who succeed. By the bull's defeat at the hands of the torero, what is shown is that civilization has a quiet power which, although challenged seriously by barbarism, finally triumphs. Conclusion: In an aesthetic display of shapes, movement, color and music; bullfighting represents the transmission of cultural values which enrich those who understand it. In this introduction I have shown some of these values, along with a prima facie justification from an ethical point of view. Sadly, most arguments against bullfighting ignore its cultural dimension and are based more on sensibility than reason. I am sure that will not be the case in this debate.
which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)
Okay I am assuming that this debate has no structure whatsoever due to the fact that there are only three rounds, and Kathy did not bring any opening argument to the table in round one. I will write my opening argument in Round 1. I propose that Kathy write her opening argument in round two without any rebutting of what I said in Round 1. I will use my round 2 to rebut Kathy's opening argument, Kathy uses Round 3 to rebut my opening argument, and I will forfeit my round 3. If you accept this, say so in the beginning of your next turn. If you do not show any indication of your decision, and rebut anything of my opening argument in round 2, then I will not forfeit round 3 and you will be at a disadvantage because not only will I get the last word, but an extra round to debate as well. You have been warned. This topic is very close to home as I am an artist myself, specializing in space ceramics (a form of visual art). I have many pieces featured in museums around the world, and even one in the Louvre. I admit that much of the population finds going to museums and such very boring. However, there are very many other forms of visual If you do not show any indication of your decision, and rebut anything of my opening argument in round 2, then I will not forfeit round 3 and you will be at a disadvantage because not only will I get the last word, but an extra round to debate as well. You have been warned. This topic is very close to home as I am an artist myself, specializing in space ceramics (a form of visual art). I have many pieces featured in museums around the world, and even one in the Louvre. I admit that much of the population finds going to museums and such very boring. However, there are very many other forms of visual art very popular. This is because essentially everything is visual art. Tables are visual art and are very important to today's society, and are pretty popular considering that many people love eating and you place your food on a table. Food itself is a visual art. Just go on Instagram and search #delicious. Thousands of pictures of plates of food that many people find aesthetically pleasing can be found. Virtually everything that humans create is visual art, so all you have to do is take everything that humans find popular, subtract performing art, and you get the popularity of visual art, which is higher than performing art, because performing art takes up a smaller fraction of what humans find popular. Heck I could even argue that performing art is visual art itself, but I won't due to my excellent sportsmanship. Humans themselves are visual art, forged in the beauty that is the uterus. And look at just how aesthetically pleasing and popular humans are. http://blogs.psychcentral.com... . Also, nature is a visual art created by the lord Jesus Christ, and the Great One. No, not Wayne Gretzky. Calm down Canadians. No, not Daunte Culpepper. But he was pretty great. I'm talking about God with a capital G. Many people enjoy going out for a hike and being in nature. Reddit's 19th most popular sub-reddit is /r/Earthporn, a subreddit entirely devoted to beautiful nature scenes. How awesome is this? http://imgur.com... Would you rather experience that, or watch a movie? Thanks for your time Kathy.
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
I think I see the problem here particularly after reading some of your responses to others. The view you have of usefulness disregards many things other human beings find very useful. I don?t think I could change your view of art unless I changed your idea of usefulness which I think may be too subjective to be possible. I will, however, challenge you on the idea that something factual cannot also be art, and reassert that art will get a point across in ways that cold facts cannot. In fact one of the most common usages of art is to inform. Ex: A lot of people hadn?t heard of the Tulsa massacre until Watchmen featured it heavily. So here is the dictionary definition of ?art?: ?the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/art You will notice it does not preclude works of art from being based in fact and the last sentence means an artist can present anything they deem more than ordinary significance. I also noticed you changed my example of an artist capturing something factual from a photorealistic painted portrait to an actual photograph. I do believe a photograph of a live event can be art, but I?d love it if you?d address my point about the portrait because I think it illustrates things pretty well PS - I disagree the massive counter culture hasn?t done anything. I think again your looking for a metric that doesn?t exist and then saying that means there was no effect at all
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
Building things is art. Also, what makes you think at least half of humanity isn't like you. Even if it's 10% of humanity that is like you, it's 700 million people for whom Even if it's 10% of humanity that is like you, it's 700 million people for whom art is useful. Is art the most useful thing for humanity? Maybe not. It is, however, far from useless.
Art (including music) is a commodity just like precious metals and coffee beans!
Only pretentious "artists" would disagree. Artists like to think they are skilled, but if you think about what art is, and what its purpose is, then anybody who possesses any ability to communicate is an artist!!!!!
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School
Kids should learn the Skills. They should have to try out an instrument. If they don't learn it then that could hold them back from finding a hidden talent hidden inside. They should not have to take math but not learn If they don't learn it then that could hold them back from finding a hidden talent hidden inside. They should not have to take math but not learn Art or something that they could be really good at.
Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!
Thanks, Pro. Hopefully I can change my opponent's mind about his overly critical and narrow-minded view of rap music. I will begin by responding to Pro's 4 arguments, and then providing contentions of my own... 1. The word rap by definition has to do with crime and punishment. While Pro provides 2 definitions of the word rap, he blatantly ignores the second listed definition from the dictionary. This is intellectually deceitful as he intentionally discluded the definition that would undermine this argument all-together. Included in the defnition of rap is: to utter sharply or vigorously; to rap out a command [1]. Uttering out sharply is indeed what "rapping" is. Hip-hop refers to the subculture including rap music, break dancing, graffiti art, etc. Rap music refers to music in which the artist raps (sharply delivers) usually in rhyme schemes over a particular instrumental. Nonetheless, the point is that this argument has been negated, as rap does not necessarily refer to crime or any particular theme, per se. Instead, it has to do with a tone and is merely a descriptor of word delivery. 2. Pro says rap music talks a lot about violence, sex, drugs and other negative or potentially inapporpriate themes. A) First, rap music is in no way the only genre of music that explores controversial themes. Rock music in particular is known to be just as crude. For instance, one of rock legends' Ac/Dc's most famous songs is called Big Balls which is not so subtly a sexual reference [2]. Sometimes songs may be less subtle but still have mature themes. Lady Gaga's chart topping pop song "Poker Face" is a song about being able to keep a poker face on so that she can be with a man, but sexually fantasize about a woman [3]. In other words, there are questionable lyrics and themes across ALL music genres, so it's unfair and non-sensical to single out rap music specifically. Even country songs curse [4]. If you say rap is inappropriate because of the language and content they use, then this must extend across all genres. B) Not everyone is a parrot. In listening to rap music I hear "the N word" a lot, but that doesn't mean I go around repeating it in my everyday life. A parent could easily teach their child that the words they're hearing are not appropriate everyday language. The media provides entertainment in many forms. Just because people shoot guns in movies doesn't mean kids should imitate what they get out of the arts industry for entertainment value. C) Rappers are entertainers and do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about. Eminem for instance talks about killing people in many of his songs, yet if those lyrics were remotely true he would have been in jail a long time ago. Likewise, actors who kill in the moves do not necessarily exemplify the traits they personify on screen for entertainment value. Pro doesn't mention that celebrities of every kind are not always the perfect role models, nor should they have to be. 3. Children shouldn't be exposed to this kind of music... A) It is up to a child's parents to protect what they are exposed to. Parents cannot protect children forever, and eventually people should be free to make their own choices about what kind of music they like and want to hear. B) Exposure to these themes is not necessarily inappropriate. These are the facts of life. In fact many people are exposed to certain themes early on, and rap music is art that helps express and reflect their experience. Some songs such as "Hip Hop Saved My Life" suggest rap music helped profusely as an outlet and potential escape from a potentially dangerous alternative [5]. C) Censorship is bad for society at large. D) Censorship also stifles both creative and personal expression. More about this later when I talk about the meaning of art... 4. Rap is a bad influence; it advocates gang recruitment. A) Anything could be an influence/catalyst propelling one to make bad choices. It would be wrong to single out rap music and ignore all of the potential good of the genre. B) Pro hasn't proven that it's rap music specifically which has led to the statics he described. In fact, there are a plethora of other more reasonable contributions, including but not limited to poverty rates and other economic turmoil that directly cause gang activity. C) Many Catholic priests have been known to molest young children [6]. Would Pro suggest that religion is therefore inappropriate for children because some people associated with religion specifically have not always made the right choices? As I said, parents are responsible for raising their children - not the entertainment industry. And people are responsible for their own choices which are influenced by everything around them (not just rap music). D) A lot of rap music promotes POSITIVE themes. Many rappers specifically encourage staying in school in their songs [7], and some like Lauryn Hill are known to encourage and empower women in a positive way. Pro ignores in his analysis all of the positive influences and messages rap can/does have, focusing solely on the negative which is dishonest and unfair. == Arguments For the Con == Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions and intellect [9]. Music is a form of art, and music refers to a medium of sound vs. silence. It's common elements are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythym (associated with concepts such as tempo, meter and articulation), dynamics and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture [10]. Rap music deals with every single aspect of "music." At it's basic core, rapping refers to delivering words set to a specific beat or set of beats. Therefore, rhythm, tempo, meter and articulation are certainly important. The texturing of vocals over the instrumental as well as other possible harmonies (such as when you have a collaboration of 2 or more artists) play a significant role. Rap songs frequently sample instrumentals from other genres, including but not limited to jazz, classical, rock and more. Therefore, if you argue that those are legitimate genres of music, rap must be also. Like all art, rap expresses emotions and ideas. People tend to express their ideas and emotions through words, and rap probably has more words per song than any other genre. It is a legitimate form of cultural and artistic expression. Since I've already proven that music constitutes as art, and rap music is in fact music (it contains all the elements of music), then therefore rap artists are in fact artists. However again I'd like to reiterate the purpose of art. It exists as a mode of expression from one's individual conscious experiences and interpretations. It is culturally and psychologically invaluable. Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means. To "rap" merely means to speak in a rhythmic tone over music, and said style can be used to depict a variety of themes including very positive ones. Music has been known to positively influence people in many ways, including rap. We can not single out and focus specifically and only on the bad. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.lyricsdomain.com... [3] http://www.examiner.com... [4] http://www.lyricsfreak.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.rapbasement.com... [8] http://www.softcup.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
>(admittedly I am Canadian, and I still don't understand how that stupid system works). In America the election is decided by a final catwalk where the candidates compete with the glitziest accoutrement./s You're correct though, the poster itself is not power. As a work of street art, it is simply free marketing to show support of the candidate. In terms of actual impact, the profits made from sale of the posters were used to create more merchandise to promote the campaign, giving Obama supporters a strong aesthetic to rally behind. > Is this really 'art?' Look them up, yes it's really art. They have a movie that is called "The Yes Men Fix the World". The practice is called culture jamming, and uses artistic process + performance and infiltration to create an aesthetic or tell a story. I'm not sure I jive with your definition of art presenting itself as fictitious. There is a wealth of examples of art appearing as reality to the extent that there is a well known phrase about this relationship: Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? DOW lost a lot of stock, and more importantly it helped to spread the news of what had happened. It also demonstrated something very insidious: that doing the right thing is not profitable. I'm not sure how much this specific instance helped to turn the corner, but this is now on DOW's website: https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/about/legal/issues/bhopal.html
