args

We have a duty to protect individuals from the worst reactions to art

Those who see the artwork, or hear of it, must be considered. Often, social disgust stems from the violation of those values that are most central to an individual. An individual’s right not to have their most central values abused or ridiculed is surely of more importance than the desire of an artist to be entirely unrestricted in their work: the harm caused to individuals by the continuing acceptance by society, (and consequent exposure) of art they find disgusting, can be great, and the reasonable modern society recognises such harms and does not impose them unnecessarily. For example, the case of the Chapman brothers’ repeated use of Hitler and Nazi imagery: for the Chapmans the horror of WW2 might be distant and historical, and therefore for them the time may have come for Hitler to simply be mocked; however, for others that horror is altogether more current. Other people may feel a greater connection, for example, because of the impact on their close family, which cannot simply be ignored. In a situation like this, clearly the impact  is infinitely more negative for that individual whose trauma is, in effect, being highlighted as now acceptable for comic material, than the positive gain is for the Chapmans: if restricted, they are simply caused to move on to other subjects. 

which is more popular performing arts like plays, movies and music (con) or visual art (pro)

Kath... hold up a minute. You just rebutted in round 2, so I will now be forced to debate in round 3, as my previous statement said. First of all, Pro Tip: post all of your definitions before the debate, and don't just expect people to share your definition if you don't post it. Then you have two incoherent sentences that I don't know if they should connect. Generally if you want to make your sentences flow, you should make it more obvious, and read them out loud to make sure they flow smoothly. Then you talk about how boring museums are (I said the same thing) and talk about how popular music and movies are. However, visual art covers a lot more areas than just what you see in museums. I ask you Kathy to rebut my arguments in a way besides defining what visual arts are after I have already presented my arguments. Also, paintings and the forms of visual art that you are more familiar with aren't all expensive. Parents are often very proud and pleased with a drawing that their child gave them for free, and all that costs is a piece of paper and a box of crayons.

Karen Pence just wants to teach art, but people are mad the school has standard Christian beliefs

The Left has taken issue with second lady Karen Pence and her new part-time job teaching art at Immanuel Christian School in northern Virginia. The immediate, visceral reaction to this shows

The lack of control over, and profit from, art will serve as a serious disincentive to artistic output

Profit is as much a factor in artists’ decision to produce work, if not more so, than the primordial urge to create. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s artistic work, the incentive to invest in its creation is certainly diminished. Within a strong copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the final product of their labours will be theirs to enjoy.[1] Without copyright protections the marginal cases, like people afraid to put time into actually building an installation art piece rather than doing more hours at their job, will not opt to create. If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would most certainly be less inclined to do so. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to adapt existing works to markets. Art thrives by being new and original. Copyright protections shield against artistic laziness and drive the creative urges of the artistically inclined to ever more interesting fields. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol7/Issue1/Greenberg.pdf

Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.

And with that we shall begin. Sir, have you considered the health risks that having a tattoo poses and the effect that it has only employability. It's a well known fact that if needles are infected with contaminated blood, then blood borne diseases, such as tetanus, syphilis, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C could be contracted. An STD for the sake of looking rebellious: really? In addition, a lack of tattoos results in a higher employability. Managers would no longer need to worry about employees having to cover up their 'body art', in order to comply with dress codes. When it comes to interviews, tattoos leave a bad impression on future employees, due to their association with the criminal world. With more people able to work, more people will. This would result in a higher employment percentage for the state, meaning that the rate of poverty would also also be reduced. And so, by banning dermal implants and scarification, the health risk to the population would be lowered and yet the employment rate of the state would rise. Your turn, Horseman!

There is a duty for a broadcaster that is not dependent on either commercial or state funding to give a platform to controversial works of art.

The BBC is in an unusual position, simply because of its funding structure, to promote new or challenging works of art. The licence fee means that it is freed of many of the pressures brought to bear by either commercial or political masters. Although it has never taken that to mean it has a carte blanche, it does allow for opportunities simply not available to many broadcasters in terms showcasing new works of art and encouraging creative development. The BBC’s global audience in 2007 was 233 million[i]. That audience provides some context for the 1,500 who actively protested this particular broadcast. It seems reasonable to suggest that many of those millions follow the BBC because they trust the Corporation’s approach of providing the widest possible range of output and opinion. For such an organisation to capitulate to a prudish group – who were outside BBC venues at the time so couldn’t have seen the broadcast – would be a huge betrayal of that trust. [i] BBC News Website. “BBC Global Audience Hits New High”. 21 May 2007.

The Art of the Swindle

In court filings, former employees of Trump University allege that it preyed on the insecurities of its students, selling them courses they did not need or could not afford.

Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists!

Resolved: Rap should not be considered art or music, and the "rappers" should not be considered artists! Clarification: What I am trying to state is that Rap should not be categorized as music or art and the "rappers" should not be categorized as artists. Rules: 1. Be respectful, not extreme criticism during arguments or in comments, though some criticism such as what would have helped is always allowed as it helps improve the debater's skill. 2. Vote honestly as to who won and put a detailed reason as to why you voted as you did (this is not a rule but rather a request) 3. If you use a source that isn't your personal knowledge,, site it either in the comments section or in your argument. 4. Do your best and Enjoy! Argument: As Pro I am against rappers being considered artists and their so called music "rap" should not be considered art or music. To begin I will define rap: Slang . blame or punishment, especially for a crime. Slang . a criminal charge: a murder rap. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) So as you can see the word rap has a lot to do with crime and punishment and even murder, so why should this so called music made by "rappers" have such a word as this in there? It is also easy to see why the "rap music" has such things as gang violence, drug$, $ex, alcohol, and pretty much every curse word imagined including not so appropriate nicknames for the female gender and also the now popular and inappropriate word for dark-skinned people (I believe everyone knows what I refer too) are uttered constantly. Here is a piece of the lyrics for one of these "rap" songs: Lil Wayne's She Will I tell her now gon' pop that pu$$y for a real n!gga I already know that life is deep, but I still dig her N!ggas is jealous, but really I could care less I'm in Hell's Kitchen with an apron and a hairnet Devil on my shoulder, the Lord as my witness So on my Libra scale, I'm weighing sins and forgiveness What goes around comes around like a hula hoop Karma is a b!tch? Well just make sure that b!tch is beautiful Life on the edge, I'm dangling my feet I tried to pay attention but attention paid me Haters can't see me: nose-bleed seats And today I went shopping and talk is still cheap I rock to the beat of my drum set I been at the top for a while and I ain't jump yet But I'm Ray Charles to the bull$hit Now jump up on that d!ck and do a full split! You can see the sexual sense of this song in just the first verse. The first line and last line are extraordinarily dirty as you can see, "pop that pu$$y for a real n!gga" and "now jump on that d!ck and do a full split". Do we really want to consider this art and music for the children of our nation to freely listen to as they wish? This song is dirty and that is only the first verse as i said before. There are plenty more verses to this song that i wouldnt even consider reading or even glancing at. The teens and other kids around me in schools listen to this "music" 24/7 and they act like they are going to go join a gang as soon as they are out of high school. some of them dont even think about going to college. The generation i now live in is'nt as respectable as it should have been. todays influences are strong on these kids, and so far good influences have been lacking. Rap is a bad influence and todays kids have been raised to it. The mentioning of gang's being all that and violence being an everyday thing it is no wonder gang violence has increased dramatically. Rap could even be considered the gangs new recruiter. Here are some statistics of gang violence in 2011: 1.Approximately 772,500 people in the United States belong to gangs. This number tends to grow every year, especially in those cities that have more than 25,000 people living in them. Some statistics have shown that there was an 8% drop between 1999 and 2000 but overall gang violence continues to grow. 2.In Los Angeles 59% of all homicides are gang related. This is true of 53% of all homicides in Chicago. Last year, there were 698 gang related homicides in just these two cities alone. In 130 other cities that have a population of at least 100,000 people there were only 637 homicides.3.More than 24,500 gangs are currently active within the United States. This is a 5% decrease in the number of gangs that were in existence in 1999. However, cities who have a population of more than 25,000 people have reported a small increase in the number of gangs that are causing gang violence within their cities. 4.Forty-five percent of cities that have a population of at least 25,000 people have seen an increase in gang violence over the past two years. In cities with a population of between 50,000 and 99,999 people, there has been a 37% increase in gang violence. Those cities with a population of 100,000 people have reported a 69% increase in gang violence. 5.Approximately 47% of gang members are Hispanic, 31% are African American, 13% are white and 7% are Asian. This is one of the few statistics that seemingly remains fairly steady over the years regardless of the rise and fall in the other statistics about gang violence. (http://www.mademan.com...) So as you can see gang violence is a big problem right now, and with the amount of rappers singing about it and how its "bad@ss" its no wonder the crime rates and gang activity have increased. We need to make a stand against this supposed form of music! It will be hard but worth it!