Topic space view
704 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • CON

    Siegel, 2006, pp109). ... Reference Carolyn F. Siegel,...

    Illegal art should be made accesible

    In response to your assertion that the human body is a beautiful, natural thing and that we are sexual beings you may very well be correct, however it is these same sexual beings who will jump on the computer, type in "nude children", to a search engine and use this "art" for disgusting and unnatural purposes, surely the children as subjects of such art should be protected from perversions such as this with any of the power we possess rather encouraging this lewd misuse of illegal art by legitimizing it with socially acceptable tags such as "art" or "sexual freedom", especially since we know these perverted misusers of the "art" are commonplace on the internet with it's ease of use and anonymity. Whether someone might classify this Hensen art as pornography or not, promoting it's access on the internet for EVERYONE ensures just that, you will attract everyone, you will not only get the art enthusiasts who appreciate the artistic value of the naked human form but you will get every garden variety creep who decides to legitimize his perversions as an interest in "art". The argument that, as art, it should be available for anyone would also allow access to anyone wanting to view it for reasons other than it's artistic merits. It is a perfect example of the type of art that should not be made widely available, particularly on the internet, as there is a responsibility to the children featured. A website debating the artistic merits of Hensen's photos features the quote "I've considered removing this post as it draws a lot of hits from Google for those searching for underage nude photos." http://southernpagan.com... This shows that the intentions of some people viewing the photos are undesirable. Just because something hasn't been classified as pornography, that doesn't stop it serving this purpose for some people. In response to those who might say, why should these few bad eggs ruin it for everyone, I say in the face of protecting the violation of children and their innocence and right to grow up and make this decision or consent for themselves, the minority of the corrupt is enough to warrant removing this material, the idea of publishing it or exhibiting it as you argue, would be an affront to one of the most commonly agreed on laws of the internet. One of the only laws actually agreed upon in the troubled jurisdiction battles of the internet, is the creation of the Convention on Cyber crime, with thirty country members, prohibiting child pornography. (Siegel, 2006, pp109). If thirty independent countries agree upon the protection of children, surely you cannot hope to convince anyone that it is the right thing to do to throw away any laws or regulations, children be damned, so that you can promote a free and open internet to promote cultural growth. Anyone that requires child pornography, or any obscene, offensive material to "grow" culturally, is probably headed down the wrong path anyway. Not only do you wish to uphold a loose definition of art but you also want to throw away copyright protection? http://www.illegal-art.org... This website focuses on material that has been banned not because it is offensive, but because of copyright laws. Disney is featured 3 times. It does not make sense for copyright laws that exist in reality to disappear once art makes it onto the internet. The right of citizens to be able to view what they want without censorship is overridden by the right of original creators and distributors to have ownership and control of their intellectual property. Who's to say that just because Walt Disney stole Mickey Mouse that stealing people's original works is the right thing to do. What if someone had stolen the Mickey Mouse design and made it a symbol for White Supremacy? Would this have legitimized stealing? It would have sent our popular culture in a completely different direction and you would not be singing the praises of thievery of someone else's original work, just because Walt Disney created a lovable character from stolen work does not mean his popularity absolves his crime of copyright. Popularity does not counteract theft. If copyright laws are flouted, as in the case of this illegal copyright art, we will stunt creativity in a completely different way, no one will want to create anything new for the fear that the work they may have poured their heart and soul into will be stolen in tha absence of enforceable copyright laws and profited on by someone else. If Walt Disney did in fact copyright Mickey mouse, how do you think the original artists would feel everyone time they watch the Disney Channel. To use an example outside of the internet, graffiti is illegal and is considered a form of art by many people, yet there are far fewer objections to it being removed from public view. Under the argument presented here, it should remain accessible to anyone who wants to view it. The point here is just because something is classified as art doesn't mean it is morally or ethically acceptable, nor does it mean it is victimless. Illegal art is illegal for a reason, whether that be copyright infringements or because they are highly offensive. They should not be available for anyone to view just because they want to. If it was ever possible to effectively regulate access, the definition of what constitutes "art" would have to be thoroughly defined as opposed to the free for all blanket use of the terms "art" and "freedom of expression" which you seem to think is enough to justify the misuse of children, who have no legal capacity to consent yet and by the time they do, their "art" will be forever digitized in the world of the internet, where they will just be a click away for any pedophile in the world. Reference Carolyn F. Siegel, 2006, "Internet Marketing- Foundations and Applications", 2nd edn, Chapter 5, "Legal and Ethical Issues", pg 101-132

  • CON

    Neither by the technicality of dictionary definitions nor...

    Video Games Are Art

    In the April of 2010, renowned film critic Roger Ebert released a think piece on his website entitled "Video games can never be art". This multi-piece argument emphasized that due to the financial incentives behind game development, a lack of culturally significant titles, and the conventions of video games being more similar to sports than other art forms automatically discredited video games as a considerable force in the movement of artistic expression. Reception to this article from "gamers" was understandably unenthusiastic. Only a few months later did Roger Ebert apologize for his piece, conceding that it was rash and his arguments were not well organized or thought out. Saying that he was without a clear-cut definition as to what "art" is and admitting to not playing many games to give him confidence in his claims that commerce and entertainment are emphasized more than anything of artistic value. Seven years later and with plenty of thinking on my end along with many controversies in the gaming industry either it be the Gamergate movement, or for a more recent example, the push for lootboxes in big name titles, has led me to believe that it's about time this argument is brought back from the dead. I stand by the claim that video games are NOT art. Neither by the technicality of dictionary definitions nor by the more abstract notion that art can be anything in the eye of the beholder. My arguments, which I will further explore in subsequent rounds emphasize that the elements that make video games "artistic" do not belong to the gaming medium, that gamer culture itself discourages games with artistic value, many critically acclaimed games are purely for fun, and that the financial incentive in modern games undermines artistic value with commerce (but not in the way Roger Ebert argued). To anyone who accepts this debate, this first round is open to your opening statements and arguments you wish to present in subsequent rounds. As far as pure 'argue/rebuttal' goes, that will be entirely dependent on which points you wish to address, as you do not need to find a counter argument to every claim I make and the same goes for me. And finally, I want to clarify that while I completely and unironically proclaim that the video game medium is not an art form, that does not mean that I do not see all games as devoid of artistic value. I will be bringing up games that I believe fit that bill in order to support my own arguments. That, and I wouldn't actually go out of my way to tell people to stop calling video games art. Because that would make me a jerk. I also encourage that those who will eventually be voting do so by the quality of our arguments, and not by if you agree or disagree, as I understand that my position is a pushy subject. Also, please only accept this challenge if you are willing to commit to all 5 rounds. I await a challenge!

  • PRO

    but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this......

    art is needed in todays society

    yeah. im bored. have you listened to the cd? but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this... first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this... first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art. i proposed the appreciation of it. i dont need any evidence to prove my argument. one can see it every day. the rushed, almost desperate, movements pf everyday people, the expressions in peoples' faces, etc. why is it? its because society has forgotten to simply stop for a few moments and observe - appreciate. whether it is the appreciation of nature, drawings, sculptures, the people themselves, it is all art.

  • PRO

    There are very few people who recognise when someone is...

    Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

    There are very few people who recognise when someone is abused because a lot of people take up a martial art at a young age and have quickly learnt to obey their master and mentally conditioned to accept abuse. It is possible you do not know whether your master is a deceptive bully. You seem to think the videos I have shown earlier are "normal training" otherwise you would not think I should prove every martial art instructor needs to be a deceptive bully for it to be banned for children. I have found another video, see below, to make my point clearer, it shows a martial art instructor actually kill a mentally ill man in his dojo. Notice that nobody in the room calls the police, or questions their instructors actions. WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC Do you think children should be brought up like this? Is it okay if the minority of children are mentally, physically and sexually abused? If martial art instructors bully their students (which I've shown they do), and cause people to turn a blind eye to abuse (which I've shown they do), it is therefore clear that martial art training will not help to stop bullying. In fact it makes it worse. If you read the comments of some of these videos you'll see people think they are funny. E.g. people think what they see is fake and funny on the below video but why would it be?? I have heard instructors say 'if martial arts is banned for children it would take away their right to defend their self'. However this is pure nonsense. Children don't need to learn how to break bones, boards, knock people out etc. They should be taught how to diffuse situations, when to call the police etc. Martial art instructors want kids to live in fear increasing violence so they make more profit. At one time it was necessary to train young people to be assassins, but now shoppers put their lives in danger to stop robbers. Criminals won't think 'a shopper might know karate and stop me, I won't carry out an armed robbery today'. They will think they can get whatever they want with a gun. Kids don't need to learn martial arts to stop bullies, if enough kids knew right from wrong and stepped in to stop a bully or tell a teacher the bullying will end. Isacc Ehrilich may be a distinguished professor but I don't believe he knows that children can scream.