args

Art rules.

Art is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so is awesome and you should think so.

Video Games Are An Art Form

First of all I would like to thank the contender for joining in this debate. Now I think in order to properly analyze and argue what you have argued we must define art. Webster's defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " You make the contention that because video games are made of virtual images and pixels mean that it is not of artistic merit. I must say that whatever form art is made of does not dictate whether it is art or not. Would you discredit any film that uses computer generated imagery because it is not physically there? I'm sure if you spoke to anybody who programs for video games and created these "virtual images" you speak of you would know how hard work and artistry are required. You say that in your opinion "killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art." First of all not all video games feature blood and killing, in fact some of the most aesthetically beautiful games (Flower, Journey, Braid) feature no killing at all, and even so if games such as BioShock or The Walking Dead feature killing and blood, so what? Schindler's List features violence and ruthless killing, does that make that film inartistic? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or any painting that depicts violence? You also seem to say that animation creates the storyline in games and the gameplay itself is simply killing and inartistic nonsense, also I must say that games such as BioShock feature in-game storytelling by way of audio diaries recorded by people telling of the fall of a great city by way of the interior politics (the game itself is an indictment of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy), and in Journey you yourself participate in all of the aesthetic beauty in the game, and even if in some games the story is told by cut-scenes and the gameplay itself doesn't carry much in storytelling I must again say this, so what? Cut-scenes are just as important to video games as gameplay, they give video games a way to tell the story in a way the uses angles and allows the creators of the game to create their artistic vision in the video game. If I have misinterpreted anything or left anything out please rebut.

Bioshock is a work of art

I am thoroughly disappointed by my opponent's response. In Round 1, I explicitly asked that my opponent not use semantics or other forms of silliness. I think completely ignoring my case, and claiming video games are architecture, is such a form of playing with semantics or other silliness. I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater who explicitly ignores the terms of this debate, so I will briefly explain what is wrong with Con's arguments, and leave it at that. The claim that Bioshock is architecture is a non-starter: 1) There is nothing that prevents architecture from being art, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. Many works of architecture, for example the works of Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi, are considered art. 2) A central part of the game is its interactive fiction, which is further thematizes in the tension between freedom and control. As players realize that they have no control over their character, and that they have been under the illusion of free rational choice, when really, what they have been witnessing is the unfolding of a narrative that is independent of the player's choices, shows that the game is not solely architectural. Video games combine the mediums of many different I really don't feel like wasting my time with a debater who explicitly ignores the terms of this debate, so I will briefly explain what is wrong with Con's arguments, and leave it at that. The claim that Bioshock is architecture is a non-starter: 1) There is nothing that prevents architecture from being art, and my opponent has not shown otherwise. Many works of architecture, for example the works of Catalan architect Antoni Gaudi, are considered art. 2) A central part of the game is its interactive fiction, which is further thematizes in the tension between freedom and control. As players realize that they have no control over their character, and that they have been under the illusion of free rational choice, when really, what they have been witnessing is the unfolding of a narrative that is independent of the player's choices, shows that the game is not solely architectural. Video games combine the mediums of many different art forms, including music, narrative, text, words, images, sounds, cinematography, etc. In closing, it is clear that Con has not show that architecture cannot be art, and Con has also not shown that Bioshock is exclusively architectural, as the game also uses elements from many other artforms.

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse. Students enter a submissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to. Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused! https://www.youtube.com......... Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. https://www.youtube.com......... I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill. https://www.youtube.com......... Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports. Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility and will be more willing to allow others to abuse them just to get the next colour belt, see video below https://www.youtube.com...... Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them [1] and clean their car like in the film - 'the karate kid' Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burglar enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art. I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response sources: [1] http://patch.com.........

Illegal art should be made accesible

My opponent claims that a person's right to view material should be quashed. Decide to view obscene and offensive material, and you will find yourself a pedophile. I have argued consistently that this is utterly false and a flawed argument. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous period where we made a cold calculated deliberate choice to establish a lack of respect for children in art, available in an online museum. Not to say that some people may do this however those abusing children in this way have their own means of acquisition and dissemination and are not dependant upon a museum for their searches. I call on a point of order. Your argument that the proposition would encourage lewd misuse of illegal art is not entirely true. There is much research to say that it is not only nude images that encourage pedophiles. Many are encouraged by relationship and other aspects. Clearly you assume that art work will give access to material for pedophiles again not true, as seen on the above film clip this material is already accessible. I am calling for a museum, a place where history is recorded, meaning is debated and formed. Importantly Bill Henson 15 years ago produced a series of teenage nudes sprawled across car bonnets. Not titillating, more akin to a nightmarish car wreck. Some of this series of nudes are on show at the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery, where they have barely raised an eyebrow, let alone a scandal. Yet the recent teenage nude photographs caused such a scandal, only when Kevin Rudd commented publicly about his dislike about the photographs, was police action taken. His response was deeply felt and genuine, but emotional and aimed at maintaining political image. How is it ok with the public, police and Kevin Rudd that there have been nude teenage art works by Bill Henson displaced in Newcastle for 15 years, but the current photographs are so despised? He's forgotten what the role of art is in a democracy. Accessibility should be made available to the public. To ban anything in art can be both politically and socially dangerous. Any supposed moral or social offense surrounding the work is entirely in the eye of the beholder. A blanket response of 'disgust' in the face of nudity, child or adult, reflects more upon the viewer than on the work of art itself. That is, some people will find it objectionable where others won't. The whole purpose of digitisation on the internet is so users can have access to whatever their heart's desire, including exhibitions they have missed out on seeing physically because it was deemed as illegal, obscene or offensive art. This should not be allowed to stop people making up their own minds for themselves and seeing the work or prevent accessibility on the internet. In today's society, culture is very much controlled as you mentioned. Google is a great example. Our accessibility to any culture is so difficult, because of the copyright laws. It is understandable how some people would get offended by "illegal" art and would not want to view it physically in an art gallery. However the people that do see beauty in it should have the right to view it through the digitisation on the internet in their privacy. I thank my opponent once again for accepting this debate, and appreciate their insight. References For a full list of references see delicious.com dedicated tag jtc107

Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting. Martial Art instructors are deceptive bullies who tell students they are learning how to fight, take hits, condition their body etc when really all they are learning is to accept abuse. Students enter a submissive relationship from day one when they call a stranger their master who they must obey and bow to. Feel free to click the link below to watch evidence showing that children (and adults) are abused by their martial art instructors. They get away with this because nobody seems to recognise when someone is abused! https://www.youtube.com...... Just in case you don't think students are abused, check out the video below. https://www.youtube.com...... I could provide a much larger list. Here is another piece of evidence of abuse, if you lie to a black belt what happens is you get treated cruelly, that guy at the end of video probably thinks this is okay like many who started martial arts at a young age. The instructors excuse for posting this video is: 'what if he wants to open a gym and teach martial arts?' Let me make this clear, there is no good reason to abuse someone! He didn't even ask for the guy's permission to film him, and the guy was probably mentally ill. https://www.youtube.com...... Children need exercise however there are far better alternatives than martial arts e.g. boxing which does teach people to control their aggression and prevent violence, unlike martial arts which encourages fighting. I can imagine children being hurt while "playing" i.e. trying to do perform the taught techniques (or their own made up ones) during school lunch. They may even pick fights to gain some practice needed to win a stupid competition, or take out their frustration on others after not recieving a coloured belt. I have heard instructors say that kids will always pick up sticks, and fight, this is a BS excuse to feel what they do is right. There are plenty of other things children enjoy doing like play football and tennis, these should be encouraged, not violent sports. Martial art instructors train children to have the skill to break bones, knock people outand cause serious injury etc which a typical schoolyard bully would not be able to do even if he loved watching kungfu movies. It's very easy to think the kids who learn a martial art are all trained to be respectful good guys, but the reality is they are too young to take such responsibility and will be more willing to allow others to abuse them just to get the next colour belt, see video below Also, martial art instructors can easily persuade their young students to visit them for private lessons and then sexually abuse them [1] and clean their car like in the film - 'the karate kid' Martial arts can make a child overly confident, and put their life in greater danger e.g. if a burglar enters their house or someone wants to rape them they may stay and fight rather than run and phone the police. It is always safer to avoid confrontations in every situation, bullying at school is best prevented by telling the teacher who can talk to the bullies parents. I don't think children will follow sensible advice though if they are learning a martial art. I have provided quite a lot of reasons why children should not be taught a martial art. I look forward to your response sources: [1] http://patch.com......

Loving is an art

Pro- Contention 1: The Justification of love- -First those with Savant Syndrome are not the norm, and thus the standard cannot be based on these people. Second those with Savant Syndrome are skilled with an activity art (painting, sculpting, acting). Not something that envelopes a personality aspect. With live there must always be skill and practice in place, because even if to the smallest amount; all people both need and are given love in order to survive to grow to be old enough to love in the first place. - Maintaining love through a difficulty My opponent has not refuted my prior argument, but has simply extended their own argument through. Accordingly this argument is a drop. Contention 2: The Artisan continues the art- My opponent claims that egotistical self-love still counts as mature love, however as a direct quote from round 1, "If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love..." It is not love, and my opponent's arguments are nothing but semantic attacks. Con- Contention 1- - My opponent offers no warrant for this point. The mother may be raising her child simply to avoid the social implications of giving it up for adoption, or because she loves her husband. otherwise the love for the child is inherent, and again not bound to the burden of the round. Contention 2- - My opponent is missing the point of my argument, and has utterly dropped her own point here. - Love doesn't have to be reciprocal to fall into the boundary of mature love.