Brewing is an art form
There is no set structure. Just either start debating my points made in round one, or point out, without refuting my points, why brewing is not art. I will respond respectfully.
This is also my 100th debate. I am happy to reach this milestone in less than a year.
Brewing beer is a form of art. It is done by people doing very unique things when brewing. Although there are macro, factory brewed beers like Bud, Miller, and Coors, there are craft beer brewers who go through everything a painter or musician goes through: an idea goes through their head for something new; then they start with a base (painters use a canvas and paint, musicians use music sheets and instruments, brewers use water, starch, hops and yeast); they start adding what they need to make it unique; then they add the finishing touches, and then release their pieces of art to the public.
Congratulations on your 100th debate.
I'm willing to make it worthwhile!
Brewing is not an art.
"art noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
A visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian purposes at the other. This should by no means be taken as a rigid scheme, however, particularly in cultures in which everyday objects are painstakingly constructed and imbued with meaning. Particularly in the 20th century, debates arose over the definition of art. Figures such as Dada artist Marcel Duchamp implied that it is enough for an artist to deem something “art” and put it in a publicly accepted venue. Such intellectual experimentation continued throughout the 20th century in movements such as conceptual art and Minimalism. By the turn of the 21st century, a variety of new media (e.g., video art) further challenged traditional definitions of art." 
1. Art is hard to define, but one essential part of it can be found in the attempt at a definition above: the intent to create art.
Art cannot be created accidentally, and not as a by-product.
Beer is produced in order to intoxicate people and make money. Not as an expression of art or emotion. Skill is required, yes. Care is required, for else the product will not sell. Some brewers love their job and activity. But none of that creates art.
2. Art is not detrimental to society
Brewing creates alcohol. Alcohol is a neurotoxin that "increases the fluidity of the neuronal membrane by changing the ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats in favour of the latter; in addition, the concentration of cholesterol is increased. These changes in lipid composition appear to be associated with the development of behavioural tolerance to the drug. The resultant change in membrane structure affects transport processes across the cell surface involving calcium and other electrolytes and the active transport of neurotransmitters such as the biogenic amines and GABA; there is evidence that neurotransmitter receptor function is also impaired as a consequence of the alteration in the membrane micro-environment brought about by chronic ethanol exposure. Such effects suggest that alterations in cellular function, and ultimately behaviour, are primarily the result of the changes in nerve membrane structure and function." 
People under the influence of beer are more likely to be involved in traffic accidents, violence and other socially detrimental activities. I say that any activity producing beer can not be called an art form because of the ill effects of its mass product poison threatening the well-being of our society.
Art furthers society: "Try to imagine society without the humanising influence of the arts, and you will have to strip out most of what is pleasurable in life, as well as much that is educationally critical and socially essential." 
3. Brewing is not the expression of an individual's qualities
Through art, the artist expresses themselves. The process of brewing allows for little freedom of expression, as taking a lot of creative freedom will simply result in the beer to not marketable. If brewing were a form of art, there would be "young wilds" who would brew beer that would be impossible to drink, just to spite all those drunkards who dare swallow the precious beverage by the gallon without ever acknowledging its qualities, but rather for its alcohol content and cheap price.
That does not happen. All beer is modelled to appeal to as many buyers as possible, leaving the brewer mainly out of the picture once the recipe is set.
So the brewer has no qualities of an artist, hence brewing is not a form of art. If it were, everything that takes care would be an art, and this debate would be pointless.
I'm looking forward to your reply.
) While the BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) brewers may produce beer for money for intoxicating beverages, craft brewers do not. According to the Craft Brewers Association, up until last year, the maximum number of barrels allowed to be produced in order to be called a craft brewery is 2 million barrels. After Samuel Adams produced over that 2 million barrels, the number was pushed to 6 million barrels. However, this is still well under the amount of barrels produced by BMC's. Many brewers take a couple years before they make a small profit, and many more years before they can pay themselves. And you know what? They don't care to pay themselves all the time (I am a home brewer looking to give my art to the public, and I'll do it without the idea behind making a huge profit). Alcohol is a by-product of the art, the 'art' is not the by-product itself. Many brewers have the intent to create art. It is their craft. CRAFT. Arts and Crafts usually go hand in hand.
2) Again, the alcohol is a by-product of the art. Just like graphic designers, authors, and painters have pieces that are taken in such a way that can be deterimental to society. People interpret them wrong and do some pretty crazy stuff. Well, at least they claim it does, just like people claim alcohol had full control over their decisions. Think Catcher in the Rye, John Lennon, and Mark David Chapman. Also, when people are drinking craft beer, they are usually drinking one kind, or are having a sampler platter that has a small amount of a handful of beers. And I have yet to see craft beer fans be violent, however I have seen bar goers do just that, but that is with the intent of being intoxicated. Just like wine offcianatos drink wine for it's taste, not the quanity of alcohol, craft beer fans are there for the look, smell, taste, and mouthfeel (the way it feels in the mouth).
This art of brewing beer has definitely furthered society. When it was first invented, the water was undrinkable due to it's filth. No, they did not need to make beer, but they had something to replace what was simply deadly water.
This art of beer further society in SUCH a big way. We know that the pilgrims stopped at Plymouth Rock, right? Well, do you know why they did? They ran out of beer. ( http://www.straightdope.com...), (http://www.fermentarium.com...)
The pilgrims ran out of provisions, beer being one of them, because it replaced water for them.
3) This could not be further from the truth. Brewing allows for a wide variety of expression. Many, MANY spices and seasonings can be added, as well as fruit flavors. And craft brewed beer is not cheap. While a 12 case of Budwiser may cost $6.00, a handcrafted brewed 12 ounce bottle of beer can cost between $3.00 and $9.00. Almost $30 for a alcohol barrel aged beer in a 22 ounce bottle. A craft beer lover will take in to account all sorts of qualities. In fact, look at ratebeer.com or beeradvocate.com, they give criteria in which one should rate their beer, such as, and I listed before, apperence, aroma, taste, and mouthfeel. The brewer out of the picture? Wrong. Boston Brewing Company's Founder Jim Koch is very in the picture of his brewery. In fact, if you take a tour of his brewery, you will see him working with in the brewery, not just an office either. This goes for many other breweries. The brewer has many qualities of artists and craft beer has qualities of arts. Even though the mainstream idea of beer is fuzzy yellow water BMC that is designed to be cheap and get you intoxicated, there is a whole different group of brewers. They just happen to be smaller than the mainstream, giving them the name "microbrews or microbreweries". They have ideas, they put them to work, they present the art to an audience, and the audience takes in the art and assesses it's qualities, the same way art critics and music critics assess the products of artists and musicians.
So, what you are now saying is that there is "craft brewing" - which you consider art - while you fully admit that there is commercial brewing, which is not.
I'm sorry, but that is a full concession of this debate.
You resolution says "Brewing is an art form". You admit that brewing exists which is not an art form: "While the BMC (Bud, Miller, Coors) brewers may produce beer for money for intoxicating beverages, craft brewers do not."
You even admit that "craft brewing" only account for a fraction of the market, making it the exception to the rule: "According to the Craft Brewers Association, up until last year, the maximum number of barrels allowed to be produced in order to be called a craft brewery is 2 million barrels. After Samuel Adams produced over that 2 million barrels, the number was pushed to 6 million barrels. However, this is still well under the amount of barrels produced by BMC's."
So, there is a tiny fraction of beer being produced for non-profit reasons. While beer - on the broad perspective - is not brewed for any other than market reasons, without artistic intent.
This clearly must lead to the conclusion that the "art" lies not with the BREWING, but a few, singled-out brewers, who try to turn brewing into a form of art, but so far have not in the least achieved that goal.
You may want to counter that any form of art can be abused to create marketable products, like you might consider "writing" a form of art, while instruction booklets, political pamphlets and the like are not art. But there are many, many non-profit works of writing out there, especially since the possibility of self-publishing via Internet (commonly called "blogging") has become a mass phenomenon.
But in the case of brewing, it's the other way 'round: a few select people brew for fun and claim it to be art because they don't make a profit, if I take you correctly? That alone does not make an art form. Because if that were all it needed, as I pointed out above already, ANYTHING would be a form of art, the whole debate would become trivial and pointless.
For EVERY activity on this world, there will be a small minority not willing to make money from it, professing to want to improve the quality of their craft, raise interest or just do their best as opposed to commercial competitors. So, is everything art?
Apparently, you don't believe so, because otherwise you would not have instigated this debate in the first place. This makes it clear that you already conceded this debate.
For you further points: I would not even need to counter those now anymore, but I will address each shortly:
Calling alcohol the by-product of intentional fermentation is downright silly. Beer is brewed in order to achieve alcohol. It's the very idea of fermentation. Why brew beer in the first place if the alcohol was just a by-product? Why then DRINK the stuff? Alcohol is poison, as shown above. I refuse to take this part seriously until you back it up with any source on the origins of your alleged art. For all I know, beer was discovered in Africa accidentally, when grain got infested with yeast. People didn't know that a poison had been created within and drank the stuff, becoming intoxicated. I read this in a book on the culture of the Dogon of Mali once, but this is a part I can't back up. I don't have to, anyway, because this debate is over, as stated above.
Not every product of art is drunk or eaten after completion. Who eats a painting? Nobody. And you know why? It's poisonous, with lead colours and other components. If brewing was an art and alcohol a mere by-product, people would not drink beer. They would store it like old wine, never to open the bottles.
Craft does not equal art. If every craft produced art, we'd be right back at the triviality of this debate.
I agree that all real forms of art CAN be used in ways detrimental to society. Alcohol, however, can quite contrarily not be used for any purposes beneficial to society. That is why alcohol is forbidden in many contexts. This proves that producing a drink containing alcohol cannot be form of art.
I am unfamiliar with the term "offcianatos". Are these people who drink wine in the office?
Art beer fans are obviously not there for the look of beer, since it bears great likeness to fresh urine.
On beer and water: "The pilgrims got the heave ho from the Mayflower because they were out of time, not out of beer." http://www.fermentarium.com...
So says your own source.
And just to make that clear: you say brewing was a life-saver, right? Then it wasn't ART, because now, brewing is lacking the artistic intent again. The intent was to make a drinkable beverage. Clearly not art, but purely practical.
Adding a particular flavour is then all the artistic freedom allowed, see? It's like claiming that sweeping the floor is a form of art because there are so many brooms to choose from. Again, if that makes art, then this is a trivial debate: everything is art.
Compare your beer prices to wines and you'll see how cheep it is.
Let's take a look on an auction site:
Top price: close to 2 million
Beer: Oh, none to be found! In other words: not worth auctioning.
The brewer is totally out of the picture: he does the same movements every day. The craft is in the foreground. Does Jim Koch have the freedom to do something different because he's in the mood? Can he do something crazy, like a painter? No! He has to adhere to the recipe as precisely as possible. He can't go crazy like some real artist would eventually do, as I described above.
I do not deny brewing having select qualities of arts. I deny brewing the status of a full-fledged art, which is the topic here I have a head, which is a quality of a dog. Does that make me a dog? Of course not!
I do not care for idealistic splinter groups of guerrilla art brewers. This debate is about the act of brewing, which you claim to be a form of art of its OWN right. Which you already admitted it's not.
With the introduction of the new definition "microbreweries" you have just admitted this again. There's brewing - which has qualities in common with an art - and there's "microbrewing" - to which I would willingly admit as a form of art. But not brewing as a whole, as you so boldly claimed.
I took this debate because of your anniversary, hoping for a good fight. You still have time to turn this around. Make it count!
Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments.
What a pity. I DO hope all is well?
Wish it had turned out differently.
Oh, and I extend all arguments.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|