The Instigator
AzraelVenom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WAM
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Can certain types of music be blamed for violent behavior?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
WAM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2015 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,129 times Debate No: 76734
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

AzraelVenom

Con

Does the music you listen to shape the person you become? Can certain music be blamed for violent or extreme behavior? While it cannot be denied that music incites certain emotions and can alter ones mood, I strongly disagree with those who believe music can be blamed for tragedies such as school shootings and cult sacrifices, or that it plays a part in substance abuse issues. For a person to actually take the themes and content of music literally, for them to be consumed by it, to the point that they would inflict needless violence onto others with little or no provacation, the person clearly has instability and issues of their own...preexisting issues that no band or artist can be blamed for. Yet, when Columbine occured, Marilyn Manson was villianized and held accountable, only later to have it discovered that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not even fans of his....why was society so quick to cast blame upon his shoulders? Because his shock rock style frightened them? Because of his vulgar, profane music? Other bamds and artists have also fell victim to the harsh judgements of society, such as Eminem, Ludacris, Ozzy Osbourne, and many other controversial stars. But music isn't meant to tell one what to think or to cast a strong allure on forbidden sins, music is and always has been created for an artist to express themselves and give fans something they can relate to, to help them feel understood. As an aspiring writer, I would be shocked and devastated if someone read some of my darker lyrics and decided to act upon them in such a way. Can you imagine the guilt? The inner turmoil? Listening to a certain genre of music should not define a person or result in their being criticized or shamed, just because it isn't your style. There are a vast multitide of music types for every feeling and mood, and it can save people from the desosaltion of feeling misunderstood. It validates people, and the intention is to be an outlet for all those muddled emotions building within, not to be the final push off the edge. Anyone contemplating suicide or homicide or using drugs when certain music is shown should seek help whether it be from a counselor, parent, friend, sibling, teacher or spouse. Never let things get so bad that music destroys the lives it exists to save. Music is not to be blamed.
WAM

Pro

Kind Regards for this debate, I am looking forward to it.
I will debate the Topic "Can certain types of music be blamed for violent behavior?", with an extension of the topic given by my opponent (Con) in the opening statement as to music being blamed for actions such as mass shootings.
I will represent the Pro side on this and therefore will provide evidence that music can be blamed for violent actions.

I would like to define music, as 'vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion' and furthermore would like to make the statement that music is a form of art. In fact, the word 'music' comes from the Greek 'mousike', which translates to "art of the Muses". More to this later.

Opening statement:

1.) First of all I would like to refer to the American Psychological Association (APA) and their published study involving over 500 College students. I quote from the website (http://www.apa.org...)
"In a series of five experiments involving over 500 college students, researchers from Iowa State University and the Texas Department of Human Services examined the effects of seven violent songs by seven artists and eight nonviolent songs by seven artists. The students listened to the songs and were given various psychological tasks to measure aggressive thoughts and feelings", "To control for factors not related to the content of the lyrics, the violent and nonviolent songs were sung by the same artists and were in the same musical style" and finally the conclusion found by the study, "Results of the five experiments show that violent songs led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words" and "The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat".
The lead researcher of the study, Ph.D. Craig A. Anderson of Iowa State University stated this, "Aggressive thoughts can influence perceptions of ongoing social interactions, colouring them with an aggressive tint. Such aggression-biased interpretations can, in turn, instigate a more aggressive response -verbal or physical - than would have been emitted in a non-biased state, thus provoking an aggressive escalatory spiral of antisocial exchanges".
Therefore, according to a scientific, psychological study, 'violent music', which most certainly falls under the topic under 'certain types of music' can be associated with violence, and therefore also can be blamed for violence.

2.) I would like to make the connection of certain genres of music to certain behaviour. Formerly having been a part in the Punk Music community for quite some time I know that the community itself, based on the Punk Music and the 'Punk Ideas' majorly associate with drug influence as a form of rebellion, and I know many songs that call for violence against government, especially in the form of police, as well as many songs calling for drug abuse, whether it be alcohol or illicit drugs. I also know that a grand percent of people that are 'Punks' tend to be excessive alcohol consumers and also use illicit drugs, while I also know some who commit violent acts against police, in a form of aggression that very well could be 'caused' by the music they listen to. 'Juggalos', a group created by the musicians 'ICP' have been found to commit crimes with meat cleavers, as to ICP's logo, which includes a meat cleaver. These people seem to go out of their way to pick a specific weapon to commit crime, as an result of listening to musicians that associate with meat cleavers. Thus music causing this violence, if only indirectly. On the other hand ICP does create violent and also very stupid lyrics, as well as knowing self proclaimed "Juggalos" I have to make the assumption that the average "Juggalo's" IQ cannot be more than 80.
But this is a different issue.

What I am trying to get to, and why I defined music as an art above, is that music, as con stated, is a form of expression for the author/creator. Someone who reads a book with racist views could very well be influenced by the same as to their own racist views, a book calling for violence can very well be blamed for violence caused around its motives, if the reader was influenced. I will, out of respect, refrain from using general religious books as an example. As an example I will use this book, though written by a Catholic but condemned by the Catholic Church. The book, a work of art therefore, that I am talking about is the Malleus Maleficarum (Hexenhammer/hammer of witches) written by Heinrich Kramer (https://en.wikipedia.org...). This 'work of art' caused thousands of women to be killed because of the belief that they were witches. Of course this book was only a 'form of expression', but yet caused all this violence.
Music that has violent content is very much the same. It is a form of expression and can, as any 'violent' form of art, cause violence as to its call for violence.

3.) As a last point, if I ask someone to commit an act of violence I can get convicted of conspiracy. If a murder was caused as a result of this, I will be held partly responsible. Why would musicians not be held responsible? They are expressing their opinion through music and are indirectly telling you what to do, or not? The simple difference is that their words are combined with instrumental sounds or sung. This makes no difference. If you could get away with conspiracy by simply singing, or calling it music/art, then why, first of all, its ridiculous, wouldn't people do this. There is a line, where music is not just music any more but can and does cause violence because of context. There are plenty of racist songs that call for violence against immigrants and other groups and listeners commit racial crimes motivated by the music.

Here's a list of murders committed 'because' of music:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://nypost.com...
http://www.thehindu.com...

Note that in each of the 3 cases somebody became violent as a direct result of music, and someone died as a result. Now note that in 2 out of the 3 above the killers killed because they disliked the music. What does this mean? None of these people would have been killed, was it not for music. Thus music created violent behaviour.

As conclusion I would like to state that music very easily can create violence, whether it be through influence and committed by listeners and 'fans' or whether it is created by people of different view to the expressional content of the music. The end result is the same. Further more I do personally believe that music calling for violence is nothing else than conspiracy and thus should be illegal. Music calling for substance abuse can very well cause this kind of abuse, but is partly a different issue.

Music itself is not to be blamed, it is the creator of this form of art that is to be blamed. Though their product (music) can cause violence. Thus their music being blamed. Music is a statement, an inspiration, a call and most importantly an expression. And as such, certain types of music can be blamed for violence. Actually, lets correct that. All types of music can be blamed for and can cause violence.

Kind regards for this debate, I am looking forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
AzraelVenom

Con

AzraelVenom forfeited this round.
WAM

Pro

No need for extension nor rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
AzraelVenom

Con

AzraelVenom forfeited this round.
WAM

Pro

No need for extension nor rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 3
AzraelVenom

Con

AzraelVenom forfeited this round.
WAM

Pro

No need for extension nor rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 4
AzraelVenom

Con

AzraelVenom forfeited this round.
WAM

Pro

Kind Regards Con for this debate..

As I have proven, music can be blamed for violent behaviour. As Con has not rebutted this and has forfeited every round, Pros first round still stands unchallenged.

Kind Regards to Readers and Voters, have a good day.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
AzraelVenomWAMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF