The Instigator
DreamSymphony00
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jacob_Thomas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Everyone should explore music in foreign languages.

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...
DreamSymphony00
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 52886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DreamSymphony00

Pro

Why not? You can often learn a lot about a culture through its music.
Jacob_Thomas

Con

I accept and await Pro's arguments in affirmation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
DreamSymphony00

Pro

There is no reason why people can't be introduced to different cultures through their music.
Jacob_Thomas

Con

I'd like to begin by negating the resolution. We have to realize that the resolution is not arguing that it can be beneficial to explore music in foreign languages, nor even that some people should explore music in foreign languages, but rather, that everyone should explore music in foreign languages. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, should is "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency ." Therefore, when the resolution states that everyone should explore music in foreign languages, it is not stating that it would be good, or even beneficial to explore music in foreign languages, but rather, that it would be a failure in our obligation, indecorous, even immoral to not study music in foreign languages. Yet that immediately puts at a disadvantage those who are born in locations where they have no ability to explore music in foreign languages. Some have no access to anything foreign in the first place! Are these people immoral, indecorous, or in any way failing in their obligation, simply because the situation in which they were born? This seems rather unjust.

However, the fundamental problem with Pro's arguments is that they do not support the resolution. Pro says first, "Why not? You can often learn a lot about a culture through its music." But this doesn't show why everyone should explore music in foreign languages. All that it demonstrates is that those interested in learning about a foreign culture can experience that learning through studying the music of that culture. The sum of Pro's position is summed up in Pro's last post: "There is no reason why people can't be introduced to different cultures through their music." But this doesn't even claim, let alone demonstrate conclusively, that everyone should explore music in foreign languages. Rather, it makes an unsupported claim that there is no reason why people shouldn't.

Thus, we see that the resolution in and of itself should be negated. In addition, we see that Pro has offered us no reasoning whatsoever to affirm this resolution. Thus, you ought to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
DreamSymphony00

Pro

The argument is in indeed stating that everyone should explore music in foreign languages because they are beneficial. The two aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

I'd like to direct you to view these articles written that explain in great length how foreign music exploration improves vocabulary, retention, and recollection skills. It even aids in the challenge of learning foreign languages fluently. Those are significant benefits, are they not?

http://www.upi.com...

www.cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/TLC/article/download/.../123R06;
Jacob_Thomas

Con

As we close out this debate, I'd like to present two main reasons to vote con. First, the resolution is inherently unjust. As I pointed out in my last post, the statement that everyone should explore music in foreign languages means that all those who do not learn language in a foreign language are immoral, indecorous, or else failing in their obligation (which makes them immoral or indecorous). Yet this burden is an unjust burden to insert on everyone considering that many do not have access to music in foreign languages.

Secondly, Pro has not demonstrated that anyone, let alone everyone, has an obligation to learn music in foreign languages. Though it might be beneficial, it is not obligatory as the word "should" implies. In Pro's last point, Pro made the claim that the ideas of beneficial and obligatory are not mutually exclusive, but this does not demonstrate that one entails the other. Thus, Pro has failed to uphold Pro's burden of proof. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
I do not entirely understand what con is trying to do. How is the resolution "unjust"?

"Therefore, when the resolution states that everyone should explore music in foreign languages, it is not stating that it would be good, or even beneficial to explore music in foreign languages,"

The resolution isn't suppose to make an argument as you are implying. That is what the debate arguments are for. Do you not know what a debate is? This argument is not helping your position and is only showing your lack of understanding.

"...but rather, that it would be a failure in our obligation, indecorous, even immoral to not study music in foreign languages."

Where did you get this from? You are just taking a simple resolution statement to an inexplicable extreme. There is no reasonable explanation for your argument here.

"...the statement that everyone should explore music in foreign languages means that all those who do not learn language in a foreign language are immoral, indecorous, or else failing in their obligation..."

This is a completely unreasonable argument and shouldn't be given any attention from voters. This makes no practical sense.

"Secondly, Pro has not demonstrated that anyone, let alone everyone, has an obligation to learn music in foreign languages. Though it might be beneficial, it is not obligatory as the word "should" implies."

She was not making that argument to begin with. You also misunderstand the word "should". The definition you used from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary for "should" is, "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency." emphasis on "or" meaning it can mean any one of those words. In common English the word "should", as it obviously applies to this resolution, would mean "expediency". According to Dictionary.com "expediency" means, "a regard for what is politic or advantageous rather than for what is right or just; a sense of self-interest." That clearly describes what the resolution means.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
DreamSymphony00Jacob_ThomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I enjoy listening to foreign music, especially Japanese and Korean. Con completely and inexplicably mistook the resolution and the purpose of the debate. Con's argument makes no practical sense.