The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is Britney Spears the best artist of all time?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2015 Category: Music
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 79351
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




Yes, Britney Spears is the best artist of all time. Her Baby One More Time Album is the best selling album of all time for a teenager. She has sold over 100 million records world wide. She is the best selling artist of the past fifteen years. She was in the Guiness world records for being the only female artist in history to have her first four albums all debut at number one on the Hot 200 on Billboard. She is the most followed person on the internet since it was created. she is the only artist in history to have 7/8 of her first eight albums debut at number one. The one that did not debut at number one debuted at number two. Her ninth album was her lowest debuting album ever... and it still debuted at number four!

She has been credited as having some of the best performances of all time, and has been a controversial entertainer for years. She is in the ranks of Mariah Carey and even The Beatles as far as sales are concerned. She is the youngest celebrity in the history of Vegas to have a Las Vegas residency. Her Baby One More Time and Oops! I did it agan Albums both are in the top 40 best selling albums of all time. Baby One More Time is in the top 20 of best selling Albums of all time. Not even a Madonna Album is in the top 20 of that particular list. She has won multiple awards, is worth nearly 300 million dollars, and is constantly respected and looked up to as the Queen of Pop by today's younger and emerging stars such as Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, Kesha, Selena Gomez, Kelly Clarkson, Iggy Azalea, Taylor Swift,etc. Britney Spears has received the Michael Jackson Van God award at the VMA's cementing her position as the Queen of Pop. The industry continues to put her on a pedestal well above the other competitors in Hollywood, and she is showing no signs of disappearing from the lime light.



While it is true Britney Spears is a great singer, is she a great artist? First, let's define what an artist is.
"Artist: : a person who creates art : a person who is skilled at drawing, painting, etc." [1]. In other words, Britney Spears must be skillled in the art of painting, so skilled she must be regarded as one of the standards of modern day art. None of these qualifications Britney Spear meets. Thus, allow me to propose another person: Leonardo da Vinci. He is world-famous for his influential Mona Lisa, whose work has stood the test of time. His work as an archetict has been described as predicting the rise of their real-world counterparts (eg. the helicopter). In other words, while Britney Spears might be a pretty influential person as pop stars go, Leonardo da Vinci is a god when it comes to actual role models (although not the God). Thus, the Burden of Proof: The pro must prove that Britney Spears is a) an artist per my interpreation, b) Britney Spears has made paintings/drawings which surpass that of Leonardo da Vinci's.

Debate Round No. 1


really, it is 2015 and you want to take the technical argument on what an artist is? Based on your debate, we haven't had an artist in over a hundred years. At the grammys the have an award called "Best New Artist" That Britney was nominated for in 1999. Music is an art, ask anyone who loves music if it is an art. I don't even have to try on this argument, because you lost already. You trying to say artist is limited to painter? Really? Wow! Britney spears is an artist, anyone who performs and sings and writes music is an artists. Thank you, but you pulling the technical card is a cop out. You already know I'm right


I will refute the pro's arguments in 2 fronts: through my interpretation of "artist", and the pro's interpretation of "artist"
My Interpretation
The pro makes a substantial amount of unproven arguments. First, he claims we "havent had an artist in over a hundred years". but this is clearly not true; if that were the case, we wouldn't have Soho, Manhattan around. In fact, here's a link to Soho and their paintings.

Second, the pro cites all these statistics for Britney Spears, but he hasn't put out a single source for those citations. He hasn't even given a proper source as to what an "artist" is, whereas I have given the definition from a credible and useful source, Merriam Webster. Thus, my interpretation should outweigh. Given that, the pro has not met his burden of proof, proving that Britney Spears is an artist per my interpretation and is superior to Da Vini, thus I win on that. Moreover, my interpretation should outweigh, since it's the one that is used the most throughout all of history. I don't need sources to show this is true.

Lastly, the pro tells me I will lose since I have pulled out the techinical card, but this is wrong in a few reasons.
  1. Using definitions is valid in debate. I don't know if the pro is actually in debate, but I am. I debate in what's called policy debate, and definitions make up a special argument called Topicality, which is used against untopical affs, untopical to a given resolution throughout the year.[1]
  2. Bashing another debater by teling the other debater he has already lost is contrary to the entire notion of debate. Debate is supposed to be fair and formal, with each debater civilly debating a topic. Supporting the pro would mean supporting people screaming at the other debater "YOU SUCK AT LIFE! GET THE F**K OFF THIS DEBATE, I HAVE WON ALREADY YOU F****R!" For obvious reasons, this kills debate. Thus, I should win on that alone. Even if that won't happen, I should still at least get the point for conduct, since I haven't told him he's a bad debater, and I have acted civilly so far.

Although to be fair, I haven't really used citations, primarily because I've been relying on analytics... UNTIL NOW!

Should the voters not accept my interpretation (which is valid, and outweighs), allow me to present another "artist" as used by the pro's interpretation: Ludwig Van Beethoven. Luwig Van Beethoven was a composer of the classical era, and is quite frankly regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time. His work has influenced other composers, and continuses to do so onto this day.[2] True, Ludwig Van Beethoven didn't get an Emmy, but that's primarily because there were no Emmys in Beethoven's time, thus the Emmys-- or any award for that matter-- cannot be used as a valid calculation of who is the better artist.

Moreover, like da Vinci, Beethoven's work has stood the test of time. Allow me to present you Beethoven's 9th Symphony, otherwise known as Ode to Joy. Having been made in 1824, it is very well-known after more than 100 years, and was adopted by the Council of Europe and the European Union. [3] True, Britney Spears might have more sold copies of albums (which is already not compatible since albums didn't exist in Beethoven's day), but-- quite frankly-- money is insignificant next to the power of time. "Sure, you might have more fame and fortune, but my symphonies will last centuries and will be listened by people of all generations and time periods."

Lastly, the pro might bring up the claim that Beethoven isn't popular because we don't hear his name. That's just bull****, I'm sorry, but that is. It's just unpopular among us millenials. Yeah, so we share this world with a group of people called older people, who were raised on Beethoven and fellow composers, and those people make up far more poeple than millenials. Not only is Beethoven's music legendary in a whole other world than Spear's work, it's more popular.

Thus, the ultimate Burden of Proof: the pro must
  1. Prove the pro's interp of "artist outweighs"
  2. Prove Spears is better than Beethoven AND da Vinci combined, who are-- as I stated-- two of the most influential and greatest people in their works.

I won't say the pro has lost, but to the pro I say: buena suerte.


Debate Round No. 2


the debate title was brtiney spears is the best artist of all time. You refused to argue that point and went on a tangent about what the word artist really means and chose to argue that she isn't an artist at all. You formed your own debate, your own side topic that had nothing to do with my topic. You should have debated "is an artist just for painters or is music art too?" That was not the tile of this debate. This was solely about Britney Spears and rather she is the best artist in her respective ART catagory. It's people like you who get technical about words used instead of focusing on the substance of the topic that make me sick.

You lost because you NEVER even argued the point, you just argued about the definition of ARTIST! I think everyone would argue that music is a form of art.
" NYU Department of Music offers studies in historical musicology, ethnomusicology, and composition and theory at both the undergraduate

In this article below, read the first paragraph atleast. Music is an art, end of story.Page 544 of Is Music an Art? and graduate levels. With its leading research faculty, the Department grants degrees of Bachelor of Arts"


I concede that a musician can be an artist, fine. But even if Da Vinci is excised out of the debate, there' still one more person: BEETHOVEN. The pro has DROPPED the entirety of Beethoven, thus he concedes Beethoven has made superior manuscripts since Beethoven's works have weathered the test of time, and they are internationally looked up to. Moreover, Beethoven also still applies since he is an artist, somthing the pro has not contested. Spear's work is listened to, but that's about it. Even if I didn't say Spear's work was bad, I said someone else's work was BETTER, which is STILL APPLICABLE. I still win the debate because Beethoven ultimately outweighs Spears.

A majority of the pro's argument in the last speech has focused on the definitions debate. Even if definitions make the pro sick, the definitions debate is still really important, and is just as valuable for the pro. Remember in my second speech, where I mentioned Topicality from Policy Debate? That's a thing-- the pro could have ran that against me if I decided to a kritik of all singers (which I did not), since it was not topical to the given resolution. More importantly, the presence of Topicality has implications in real world debate. It serves a safety net from people running literally anything they wanted, and it keeps debate in place, since people won't quit as they know they can be prepared, given they know what will come up.

The last thing the pro claims is that I lost since I focused on the definitions debate. That is blatantly false. If you look at my second speech, you will clearly see my running the Beethoven argument, which I stress, he dropped. Even if his interp outweighs, fine! I already conceded that musicians are artists, cool.

Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
First, it wasn't your argument, it was another person's argument. Second, that argument wasn't in the debate. Third, you don't know what a hypocrite is.

"Now if you don't mind, I'd like to stop listening to you."--Sheldon 2k15
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
it's funny how you call me shameful for extending the debate to the comment section yet that is exactly what you did when you commented a response argument here in the comments. Hypocrite!
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
It's shameful how you must extend your arguments to the comments. That enough would warrent a voter issue in other debates.

Second, where is your source? I don't see a link to any other websites, so I take your definitions with a grain of salt.

Third, I know what etc. means. It's "et cetra". Stop trash-talking and start debating
Posted by frankabe 2 years ago
Spears has a sexy body and California look, but that's as far as it goes for me. It would be fun to shoot your load on her meaty thighs or even make out with her, but watching her do something like sing would be torture.
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
finally, do you even know what ETC... means??? lol
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
a person who entertains an audience.

pretty sure an ARTIST also entertains an audience! so let's get technical or real? Which is it?
Posted by scaleofpeace 2 years ago
a person who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker.

This was the second definitinon.
and the example sentence was: "A surgeon who is an ARTIST with a scalpel."

According to the dictionary, a surgeon is an artist. So NOT JUST A PAINTER! That is just the FIRST Definition. BUT THERE IS THREE DEFINITIONS AND THE EXAMPLE SENTENCE REFERS TO A SURGEON AS AN ARTIST....

Posted by asi14 2 years ago
I did, and I put the citation. Look before you attack.
Posted by allieo66 2 years ago
Artist does not mean you have to paint or draw...that would mean no musicians are artists. Maybe actually look up the word instead of randomly creating a definition.
Posted by TubOLard 2 years ago
Popular does not necessarily translate to quality. The people you mention are manufactured personalities who "sing." Putting these people in the same category as the Beatles is an abomination, criticism of the Beatles notwithstanding. The people you list don't even have the talent to play the comb.
No votes have been placed for this debate.