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

Is art more important than science in the world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Silver556 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 93597
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




To me as far as I am concerned, art is not that important or needed in this world compared to science. Art is something that is needed for human entertainment. while science is needed to make the world a better place for others. We need people in the world that can help mankind, not people who can entertain others cause in the end it does not help the world in any way. Why do you think that there are fewer opportunities for people who are good at art compared to science? There are many jobs such as engineering, medical, financial fields tat these people can take but however artistic people have very limited jobs and salary pays unless the person is really very very good at his particular job. But however, jobs related to science are easier to get as they are very factual and require pure logic and a bit of reasoning perhaps. But nevertheless, they earn better salaries and need not be as good at their job in order to earn a high salary.


I think that art indeed helps the science world.

Many of the advancements science has made relies on art. The cavemen that lived in prehistoric time used art for communication, and that's how their existence was confirmed. Hieroglyphics also use drawings, and that's how science was able to confirm their existence as well. Even the Hubble telescope captures astounding pictures in space, which many would consider pictures art.

Art is definitely necessary for the science world to progress. If we were to be wiped out, an extraterrestrial life finds the relics, they will know our story.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay let us take this for an instance. How do you think that art was even possible in the first place? If we need to paint, we need canvas and paint. Is it not due our scientific discoveries that we have created these materials? You may now start to argue that cavemen had started to use to carve pictures on stone in order to depict their feelings. But mind you, the material that the caveman has used to carve the picture is also an invention of science. You have also mentioned that the relic made by us will be found by extraterrestrial life. But now, you seem to be breaking the rules of the debate cause extraterrestrial life
has not been proved to exist yet. Hence you cannot use such a point without evidence. The topic of your debate is irrelevant as well. We are proving that science is more important than art not whether it has helped science in any way.Now, if we were to take an example where art has not existed, can we still live? Yes, of course! But without science, can we even survive for a day? Never.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bensen 2 years ago
Con, art isn't for mere entertainment. The purpose of art is to help us with our day-to-day life. Art is supposed to help us relate to others, give us good morals to live by, get over some sadness or loneliness we are going through, etc.

Furthermore, art is part of what keeps us human. It creates individuality and creativity.

By the way, I think Pro made a very weak argument.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.