The Instigator
Mattyyy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MattStPaul
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

It doesn't mean it's better when it is classical.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
MattStPaul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 67270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Mattyyy

Con

Too many brainwashed people are saying. This is a classic so it's better. NO

Con: Classics are better.
MattStPaul

Pro

Alright Mattyyy, I'll debate you on this. I am certain that when something is called "classical" it is done so because we mean that "it's better" ... your go. Thanks for posting this topic, btw!
Debate Round No. 1
Mattyyy

Con

Why is it even better when it is older? What's the point. Can't newer versions of somethings can't be better.
MattStPaul

Pro

The point of classics (and especially the point that they are better) is that they provide a firmer foundation for "the new." The Classics provide us with those essentials which make "The New" longer-lasting, deeper. For this debate, consider ART, LANGUAGE, MUSIC, and GOVERNMENT.

ART
Picasso is a great example of this; where modern artists seem crazed about capturing their individuality, making something "New," I say that they are not yet deep enough to have an individuality, or one that is lasting. That comes only after studying classical art. Picasso was FIRST trained in the classics, the School of Fine Arts. THEN he produced cubism. So, AFTER he mastered the Classics, THEN he produced great individuality. The Classics provided him that foundation. Art without that foundation, flitters away, artists having little or no sources to draw from. Shallow roots may sprout a twig but rooted orchards feeds the pigs. That is one reason why the Classics are better: when mastered, they vitalize an artist"s individual output. But without the Classics, an artist is weakened by their lack of a foundation and shallow roots.

LANGUAGE
I had to study French last semester (hated it and am terrible at it). It was my third language to study, but my first Romance language. I learned something incredible that had just never occurred to me: the Romance languages are derived from " (drum roll) " a classical language: Latin!! Now, if you study Classics in college, you study the Latin language, the Greek language, etc. These are, again, because they are foundational tools for our modern languages. The Classical enables The New. That"s our debate exactly: why Classics are better than "The New." Classics provide the lasting building-blocks from which our newer languages build themselves. If you know classic word origins, you have a deeper understanding of the words we use today. So, you are more precise with your words, your writing, and your expressions. Do you see the light, my exuberant Colleague, that by studying the Classical languages, one can wield his words with more skill, dexterity, more avaricious aplomb, like a surgeon, precise, yet as gentle as a yellow canary? You know the old saying: the "Classic" pen is mightier than the "New" sword (or something to that effect)"Cardinal Richelieu.

MUSIC
Classics form the foundation for learning music. If someone has not learned the classics, their training is only a shell of what it should be. Consider the band Muse (a New band named after a Classical concept). Matt Bellamy was FIRST classically trained in piano and THEN he became able to compose his New songs. His music is deep, composed, layered, highly individualized, but enabled BECAUSE OF his Classic foundation. None of us would argue that his music is not original (even the few songs he blatantly copies). But because he has learned the Classics and they provide the foundation for his "New" music, Bellamy has created something that will outlast his contemporaries. (my opinion, I realize, but it is the correct opinion).

My wife is a piano teacher. At night, she will sit down at her piano and play Chopin (the same Classical Chopin that Muse copied in their "New" song United States of Eurasia). To her classically trained mind, she understands and can articulate the intricacies of the piece, the layers, the subtle shifts, the high and the low emotions. New songs, such as Badonkadonk, just lacks that depth, that intrigue (listeners beware). What happens with Bellamy happens with her: the compositions she writes are imbued with those same layers, subtle shifts, etc. Her music has elements of "the New" because it is her composition, but the timeless depth of "The Classics" allows her music to become something longer-lasting and deep. https://www.youtube.com... (0:47- her "new" flair versus 3:24 with a classical run).

GOVERNMENTS
Many people the world over regard the American Constitution as something to be modeled after. This is because it works and is unique. But the American Constitution was based off of several other writings and they were all Classical: The Magna Carta, as one example; Rome"s republican form of government, as another. If you look the world over, most countries are not stable. Why? One reason is that their government is founded on a weak constitution, one that lacks classical principles. The American Constitution honors those timeless qualities, those classical traits, such as: a representative form of government (taken from the Romans and Jewish Torah, Exodus 18.17-23), the right confront the witnesses against you before trial (the VI Amendment, from ancient Roman law, depicted in Acts 25.16), the Congress (Article I, a Classical Greek concept), the Judiciary (Article III, Classical Greek and Roman). But how were these Governments formed? John Adams answered that: "" the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue"If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?" John Adams, Thoughts on Government. This Classic principle, virtue, was seen by Adams as one foundational ingredient (along with those already mentioned) for a happy people and government. The New governments that omit these qualities will always struggle for stability.

CONCLUSION
The New is not bad. It just must be imbued with those Classic principles before it has any permanence. Otherwise, the New will flitter away, barely making a blip on anybody"s radar. But if "the New" pays homage to those foundational building blocks, by that I mean the Classics, and if "The New" studies them out, learns what they teach, THEN it will become a 10.0 on the Richter scale and generation after generation will take notice.
The New needs the Classics; the Classics does not need the New.

-MSP
Debate Round No. 2
MattStPaul

Pro

Nope, done.

I have shown the necessity of the Classics over the feebleness of "The New."
I have proven with reason that anything "New" must FIRST get its foundations from the "Classical."
Additionally, my opponent has ... bowed out? thrown in the towel? waved the white flag? converted?

Vote MSP for as the Victor as my opponent is well nigh on his way towards conversion to my side, evidenced by his ineffable: "Go on."

Love ya'll
-MSP
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Nobody is going to think of you higher for winning by 25 Pts instead of 16. If anything, your unnecessary complaints that are quite frankly childish only makes people think of you lower.

I have had debates when people forfeited, in 1 debate I won by 2 points since only two people voted me for conduct, i have nothing to complain about since nobody voted for the forfeitor.

You have infinitely more points than the opponent, that should be complete enough victory.
Posted by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
It DOES matter.
We earn these pts.
You either EARN 25 pts or you EARN 16.
These debates are spent WORKING to write about these topics, search for truths, accuracy, etc.

A forfeiture is never a narrow victory, but always complete. However, on here, a forfeiture EARNS narrow victories RATHER THAN complete ones.

-MSP
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
It.does.not.matter.

You win by several points anyway. If someone voted for con, then you would have a valid complaint. Please don't cry about winning by 16 points instead of 25.
Posted by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
Hey, if you're voting, OBVIOUSLY Mattyyy did not reply. Why would you even mention it?
Secondly, How the eff can "grammar" be tied when Mattyyy did not reply (and thereby had not opportunity to misplace a comma)? This blows my mind!?
Third, why aren't you Voters upholding the integrity of a debate by giving MattStPaul ALL the points?
How is it that MattStPaul is winning by only a few points when his opponent bowed out??
WTH (what the heck)?
If you are the type of voters we have who are actually reading these debates and then casting some trite points here and there, then please don't vote. As it is pretty obvious that when you forfeit you forfeit ALL POINTS.
Amazing! This lunacy!
- MSP
Posted by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
Sorry Mattyyy,
I was just wanting to win it so I didn't want to prolong the debate.
Message me with any other questions you have an I'll happily expound.
Thanks for the debate!
I got to examine my own thoughts a lot with this.
Appreciated.
-MSP
Posted by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
Of course there is a "better ways of living." There are always better ways of living but the problem is that people just settle for less rather than pursuing the best. Here's one example:
In several tribal villages in Columbia, the Motilone people had a terrible way of living: they poopooed right outside their huts. This, of course, breeds infections, disease, death, etc. I unabashedly know of a better way of living in that situation! ... ... ... poopoo on a liberal's lawn instead.
Posted by B_A 2 years ago
B_A
You are implying a better way a living; as if there is a right way.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
MattyyyMattStPaulTied
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: No arguments made my con. Disappointment
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
MattyyyMattStPaulTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments are totally not refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MattyyyMattStPaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically conceded.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
MattyyyMattStPaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really make an argument, aside from accusing the masses of being brainwashed (which may well be true).