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

It is more important to be educated in the creative arts than the sciences

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/10/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 832 times Debate No: 61517
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I am of the opinion that it is more important to be educated in the creative arts than it is to be educated in the sciences. Education in the creative arts teaches student to think, rather than to solve. The creative arts is unbounded in that anything in the student's mind can be created, which provides an opportunity for philosophy, discussions about the metaphysical, and an intellectual advancement that is not available in the strict, law bound area of science.

This teaching of philosophy assists in developing life skills, and developing a person spiritually and emotionally, as well as developing free thinking minds, rather than just developing intellectual minds, which, I grant, is still important, but is less important than developing emotion, and free thinking, which are tools for advancement in society.

Finally, the creative arts are more important than the sciences because the creative arts results in a creation, which can convey emotion and thinking to future students.


Three points:

1. If the people listed at this website had been better educated in science and critical thinking, there would be vastly fewer of them there.

2. Since two cavemen stuck a rock on the end of a stick we have been using science to improve our lives. We can go without the next generation of creative artists, but we cannot go without the next generation of engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, medical doctors etc.

3. We could argue all day about the merits of science vs creative arts, but when it comes down to it, a huge matter is which area has more jobs and jobs that pay more. The answer is science. (
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Con, for the argument.

In regards to your first point, the fallacy of false cause has occurred. We know that educated individuals, like Andrew Wakefield, have before entered the Anti-Vaccine and alternative medicine bandwagon, because of financial conflicts of interest. This means, that even educated people could enter that site, because of another reason, for instance, being convinced by a charismatic individual or group. If you can prove that lack of education is the cause of those people entering that website, then the point stands.

Two cavemen with a rock on the end of a stick could never have made that rock on a stick without the imagination to believe it possible, in the same way that Da Vinci's creativity allowed him to imagine the flying machine, and his many other inventions, even though he did not have the science to create them.

Why does the amount of jobs and their value matter? The creative arts allows for people to learn to think, and not just work.


You accuse me of false cause, then cherry pick Andrew Wakefield. It is incredibly difficult to believe in things like homeopathy and vaccine denial when you know the science, and though I was unable to find any studies on the association between science education and the topics on the website (for or against, I don't think research has been done), here are some statistics for you on some issues that are important:
- 97% of scientists believe in human caused climate change, compared to under 50% of people in general.
- 0.15% of scientists believe in creationism, compared to 40-50% of people in general.

Scientists and engineers are exceedingly imaginative, but aren't necessarily educated in creative arts. You cannot make the assertion that Da Vinci would not have thought of his flying machine without creative arts, but I can definitely assert that without an understanding of science he would not have.

The amount and quality of jobs matters because that mainly why people are educated
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Con.

Firstly, where are these statistics that you quote sourced? They cannot be listed as valid until they can be confirmed from a reliable source.

Secondly, the education in the creative arts assists in developing imagination, in those that it does not come naturally to, which creates more imaginative people to invent.

Thirdly, your point that people are educated for their jobs is incorrect. People take specialist training for their jobs, but standard level, general education, is aimed toward increasing their quality of life, their emotional intelligence, and honing their life skills, so that they survive alone in an adult world. For this purpose, the creative arts is more important than the sciences, as it gives you a broader, more applicable real world knowledge than the sciences does.

In conclusion, it is clear that the creative arts are a more foundation level learning, and is more important for development of mind than the sciences.

Remember, Vote PRO!


A simple Google search will find statistics akin to those I stated, I am not going to waste my word count.

Your second point is a non sequitur. You still cannot assert that art is essential for the invention of new technologies, but I can still assert that science is.

My very first point gave a link to a website listing people who have died or been injured as a result of lacking scientific and critical thinking. How many people have died as a result of not being educated in the creative arts?

Science is not an ivory tower any more. Scientists are not the only people who need to have an understanding of science. Science is funded mainly by governments, and people control the government. People need to understand what science they should pay for, so that research money goes to projects that are legitimate and useful.

In conclusion, I am not saying that creative arts are useless, but people need to be educated in the sciences more than they need to be educated in the creative arts.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
This was a....strange debate to say the least. Neither debater really offered any measure by which to assess the "importance" of "the Arts" vs "the Sciences".

This could have been a very interesting debate.. However, due to the various slips in logic, this wasn't as interesting as it could have been.

Being "educated" in something doesn't necessarily mean that you have created something out of it. That is to say, being "educated" in the sciences doesn't necessitate your being involved in them. One could, potentially, go to school to become a doctor but choose to be a painter instead. It isn't financially wise, but it still occurs. As it does with the arts. A person could, potentially, go to school to be a pianist or artist, but instead get involved with computer software. I say all of that to say that neither debater offered a reason why the EDUCATION provided in one of these fields in more important than the education provided by the other. Both the Arts and the Sciences offer useful and appreciable things to society. Why should I believe that a car is more important than a sculpture? I'm fine with walking. Why should I believe a painting is more important than a cell phone? I can't talk to my cousin using a painting.

Granted, reasons were offered. I would like to know, then, why is it that life skills are important? Why is it that technology is important? Each of these things can be forgone.

All of that is stuff to think about for next time.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
I am a carpenter. I don't know of any " creative" arts that would help me in my work.Geometry and algebra and just reading a tape measure I owe all to science.And I have very poor color coordination. And I am pragmatic. Never see much beyond what is in front of me, except where God is concerned.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire case was unsupported assertions. He never actually made a reasonable case in regards to the motion--he just reasserted it. Con showed harms to not having a science background, Pro did not show any equal harms to not having an art background, and failed to show his benefits in any real fashion except through assertion...assertion that Con contradicted by arguing that a background in the sciences DOES teach how to think. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.