The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
the1000things
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Lady Gaga's Music as a whole is Immoral

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,424 times Debate No: 17022
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Pro

First round is for acceptance and rules only~
RULES-
1. No Semantics
2. No vulgarity (Lady Gaga's lyrics are an exception)
3. No intentional rude behavior
the1000things

Con

I accept. I'd like to clarify a few things, though.
  • For the purpose of the debate, I will use (and expect my opponent to use as well) songs performed, written and published (no leaks, etc - you can get them on iTunes and in a store) by Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta).
  • Remixes are not separate songs.
  • We are focusing on the music and its lyrics - not anyones interpretation of those lyrics, etc.
  • Music videos are irrelevant as well.
  • The music must be on an actual United States major release album (not necessarily hers) - no iTunes specials, etc.
Thanks!
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution states "Lady Gaga's Music as a Whole..." meaning that the intention of this debate is not to argue whether or not specific areas that my opponent is able to argue are immoral or not, but to argue Lady Gaga(Stefani Germanotta)'s music as whole.
Any effort to deviate from what is specified in the resolution is classifiable as semantic and warrants a loss of the debate.

That said, I will not go onto to present my constructive arguments.

While there is nothing wrong with sex on a basic level (otherwise no-one would exist) too much emphasis on sex is horrible detrimental to humanity as a whole. It causes people to become overly conscious of their bodies, and take dangerous steps to make sure they fit into what is classified as as attractive, and acceptable. And it cannot be denied that many of Lady Gaga's have this heavy emphasis on sex. such as Love Game, Alejandro, and Teeth to name a few.
Despite the fact that many of these songs may have secondary meanings (I wouldn't know, I don't listen to her music anymore) a majority of people aren't going to be looking for these secondary meanings. And will simply take the songs for face value. This will (and has) lead to many people gaining warped ideas about sex, and they will take it as something that can be used merely for pleasure. This will lead to STD, Unwanted pregnancies, Abortion as a form of birth control, broken hearts, broken home, and romantic Nihilism.

Also being a Christian as well, my opponent would agree with the following verse from Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

Next we can look at the vanity aspect of Lady Gaga's music. With songs such as Beautiful Dirty Rich as a prime example (Which when reading through the lyrics make me ashamed of my own username). It cannot be denied that the image Lady Gaga's image is one that has immense focus on image; i.e. vanity, intense concentration on one's self. However this debate is not about her image, but her music. Now the sad thing is, this concentration on vanity and self image crosses over into her music as well.
The prior mentioned "Beautiful Dirty Rich" is one example (as well as advocating drugs, pornography, and getting into debt beyond what one can bear but those are different arguments altogether) However other vanity centered songs include but are not limited to, Black Jesus and Fashion of his love.

That's all I have to say for now, and I feel like this is enough fodder to start a good round, so I'll end here.
Good luck to my opponent, an here's to a fantastic debate!

(see I didn't even take the easy win by linking to her music videos)
the1000things

Con

I assume my opponent has agreed to the points I made in Round 1 concerning what music we will use. The list is down to 37 songs. I agree with the notion that we are looking at the music as a whole and not a few examples, which is a huge flaw I see in my opponent's case. I'll deal with that after presenting my own.

The following is a list of songs that I consider permissible. My opponent cannot expect every single song that anyone ever listens to to be perfect. However, the following list (with neutral/good songs in bold) shows the majority - 'on the whole' - of Lady GaGa's music to be fine. The songs are listed by US album.

The Fame

  1. Just Dance
  2. LoveGame
  3. Papparazzi
  4. Beautiful, Dirty, Rich
  5. Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)
  6. Poker Face
  7. The Fame
  8. Money Honey
  9. Starstruck
  10. Boys Boys Boys
  11. Paper Gangsta
  12. Brown Eyes
  13. I Like it Rough
  14. Summerboy

The Fame Monster

  1. Bad Romance
  2. Alejandro
  3. Monster
  4. Speechless
  5. Dance in the Dark
  6. Telephone
  7. So Happy I Could Die
  8. Teeth

Born This Way (includes deluxe songs)

  1. Marry the Night
  2. Born this Way
  3. Government Hooker
  4. Judas
  5. Americano
  6. Hair
  7. Scheiße
  8. Bloody Mary
  9. Bad Kids
  10. Highway Unicorn
  11. Heavy Metal Lover
  12. Electric Chapel
  13. Yoü and I
  14. The Edge of Glory
  15. Fashion of His Love
  16. The Queen
  17. Black Jesus†Amen Fashion

Other

  1. Fashion (Confessions of a Shopaholic Soundtrack)
Out of these 39 songs, 25 have little to no objectionable content on a moral ground. Thus, a majority (a little under two thirds) are not immoral, negating the resolution that on the whole, Lady GaGa's music is immoral.

Now onto my opponent's case.

Glorifies sex and vanity?
This goes out of order in his constructive chronology.

My opponent makes the claim that Lady GaGa's music is vain and promotes a bad body image. "It cannot be denied that the image Lady Gaga's image is one that has immense focus on image; i.e. vanity...". Let's look at some of her songs' lyrics.
  • The lead single from her latest album, entitled Born this Way: "Baby, you were born this way... I'm beautiful in my own way/ 'cause God makes no mistakes / I'm on the right track, baby / I was Born this Way Yeah!"
  • Bad Kids: "Don't be insecure/ if your heart is pure / you're still good to me / if you're a bad kid baby"

In my case, "Fashion of His Love" is one of the bolded songs. I'd like for Pro to provide textual evidence as to why this is an immoral song. If you listen to the lyircs, you'll see it's true meaning: It's a mourn over her dear friend, Alexander McQueen's, suicide. ("As fitting as McQueen")

Lady GaGa, like several teenage girls across the nation, likes fashion. Girls are given barbie dolls and fashion sets from very young ages in the US - what's wrong with that? While some songs certainly are objectionable (BDR being one of them), things pertaining to fashion aren't inherently bad because of their subject matter.

Also being a Christian as well, my opponent would agree with the following verse from Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't listen to the songs that aren't bolded within my case. She has bad songs. I don't listen to them. The heinous morals of Teeth don't bleed into Telephone.


And will simply take the songs for face value. This will (and has) lead to many people gaining warped ideas about sex, and they will take it as something that can be used merely for pleasure. This will lead to STD, Unwanted pregnancies, Abortion as a form of birth control, broken hearts, broken home, and romantic Nihilism.

I believe this is pure conjecture. This is what you have done, but most people who listen to her music realize the message of self-respect (like that of Born This Way). Bottom line: Lady GaGa is not a demon-possessed prostitute who has the ability to turn this nation to anarchy in the form of birth control, broken heats & homes, and romantic nihilism. This is pure conjecture and fear-mongering.

I highly doubt there are many, if any, cases where someone gets an abortion becase "Lady GaGa says its OK" (which she never has at all). MY opponent credits Lady GaGa with far too much power than she has: while being an extremely influential woman, one of the top ten in the Time 100, there is not religion that commands millions of followers dedicated to following her every whim expressed in her music.

_____

When all is said and done, there are some very bad songs GaGa sings (Teeth, LoveGame, Judas, namely) but the "one bad sheep taints the whole flock" idea doesn't apply. Each song should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I did such a thing in my case, and have factually determined that the majority of GaGa's music is not immoral.

Thanks, and good luck!

Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

As a brief road-map I'll be going Con, then Pro

Con-
First I have NOT agreed to my opponent's clarifications, as I said before "...the intention of this debate is not to argue whether or not specific areas that my opponent is able to argue are immoral or not, but to argue Lady Gaga(Stefani Germanotta)'s music as whole." Again, I cannot stress enought that we are arguing Lady Gaga's music in full. This includes Music Videos (If it has comes to that), all Songs released under her name, and any other aspect of her music (including songs she has written for other people)
The fact that I've only started with the couple of songs that I have, is because these are the songs in which I've happened to re the lyrics.
Next my opponent agrees that we are arguing Lady Gaga's music as a whole and yet further claims that the only permissible songs, are the 39 songs on her first three albums, out of the more than [1] 150 songs she has written

This limits the debate, and thus my opponent violates the resolution.

My opponent also claims that out of these 39 songs, 25 have "little to nothing morally objectable to them"
First my opponent never warrants that these songs have nothing wrong with them, second he says "little" meaning there are parts that are morally objectable.
At the point any part of the song is morally objectable, the song is entirely immoral.

Ultimately on my opponent's side of the debate, the break multiple rules, disregard my own arguments, and have no warrants behind what little arguments they make.

Pro-
Glorifies Sex and vanity-

- First my opponent rebutes by offering up the song "Born this way" however I will easily refute this
First, when Gaga speaks of God, she never specifies which God she speaks of. This "God" Could be anything from Zeus, to Appolos, to Ares, to Erebos. So we don't know that this is necessarily a good thing.
I certainly don't think I would want to stay myself if I where made by a God of hatred and anger, or a God of Darkness. According to scripture, the God of the bible commands us to "[2]Turn from the wicked ways" in which we where born into by our sinful nature.
Next this song says not to be insecure if your heart is pure, yet there is not weighing mechanism to gauge purity there; and this in such a sense everything is pure just because they want it to be. Ultimately this song is not moral, as through it's lyrics it rejects any kind of standard for morality, and is thus immoral.

- It would appear I went through some of Lady Gaga's lyrics too quickly. After more closely reading over "Fashion of his love" I can see nothing objectable, so I drop that argument.

- My opponent claims that Lady Gaga like many girls across the United States likes fashion; Which I will agree to many people do like fashion, as an artist myself I too enjoy fashion. However in making this claim my opponent completely downplays, and utterly ignores my argument; in that it was about vanity not fashion.
Princeton.edu defines fashion as [3]"the latest and most admired style in clothes and cosmetics and behavior" where as Vanity is defined as [4] "feelings of excessive pride"

Obviously these are very different things.
And again, here is some scripture on the matter;
Proverbs 31:30
"Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised."
Not only does a large majority of Lady Gaga's music promote outer beauty, but it's obvious she doesn't fear God (especially how she puts herself into a God-like position as being called Mother-Monster)
Also on that note, although Gaga claims to be a catholic Christian, she advocates and teaches many things not canon in the bible.
Hebrews 13:9
"Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."

Next my opponent claims that some of Gaga's songs are bad, and that he doesn't listen to them.
However by listening to even one, he supports all of these songs; thus this argument is a moot point. To explain further, my opponent mentions albums; and in buying an album he buys all of the songs on that album. and even where he to burn the CD onto his computer, deletes all of the bad songs, and throw the CD away; he has still paid for, and thus supported these bad songs.

Next my opponent rebutes my argument by saying that it is pure conjecture. He inferences that I am in turn calling Lady Gaga, all of these bad things (demon-possessed prostitute) , when all I'm doing is displaying the possible outcomes of her music.
Ultimately my opponent never argues back, or denies these arguments.He simply brushes them off, and then downplays Lady Gaga's influence.
This is both a fallacious rebuttal, and completely abusive.
Lady Gaga has been the number 1 selling artist for the last two years, she has the most followers of any-one else on Twitter ([5]enumeration over 10,000,000) she has more than 2,000,000 more followers than out own president.

Thus anything she says, no matter how trivial or major is going to influence her fans.

Finally my opponent says that the one bad sheep makes the whole flock bad ideology is irrelevant here.
Ignoring the fact my opponent never tells us why this is true, they've not even shown us any reason why the majority of Lady Gaga's music is not immoral.

In their own arguments, they provide a bit of framework, list out several song titles, and then come to the conclusion that they're all fine.
In their arguments against my own case, they offer broken and untrue logic that never really proves anything

My opponent also does not argue the solution when they say "Each song should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." as we are debating Lady Gaga's music as a whole entity.

In conclusion, there is utterly no reason to vote for the Con in today's debate; you must vote Pro.
=sources=
[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] Acts 3:19
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://on.mtv.com...
the1000things

Con

** NOTE: I noticed when reviewing this there is a major formatting error on the endof DDO's code. I apologize, but I haven't been able to fix it despite several efforts. I am saving this as a word doc, please message me if you can't copy/paste the weird section and read it on your computer **

Alrighty then. Thanks for the timely response! This will be, in essence, a line by line


1. What is Lady GaGa's Music?

This seems to be a rather semantical argument. Lady GaGa's music is her own. Specifically, the music that is her intellectual property. When Lady GaGa writes a song for another artist, that music is NOT her own - she has ceded intellectual rights to it, and often, when there are several writers working together, it is not possible to know which writer wrote which set of lyrics. Let's review my clarification:
  • For the purpose of the debate, I will use (and expect my opponent to use as well) songs performed, written and published (no leaks, etc - you can get them on iTunes and in a store) by Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta).

I'd like to point out that my opponent is admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter, which the voter should keep in mind.

This deals with Lady GaGa's music: it is hers, and it is not licensed to another person or group without her express consent in the first place. Should someone be sued for violating copyright on, say, Telephone, then Lady GaGa (and her record dealers) would be the plaintiff. This is legally, her music, and as such, the sole subject matter of the debate [1] . Pro is trying to say that the subject matter is everything she's ever touched musically, but, like I pointed out above, the actual contributions are unknown. This does not, however, to seem to have a huge impact on the debate until my opponent points to more examples of her immoral music because...

2. Majority Matters

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase "as a whole" (and subsequently, "in general")in the following way:

  • as a single unit and not as separate parts ; in general
  • usually; mainly: [3]

These definitions present an ugly problem to Pro: he has to prove that all of Lady GaGa's music is immoral, down to the very last piece of her legally owned (ie, her own) work. Surely, Telephone isn't a bad song? Or Hair?

Now, I chose not to use this rather abusive condition, so I rested on phrase "in general" which implies mainly - meaning, the majority of any given piece. I am in no way defying the resolution, I am following the phrase "as a whole" to the fullest. Pro tries to dodge this with the notion that if one song is bad, the entire set is, or if "... any part of the song is morally objectable, the song is entirely immoral." While I'm more willing to accept the latter of those two statements, the first one is the one he's used to cop out of the the majority argument.

Quickly, when I said "little to nothing morally objectionable" I meant it. That "little" occurs in very few songs (not enough to change the majority) and generally comes in the form of totally censored obscenities that do not reflect the song in its entirety.

3. Does One Sheep Infect the Entire Flock?
I'm going to jump a head to a claim he makes defending his own case: "However by listening to even one, he supports all of these songs; thus this argument is a moot point. To explain further, my opponent mentions albums; and in buying an album he buys all of the songs on that album. and even where he to burn the CD onto his computer, deletes all of the bad songs, and throw the CD away; he has still paid for, and thus supported these bad songs."


On a side note, I don't buy albums in whole for the reason. I buy select singles digitally from iTunes - but that's not important, we're discussing the morality of Lady GaGa, not whether I'm moral or not for listening to her.

Now, let's follow Pro's logic to it's fullest extent: You go to the wonderful Musée du Lourve in Paris, France. You pay for the entry tickets. You stroll though the exhibits, but suddenly -- gasp! -- there is a nude goddess on a pedestal in one of the stairways. You shake it off, but then stumble upon the Islamic Art exhibit (not to insinuate there's anything wrong with Islamic Art, I enjoyed that section very much)! Following Pro's chain of logic, since you supported the sustaining of these pieces of art with your money (even if you avoid said exhibits exhibit), whether they be naked, Muslim, or otherwise, you support naked Muslim people defiling your staircases.

Of course, Pro is smarter than to think this, which is why his logic fails. As I expressed in the former round, 'the one bad sheep taints the whole flock' idea doesn't apply in cases of art. Likewise, if you buy a book of works from a living artist, where 99 out of 100 works are wholesome by Pro's standards, yet one has objectionable content, it is a stretch to say that once that one picture is removed or ignored, you are still supporting the content matter of that single picture.

We can see that when viewing this debate, it must be through the lens of "has pro proved that a majority -- the whole; mainly; in general -- of Lady GaGa's music is immoral?" If not, there is nothing to do but vote CON.

4. A/2 Lady GaGa's Music Glorifies Sex and Vanity

Using the majority matters principle proved above, it can easily be said that while some songs have some vain and sex-glorifying music, the majority is not so - on the whole, that is (remember the Oxford definition). I'll take his objections on a line by line.

"First, when Gaga speaks of God, she never specifies which God she speaks of. This "God" Could be anything from Zeus, to Appolos, to Ares, to Erebos. So we don't know that this is necessarily a good thing."
I don't believe this is a serious objection. You say yourself that she describes herself as Catholic, and online lyrics write it as "God" (with a capital letter).
"in which we where born into by our sinful nature."
The song discusses physical things. "no matter black white or beige" etc etc. These are things that we certainly should be proud of - God made us just as we are, whether we're smart, dumb, attractive, or ugly. That's in essence the message of the song.
"Next this song says not to be insecure if your heart is pure, yet there is not weighing mechanism to gauge purity there ... and is thus immoral.Purity in relativity to society. I feel you're reading far too deep into these, but let's look here: the essence of the song explained through the lyrics is this: even if society says you're a terrible person, you're not to judge yourself by their standards. It doesn't mention what this standard is, but, it doesn't matter - that message is TRUE. As a Christian, it is also imperative not to judge ourselves by society, even if it labels us as "bad kids".

I'm running out of room so I'll make this quick.
- I agree to my opponent's moral compass, and also agree that much of what Lady GaGa sings isn't good. As I explained, though, each goes on a case by case basis (which I have provided, and as the instigator, Pro has the BOP to negate) and thus I negate the resolution, since the majority of her music doesn't violate this debate's moral definition.

-I have addressed the idea that I'm supporting all songs when buying one songs.

- Lady GaGa's influence is overplayed to a huge degree. Everyone has music tastes, but to assume that each of LG's 38,000,000+ plus fans take every word to heart and acts upon them is absurd. Eminem has 41 million. A random goat has 300,000+. Spongebob Squarepants has more fans than Obama[4]. I'd like to see hard evidence that shows GaGa's supposedly massive influence over vast crowds.

I'm out of room. Thanks for this awesome debate. I look forward to your response!

[1] intellectual property defined: http://www.wipo.int...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[4]http://www.facebook.com...


Debate Round No. 3
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I'm just going to follow my opponent's arguments right down the flow-

1. What is Lady Gaga's Music?
- My opponent completely dismissed my argument as being semantic
- Intellectual property can have joint rights (i.e. be owned by more than one person)
- If Lady Gaga wrote the song from her own creative instincts, then despite whomever sings the song it is her song. My opponent's argument is completely semantic in the realm of ownership. Just because another artist has the rights, or joint rights to sing a song by Lady Gaga, does not man that Lady Gaga has had no creative influence on the song.
- If Lady Gaga written a song, it is her music; thus it falls within the realm of the resolution. Again, my opponent's attempts to diverge from the specified realms of the resolution; thus they do no fulfill their BOP.
- I am not unfamiliar with intellectual property laws; as a digital artist, I have had my work stolen many times, and am accordingly familiar with the DMCA as well as various other laws of copyright, licensing, an trademarks.
I am also familiar with Lady Gaga's music, which is why I no longer listen to her. This argument is a straw-man.
- My opponent's final conclusion proves this argument to be completely irrelevant.

2. Majority matters-
- Via context it of the prior rounds; "as a whole" should be understood as a total entity. Not only is completely abusive for my opponent to have offered a new definition at such a late point in this debate, but it is also unwarranted.
- In the music video for telephone, Lady Gaga and Beyonce kill multiple people. However my opponent will simply dismiss that argument, so in the song itself alcohol is referenced. As well as that the meaning is essentially a girl telling her spouse to leave her be because she's partying with her friends. This is the promotion of marital unfaithfulness and selfishness as a whole.
- In "Hair" a girl finds her identity through her looks. This promotes a shallow attitude, and the idea that looks are all that matters.
- My opponent admits this C is abusive; and has not refuted the fact that they've indicated that a good majority of Lady Gaga's songs have some degree of moral repugnance.
At this point I've won this debate both on the front I intended in the first place, as well as through the abusive criteria my opponent has imposed on me.
- Also on this note it is key to point out that my opponent still has not specified which songs are or are not morally good or bad on the three albums they've specified to be acceptable fodder to debate. this is abuse in and of itself as it give no ground to debate; without prior knowledge of Lady Gaga's music a reader of this debate will have had nothing to go on in order to vote.
This is abusive.

3. Does one sheep infect the entire flock?
- My opponent's entire refutation here is based on themselves. While they may not buy the CDs, the fact remains that millions of people do. In fact, back when I did listen to Gaga I bought the CD (My cousin did actually, but we lived in the same house).
- Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken."

4. Lady Gaga's music glorifies Sex and Vanity-
- I've made my argument here abundantly clear in prior rounds; and none of my opponent's refutations legitimize Lady Gaga's music.
- My opponent brings into play an argument about judging certain members of society; not only is this completely irrelevant to this contention, but it is also unwarranted.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil."
-
=Conclusion=
- My opponent has not yet legitimized Lady Gaga's music based upon our agreed moral compass of scripture.
- My opponent has completely ignored a good majority of my arguments in favor of making new arguments on his own part.
- My opponent continually violated the resolution's intention, even after I clarified what it mean in the beginning; my opponent ha even attempted to redefine many of my own terms and definitions.
- There is no other fair vote in this debate, except for the Pro; Accordingly, please vote Pro.
the1000things

Con

Majority Matters
As I explained above, the idea of majority matters is in no way abusive. It is the basis of my case, and provides sufficient ground for both PRO and CON to argue, needing only 6 songs to swing my case to the instigator's side.

I did not offer a new definition than the one that I though we were arguing: "music as whole". Music is made up of building blocks, and when we look at what those building blocks of an artist's career are, it is easy to say they are songs. We must evaluate all the blocks, as I have, to determine if the entire structure is wholesome or in danger of collapse, to use a metaphor.
What is abusive is, as I mentioned before, the notion that PRO needs to prove only that a few songs are bad for the entire discography to be bad.

As for the telephone music video, if you'll really bring up such a new argument: Lady GaGa and Beyoncé attempt to poison her abusive boyfriend. They end up killing everybody. Whoops. This still doesn't show that the good is outweighed by the bad. The song is simply about being called while having a party, which I'm sure is obnoxious.

Hair is about a need for individuality. She loves her hair, a lot of people do. Assume I grant that it is immoral: that leaves my case with 24 out of 37 songs being moral. See how easy this is? My case allows, as I said, sufficient ground for PRO to contest; in no way is it abusive. All my opponent had to do was make five other arguments like the one he just made with Hair, to win.

There has been absolutely no indication that a majority of Lady GaGa's songs are immoral. He has chosen a few, and said they count for all songs she has created.

I have specified which songs are good, and which are bad in my Round 2 case. Those bolded are neutral or good. Those not bolded are immoral.

One Sheep Infects the Entire Flock
Aside from the fact that the majority of people download things (the Born this Way album received vastly more downloads than disc buys, see wikipedia's Born This Way Album). Remember what happens when I ask you "On the whole, was your spring break enjoyable". You won't let inconveniences ruin the entire thing, and on the whole, you'll say yes if the good outweighs the bad.

Lady Gaga's music glorifies Sex and Vanity
Assume I concede ALL of this. The songs he names throughout the rounds are LoveGame, Alejandro, Teeth, Fashion of His Love (later conceded in Round 3) and, in this round, Telephone and Hair. That leaves us with 5 songs he's contested. If I concede all the songs that he has said are bad that are bolded in my cases, that de-bolds Alejandro, Telephone, and Hair. Thate leaves 22 songs / 39 songs. Still a majority.

Summary
I have not legitimized all of Lady GaGa's music against the scripture, because some of it is bad. I'm going to go ahead and just appeal to the audience here. I've discussed my opponent's claims above, and the folowing few paragraphs are my summary. If you will read nothing but this part of my argument, so be it. But this is very important.

The notion that I have "violated the resolutions" intentions is false. I went with what on the whole really means. My opponent, on the other hand, attempted to prove just a few songs were bad and win the debate from there. His definitions weren't in the first round and were note clarified to me beforehand; in no way can I be held responsible if things did not go as he intended. Such is the nature of a debate.

When I ask you the question, "On the whole, was your spring break enjoyable?", you will undoubtably consider it as follows: although one entity, your spring break was divided into several days and events. On evaluating each of these separate events as good or bad, you reach an answer: "Yes." Given your answer, we can conclude that the majority of the events on your spring break were enjoyable, thus, the entire thing can be considered fun. There may be a few very bad parts - like when the TSA almost made you late for your flight, or when Customs took away your decorative shot glasses on the way back, or someone happened to get arrested by the police - but overall, you decide the good outweighs the bad, and you answer the question I posed affirmatively.

Apply that same reasoning to this debate! When asked the question, "Is Lady GaGa's music, on the whole, immoral?" go through the evidence that I gave in the second round: an analysis of moral versus immoral songs in her discography that came up with the result the majority of her music was fine. Although there are bad parts, as I have freely admitted, they do not outweigh the good or neutral, even if I concede all of my opponent's attacks on the select songs he chose to contest.

Given my opponent's admitted lack of familiarity with GaGa's music, he did not refute in any way my case. My case was the fairest way to go: it gave us both the possibility to win. If PRO had examine the evidence -- GaGa's songs -- he could easily pose that at least 6 (the required to make the majority bad - he opposed 3 on accident, even when not acknowledging my criterion) out of the 25 I gave were objectionable. Maybe even more. Instead he chose to go on a semantic interpretation of "as a whole", saying that he need only to prove that a few songs are bad to say the entire flock of Lady GaGa's music is immoral. Ask yourself, voter, which is the better? If you think my case would have made a better debate and agree with what I said above -- that we needed to look at all of her songs (even if I conceded that ones she wrote for other artists counts, he doesn't use them in his arguments at all), not just a few -- then you need to vote a CON ballot. What I just explained is "majority matters" - common sense.

Thanks to BangBang-Coconut for this awesome and fun debate :D!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by the1000things 5 years ago
the1000things
thanks, I'll do that next time.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Revert your post to plain txt and then back to rich, it removes all formatting. Note all the text is there, just highlight it and c&p it into a pure txt editor to see it.
Posted by the1000things 5 years ago
the1000things
round two or round three? I copy/pasted it into a word document and it came out fine - I tried to fix that whole crunching thing several times but I couldn't :/ I dunno what happened, sorry.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Hey, your round two text is all messed up.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Lawl
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
That's fine :)
Posted by the1000things 5 years ago
the1000things
will accept by Saturday. Sorry for the delay - I have two other debates and I'm taking an SAT prep course (complete with homework), so I didn't think it'd be wise to start another one until the weekend. Thanks for understanding!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
BangBang-Coconutthe1000thingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter alkid96
Vote Placed by Fusionized 5 years ago
Fusionized
BangBang-Coconutthe1000thingsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Nevermind, this debate is too old to be relevant.
Vote Placed by alkid96 5 years ago
alkid96
BangBang-Coconutthe1000thingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: i LOVE Gaga
Vote Placed by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
BangBang-Coconutthe1000thingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: If vanity and lust are the only things Lady Gaga's music can be accused of promoting, and not even that much, I can't see where the immorality comes down heavy.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-Coconutthe1000thingsTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: It is nice to see a semantic dispute well argued. BangBang properly called abuse and Con defended their position well. A few things which gave a slight edge to Bang Bang were the weak response to the number of fans/influence and sex and formatting. 3:2