The Instigator
thatgamerguy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Mozart's music is better than that of Justin Bieber

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 8 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 24288
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

thatgamerguy

Con

This will be a very brief debate about whether or not one can definitively say that any of Mozart's symphonies is better than a song by Justin Bieber. For simplicity, I will make reference to the song Baby, though either side is free to reference any song by either musician.
Round one will be acceptance of the debate only.
Round two will be a simple statement of positions, no rebutting.
Round three will be exclusively rebuttals, no new arguments may be made.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I agree with my opponent, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
thatgamerguy

Con

Due to the broad range of appeal of the music of Justin Bieber, combined with the larger population of Earth, along with the ease of communication present today, Justin Bieber's music most definitely reaches (and will continue to reach) more people than Mozart has. Since no one is forced to listen to music, those who hear his songs do so willingly, indicating a desire to hear his music. His music is also more "catchy" to the human mind. Although I dislike it, Baby's melody is very addictive.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Cancer reaches more people than wealth, this doesn't mean it's better so Con's argument is fallacious. Also every time I have listened to Beiber it has been unwillingly. Something being catchy doesn't make it better than Mozart as well. Mozart's music is better than Justin Beiber's because it releases more dopamine into your brain. Justin Beiber's music may be catchy, but you would never cry to a Justin Beiber song due to the way the notes hit your ears. Mozart is classic, Beiber is "now".
Debate Round No. 2
thatgamerguy

Con

The purpose of music is to make people happy. Due to the number of people reached by Bieber, his music has made more people happy. Mozart might be considered classic now, but Bieber could be considered classic in the future. No one ever forces you to hear music through force. If you heard it unwillingly, it was most likely just on the radio, which speaks to its popularity. Since music's only purpose is to please the populace, this shows it accomplishes its objective.
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Crying due to the joy of listening to the notes hitting your ears was what I was referring to, not tears of sadness. Beiber won't be considered a classic in the future, he is just just "in" right now, but when he gets older and loses is current appeal his career is finished. Also yes I was speaking about the radio, and yes he is popular "now". Why won't he be popular in the future? This is because, he only appeals to teenage girls and anybody can make a catchy song, the kid can sing but so what.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by United123 5 years ago
United123
Lol what a moron. Bieber can be considered a classic in the future. Bieber only appeals to teens and kids. We will see if bieber is still one of the talked musicians about after 250 years. Non can reach the genius on the level of Mozart and I mean non. Not even Beethevon or Bach
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Was this a suicide debate?
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
"...you would never cry to a Justin Beiber song due to the way the notes hit your ears"

Yes you would, it just wouldn't be crying in joy.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
"Bieber could be considered classic in the future." haha
Posted by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
I thought it was gonna be subjective, but the debators made it based on facts. Good debate all-around, or at least better than most debates of this type.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
You do realize that this is entire to subjective, right?
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
500 characters is really not a lot.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Reason > Fallacies
Vote Placed by awesomeness 5 years ago
awesomeness
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: con didn't make strong arguments and just tried to avoid pro's arguments
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: The debate a bit more to me than simply arguing idle opinion but whatever. Anyways, on arguments Con's main argument was an appeal to the majority, classic fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The term 'better' clearly refers to content, not popularity and Con never provided an argument for quality other than being catchy. However, Pro adequately trumped the catchiness argument with the fact that Mozart literally makes you cry how good it is. Tears of joy trump catchiness every time.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Mozrt is better. Pro made better arguements.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con only presented several fallacies. However, neither side used any sources, so every "fact" that they used, must be taken with a grain of salt. Though that may have been tied to such short rounds.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Well, Con had a good point about the larger audience, but Pro refuted this with an analogy of Cancer, demonstrating that affecting a large crowd does not necessarily have a positive effect. Con also attempted to predict that Bieber would be considered classic in the future, but Pro showed that Bieber's targeted demographic is too specific for it to be considered classic. (Also, I wish I could have taken this debate).
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Cons argument almost begged the question, even if its true that Biebers music reaches more people, pro pointed out that con needed to prove why it was good at all in the first place
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
thatgamerguyRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The Pro did a good job of negating Con's opening argument. After that, the argument boiled down to which music brought more happiness, and Pro was able to prove that Mozart's music can provide more pleasure through the release of Dopamine than JB can through catchy lyrics.