The Instigator
NickLawrence
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Music Censorship

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,319 times Debate No: 49048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

NickLawrence

Con

Music should not be censored because it is a form of art. Music is a way to express yourself and your feelings to people. Also, the First Amendment says that we have freedom of speech so why censor parts of songs?
I look forward to debating with whoever takes the other side.
jvava

Pro

Hello.

My stance is that music censorship is acceptable if performed by parents or a private organization. The government has no place in limiting the rights of musicians, and I will explain why later.

Looking forward to an exciting and lively debate.
Debate Round No. 1
NickLawrence

Con

We are speaking about the government controlling what we hear in music, such as the FCC. It is a parents job to control what their kids are involved in, not the government's; however, unless parents make their kids live in a bubble and never associate with people, their kids WILL hear profanity and vulgar language and everything that the FCC and other government organizations are trying to block out from people. I go to school every day and hear the F bomb dropped several times a day plus I hear people talk about their girl friend or boyfriend and what they done over the weekend. I personally don't want to hear it but I CAN'T censor it out, and neither can anyone else.
jvava

Pro

Yes, that's very true.

The main reason, though, for censorship is to protect groups of people prone to violence. If a song has a lyric advocating the lynching of a black man, or the bashing of a homosexual, than they would live their lives in fear. According the Declaration of Independence, we shall have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If you have to live your life in fear as a result of offensive, violent music, your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is being obstructed.
Debate Round No. 2
NickLawrence

Con

Correct, that's all true as well.

No one is forcing anyone to listen to any type of music. As for me, I couldn't tell you any lyrics from any Metallica, SlipKnot, KISS, or Jay Z song all because I don't like the style of music and I don't like what they believe in. So, if I was a homosexual, I probably wouldn't listen to songs bashing what I believe in.
If the song would have lyrics "advocating the lynching of a black man, or bashing of a homosexual", then that is just what the artist feels. For example, I am a Christian and I believe in ONE god and I do not agree with Kayne West saying in a song "I just talked to Jesus." and saying "I am a God". So, because of him saying all of that and going against my belief's, I will not listen to his music because he believes in something I do not.
Furthermore, the original quote was "Life, Liberty, and Property", by John Locke and it was later replaced to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

For the record, I do not think Kayne is a god, what so ever.
jvava

Pro

Yes, that may be what the artist feels - but what if somebody listens to lyrics and acts on what it's advocating?

Many people wish to live the lifestyles of their favorite artists; they change their styles, they change their personalities, and they can alter their beliefs if they wish to live like their favorite star. Can't this put certain groups in danger if song lyrics advocate for their harm? Therefore, simply turning the channel or changing the song does not solve the problem if your life is put into danger.

Now, you say that, originally, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was "Life, Liberty, and Property." I don't see how this changes anything; if it was edited for the Declaration, it must mean that the founding fathers wanted a specific emphasis on this subject.

It's not a matter of changing the channel to listen to what you want and to shut out what you don't agree with. If songs advocate for violence against anyone, than it is putting their physical condition and safety in danger. If we have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" why is it right to put people in fear by advocating violence against them?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NickLawrence 3 years ago
NickLawrence
Just so everyone knows... Thomas Jefferson decided that everyone should have the right to property but slave's were considered property. So, Jefferson decided that it would look bad to consider them as property and he changed it to Pursuit to Happiness. If you want to consider slaves property, do it. If you don't, don't.
No votes have been placed for this debate.