The Instigator
ConservativeLiberal101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ariesx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Music has Crossed its Boundaries

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: 11/14/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 65177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ConservativeLiberal101

Pro

Music, over the years, has greatly changed its context. Going from Stevie Wonder's Sir Duke to modern songs like 5 SOS's Amnesia, artists are throwing the meaning of certain topics into the air. Music is today joking about the seriousness of many contemporary problems such as suicide (), relationships (Amnesia by 5 SOS), and so much more. Music influences the way people think; if music continues to be this way, it will destroy the mind of youngsters. If a popular song was to repeatedly use curse words, then youths listening to the song will incorporate sung curse word into everyday speech. The freedom of a song's lyrics are protected under the 1st amendment (freedom of speech), but using the freedom this way greatly abuses it. We want to create a better America with educated people not a rotting America that is heavily under the influence of a poor choice in music.
Ariesx

Con

From my understanding, my opponent wants to end music, so we can create a better, educated America. I respect this modest approach to fixing America, but I am here to argue the consequence of his actions. This is violating the 1st amendment(freedom of speech) as my opponent stated. But if he succeeds in controlling the way people write songs, the constitution can be questioned again. The 2 amendment is freedom of religion. If I were to say that atheism is wrong because it promote immorality, than I would be violating the 2 amendment. But you let my opponent get his music idea pass, so violating our amendments would be justifiable, and that is not what I stand for.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativeLiberal101

Pro

Okay, so Ariesx, you before you can competently argue against my view, you have to get a few things right:
A. I am a conservative Democrat who is a girl, not a boy.
B. Get your amendment right; Amendment #2 was about the right to bear arms rather than the freedom of religion. (nice try! freedom of religion is under freedom of speech which is clearly under the 1st amendment. BAM! In your face!)
C. Why would you bring religion into this at all and atheism? You can as an American can say that atheism is wrong, but you cannot legally abolish the religion. What you are saying about atheism and how it promotes immorality is going against the Constitution rights are wrong. As long as a group of individuals are not trying to abolish it, you can say whatever you want about atheism. (Look outside your window girl. There are still KKKs out there in America and they are not considered illegal when they are peaceful, are they?)
I am not trying to completely be rid of music in America. You my friend or opponent in this case are completely misreading this. Or rather I have not made myself 100% clear. I am trying to purify music because youngsters retain what they hear more than what they see. Which do you remember more: seeing the exact scene of a movie or hearing that exact scene's music. I am a piano player that memorizes music phonetically; I use my ears greater than I use my fingers to memorize. If a note sounds incorrect, then I restart, so applying this concept to youngsters:
If youngsters were to incorporate this type of foul language into their everyday speech, pretty soon they'll be using the F*** word or the B**** words. The foul music like Nicki Minaj's Anaconda will imprint itself onto youngsters and soon America will have its hands full of troublemakers. There has already a drastic decrease in the amount of respect elders receive in America (example my band teacher) and why do you think this has occurred?
"From their friends, no doubt. Please stop, you are boring me to death. I clearly won the argument," you may say, but that is highly false. Where then has the friends learnt it from? If there is one common thing about everyone, it is "Music is a world in itself with a language that we all understand," Stevie Wonder sang this in his song "Sir Duke" and that is completely true. Without music, how would the news successfully reached the ears of people of the world. Music in itself is a form of propaganda, a tool that artists use to get their words across. (eg. Selena Gomez's The Heart Wants what it Wants, Stephen Hills' Ecology Song, etc.) That's fine and all, but now they are mentioning that "Sex is good for you at any age," "Boyfriends/girlfriends are people you can easily replace". America by this is becoming immoral and relationships are shortening itself and more people are promiscuous instead of monogamous. (If you don't know what these words mean, then look it up!). The world is changing out there rather evolving itself and there isn't much we can do to stop it. But we can help it by stopping the bad sitting on our doorsteps.
Ariesx

Con

My opponent seems to repeat the same mistake over, and over again. She says that she wants to "purify music". This is protected under the first amendment. I brought religion into this, because I could write the same case for religion. That I want to purify religion. It is my opponent's opinion that Americans listen to bad music that will lead them into trouble makers. She has no evidence that kids are going to become troublemakers. She is basing her case off of her experience. She does not have any statistics or evidence of her predictions, therefore my opponents' case is invalid. She wants to promote her own free speech over others' free speech. From time to time in history, people have made the same mistake she did. What did Britain have to say over religion? Christianity is the more pure religion. What did the Confederates say when people asked them to stop segregating black people? We want to keep the pure race away from those animals. America does not want to repeat the mistakes that other countries have committed. The founding fathers built this country, so free speech could exist. What if I were to say lets purify this debate, and let her stop speaking her evils. I would be promoting one free speech over the other. (And don't take me wrong, I don't think that what she is saying is evil.) Vote for the rights of America. Vote for free speech. Vote for the things that America stood for. If you side with my opponent, and still are not on my side, I will give you these 1 word. Consequence. If you promote this free speech over the other, then you are going to leave a very different future for America. We can now start to question other amendments. 4th Amendment: Citizens cannot be forced to subject themselves to seizure and search without a search warrant and probable cause. Lets take this amendment, and put the same question, and say Well what if that citizen is hiding something very valid from you, can't you just go into his house, and look for it. By using my opponent's logic, you would have to vote for that resolution. This would in my opinion create a society that is revolting against American society. Even saying that this applies to youngsters won't help it, because you could use the same "logic" for slavery. A slave owner could say that I don't want the youngsters to learn about equality until he is over the age of 21. You can learn about equality in any age, just as you can learn about music in any age you want too. Protect the amendments, Protect our Rights. Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativeLiberal101

Pro

Okay, so Ariesx, you before you can competently argue against my view, you have to get a few things right:
A. I am a conservative Democrat who is a girl, not a boy.
B. Get your amendment right; Amendment #2 was about the right to bear arms rather than the freedom of religion. (nice try! freedom of religion is under freedom of speech which is clearly under the 1st amendment. BAM! In your face!)
C. Why would you bring religion into this at all and atheism? You can as an American can say that atheism is wrong, but you cannot legally abolish the religion. What you are saying about atheism and how it promotes immorality is going against the Constitution rights are wrong. As long as a group of individuals are not trying to abolish it, you can say whatever you want about atheism. (Look outside your window girl. There are still KKKs out there in America and they are not considered illegal when they are peaceful, are they?)
I am not trying to completely be rid of music in America. You my friend or opponent in this case are completely misreading this. Or rather I have not made myself 100% clear. I am trying to purify music because youngsters retain what they hear more than what they see. Which do you remember more: seeing the exact scene of a movie or hearing that exact scene's music. I am a piano player that memorizes music phonetically; I use my ears greater than I use my fingers to memorize. If a note sounds incorrect, then I restart, so applying this concept to youngsters:
If youngsters were to incorporate this type of foul language into their everyday speech, pretty soon they'll be using the F*** word or the B**** words. The foul music like Nicki Minaj's Anaconda will imprint itself onto youngsters and soon America will have its hands full of troublemakers. There has already a drastic decrease in the amount of respect elders receive in America (example my band teacher) and why do you think this has occurred?
"From their friends, no doubt. Please stop, you are boring me to death. I clearly won the argument," you may say, but that is highly false. Where then has the friends learnt it from? If there is one common thing about everyone, it is "Music is a world in itself with a language that we all understand," Stevie Wonder sang this in his song "Sir Duke" and that is completely true. Without music, how would the news successfully reached the ears of people of the world. Music in itself is a form of propaganda, a tool that artists use to get their words across. (eg. Selena Gomez's The Heart Wants what it Wants, Stephen Hills' Ecology Song, etc.) But that doesn't mean artists should abuse the propaganda by filling it with dirty language and dirty words.
Ariesx

Con

Okay, so ConservativeLiberal01, copying and pasting does not make your argument effective, it just makes you look stupid. It seems like my opponent has dropped everything that I had mentioned in round 2. She had nothing to say about freedom in America. She had nothing to say about questioning America's amendments. She had nothing to say about her purification mistakes. She had nothing to say about promoting free speech over other forms of free speech. She had nothing to say about how her logic works for none of the other amendments, and if her "bill" passes. than other amendments can be questioned too, and those questions will be passed. It seems like she has not even tried to defend her argument against my arguments which means that either my arguments are too superior for her to handle, or that she agrees with my arguments, or she didn't read them. If my arguments were to superior to handle, than that means that I win this debate because even my opponent can't handle them. If she agrees with my arguments, than I win overall because she basically forfeited. If she didn't read my arguments, than she must either have too much pride, or just too lazy to read them, therefor I win. Vote Con, because con had history to back up the arguments, did not copy and paste his round 2, and is just awesome.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.