The Instigator
Briannj17
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
minddrag
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

On Balance: Schools Should Teach Fine Arts to the Students

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Briannj17
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,738 times Debate No: 86010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Briannj17

Pro

While many schools are stopping the art programs such as music, drama and art it is my belief that we shouldn't stop giving students the option to take these classes at school. It is therefore my belief that "Schools should be capable to teach arts and music to their students"

Definitions
School: an institution for educating children.
https://www.google.ca......

Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
https://www.google.ca......

Able:having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something.
https://www.google.ca......

Fine Arts: a type of art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) that is done to create beautiful things
http://www.merriam-webster.com......

Rules
1. No kritiks/semantics
2. Breaking rules = loss
3. You accept definitions
4. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate.

R1-4: Arguments/Rebuttals
R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
minddrag

Con

I accept the resolution and your definitions!
Debate Round No. 1
Briannj17

Pro

Thanks for accepting. Now I'll get right down to the point. The benefits the fine arts have had on society are clear. I will however point these out.

I have many reasons for this.
1. The Fine Arts education programs are mandatory in countries that rank consistently as the highest for math and science test scores, these include Japan, Hungary, and the Netherlands.
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, "Re-Investing in Arts Education: Winning America"s Future Through Creative Schools." The President"s Committee on the Arts and Humanities

2. Students who study the arta are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement and three times more likely to be awarded for school attendance.
"Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education", OECD Publishing, 2011.

3.The "No Child Left Behind Act" enforces that The Arts (music, art, foreign language, etc.) are a core academic subject.
U.S. Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind, A Toolkit for Teachers."

4.Many studies have reached a consensus that curricular and extracurricular art studies and activities help keep high-risk dropout students in school.
National School Boards Association. "Prediction: Identifying potential dropouts." The Center for Public Education.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org.......

5.New brain research shows music not only improves skills in math and reading, but it promotes creativity, social development, personality adjustment, and self-worth.
Weinberger, Norman M.. "The Music in Our Minds." Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, University of California. Accessed February 25, 2014,
http://nmw.bio.uci.edu......

In conclusion...
It is clear to me and should be clear to everyone that there are benefits the fine arts have on students. It is for these reasons fine arts should be continued to be taught at school. I look forward to my opponents response.
minddrag

Con

Thank you for your introductory speech. It was very enlightening on your view of this subject. I will now attempt to rebut your arguments and then I will move on to my constructive speech.

I would first like to point out that in your first point, that fine arts programs are not directly correlated to the marks of these students. It could be that the students spend more time on their studies, have better teachers or a better system or come from a poor country and need a good education to move away.

Even though the "No Child Left Behind Act" enforces that The Arts (music, art, foreign language, etc.) are a core academic subject, I would not believe that a law would enter into a debate where we are challenging the premise of the law. Just because a law is there, does not mean that it is correct.

I would like to point out that keeping high risk dropouts in school, means that they are still disrupting the classroom and distracting the class. High risk dropout students and art students in general like to doodle, hum and drum in class, leading to distracting the other students. Also most of the high risk dropouts are where they are as a part of the arts.

Now I will move on to my constructive speech. School is supposed to be an academic environment. But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds. Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music.

Although not many students feel the need to get an education, it should be everyone's top priority.

The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can.

It is so easy to spot the artists in the classroom. The moment a teacher goes off on a boring rampage about something like the history behind the Electoral College, drummers start tapping a complicated rhythm on their desks, artists start doodling a hilarious cartoon of the teacher, and singers blankly stare at the chalkboard as they internally sing their newest choral song. The classroom is engulfed by creativity, and when the lesson is over, no one is sure where the Electoral College came from.

This is the biggest problem with mixing extracurricular with academics. Students get too passionate about their art classes and completely neglect their core classes. If schools do eliminate art programs, students will not suddenly be deprived of a creative outlet. If they truly care about whatever it is they do, there are plenty of places to go after school.

It is for these reasons that I believe that this resolution must and will fall.
Debate Round No. 2
Briannj17

Pro

Alrighty time to get trucking...

Firstly let's review the first point on how music positively affects the marks of students. I will show you some interest ing reads on the positive affects music has on marks.
First book.
"In their 2006 book Studio Thinking: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education authors
Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner discuss why students involved in the arts do better in
school and on their SATs than their peers. They find that students in art classes learn a
remarkable array of mental habits not emphasized elsewhere in school. Skills include
persistence, expression, making clear connections between schoolwork and the outside
world, observing, envisioning, and innovating through exploration. Each of these skills
has a high value as a learning tool, both in school and elsewhere in life."

Second book,
"Cognitive neuroscientists at seven major universities have found strong links between
arts education and cognitive development (e.g. thinking, problem solving, concept
understanding, information processing and overall intelligence.) According to the Dana
Consortium study, Learning, Arts, and the Brain (2008) children motivated in the arts
develop attention skills and memory retrieval that also apply to other subject areas."
http://www.providenceri.com...
You may take a look at the rest that support the fact that the students high marks and cognitive ability directly corresponds to their involvement in the arts.

Second point you raised on my second point, "The No Child Left Behind Act" What I was trying to say is the U.S. Government believes it should be a requirement to teach the arts calling it a "Core academic subject". I find this compelling and this is why I brought it to this debate.

You have still to rebut my other points.

OK now let's take a look at those arguments...

The problem with your "rant" is that's all it is. Where are your sources to say such is so? I'm supplying quite a few compelling sources and then you make a rant about how music is affecting YOUR hallways? What's the point of that!

Because I can say, "The hallways filled with desirable music bring forth an awakening of our brains and allow us to really embrace our studies. The money that you can make being an artist is immense! Like 2 million dollars an artist injected straight into the economy each year! Also if your like me you want the credits and arts classes have these credits. There are many scholarships offered in the arts too that will help you when you want to go to college or university!

Making sculptures is another key in the arts. Because when you make a sculpture you know that people will really think about it. This stimulates the creative part of peoples brains and allows people to think outside the box. In this day and age art is needed. While people are staring at cellphones or screen monitors we need to get active how do we do this? Art! Music is a thing to get people dancing and thinking. The pleasure that comes from making, dancing and listening to music is immense! Paintings allow you to see into another world.

Art is a drug for every human. Like in that song by "Huey Lewis and the News" "I want a new drug" well you need a dose of art! Art stimulates peoples minds and sometimes the body, art gets you off the couch and gets you moving, art is prevalent in our world and that is why I believe that students should continue to have the option to take it. Thank you."

Yeah it's nice but unsupported. Now when you add the sources...

"The hallways filled with desirable music bring forth an awakening of our brains and allow us to really embrace our studies. http://bebrainfit.com...

The money that you can make being an artist is immense! Like 2 million dollars an artist injected straight into the economy each year! Also if your like me you want the credits and arts classes have these credits. There are many scholarships offered in the arts too that will help you when you want to go to college or university!

Making sculptures is another key in the arts. Because when you make a sculpture you know that people will really think about it. This stimulates the creative part of peoples brains and allows people to think outside the box. In this day and age art is needed. While people are staring at cellphones or screen monitors we need to get active how do we do this? Art! Music is a thing to get people dancing and thinking. The pleasure that comes from making, dancing and listening to music is immense! Paintings allow you to see into another world.

Art is a drug for every human. Like in that song by "Huey Lewis and the News" "I want a new drug" well you need a dose of art! Art stimulates peoples minds and sometimes the body, art gets you off the couch and gets you moving, art is prevalent in our world and that is why I believe that students should continue to have the option to take it. Thank you."

Yeah it's nice but unsuported. This is better...

The hallways filled with desirable music bring forth an awakening of our brains and allow us to really embrace our studies. http://bebrainfit.com...

The money that you can make being an artist is immense! Like more than 2 million dollars an artist injected straight into the economy each year! http://www.nashville.gov...
Also if your like me you want the credits and arts classes have these credits. There are many scholarships offered in the arts too that will help you when you want to go to college or university! http://www.canadian-universities.net...

Making sculptures is another key in the arts. Because when you make a sculpture you know that people will really think about it. This stimulates the creative part of peoples brains and allows people to think outside the box. http://www.cnn.com...
In this day and age art is needed. While people are staring at cellphones or screen monitors we need to get active how do we do this? Art! Music is a thing to get people dancing and thinking. http://www.scientificamerican.com... The pleasure that comes from making, dancing and listening to music is immense! Paintings allow you to see into another world.

Art is a drug for every human. Like in that song by "Huey Lewis and the News" "I want a new drug" well you need a dose of art! Art stimulates peoples minds and sometimes the body, art gets you off the couch and gets you moving, art is prevalent in our world and that is why I believe that students should continue to have the option to take it. Thank you."

In conclusion...
Have fun! Looking forward to your response.
minddrag

Con

Thank you for your enlightening argument and I look forward to what you state in the next round. Before I begin my constructive speech, I would first like to rebut some of your points.

Your first book states that students do better if they are involved in arts. I completely agree with this. I agree that students should be doing arts outside of school, but arts in school I disagree with. This would be the fact that students in art classes must conform to what the teacher wants them to learn and create, which stifles their creativity, not produces creativity.

Children motivated by the arts do develop better attention skills and memory retrieval, but this does not state how the arts should be taught in schools.

I would like to point out that insulting my arguments will not make some of them any less valid. Stating that my argument is a rant is quite frankly offensive, as I was stating my points in a opinion piece, this does not constitute a rant. I would just like to point out that your argument, though clearly outlining the benefits of the arts which I concede do make a compelling argument why the arts are needed in SOCIETY, I do not believe that it should be in school. Now I will move on to my constructive speech where I will seek to justify why even though the arts are beneficial to students and society, they should not be taught in school.

In the present moment, artists are better off training themselves at home and acquiring the benefit of a good liberal arts or art historical education. This, because the model for graduate art education, established in the early "70s by John Baldessari and others (myself included), is 40 years old and virtually obsolete.

This is a quote from Dave Hickey, one of the creators of the art education model. The creator of the arts education model is stating that art's should not be taught in schools! Now my wonderful opponent, how can you argue that we should teach arts to students in the 21st century when our teaching models are from 45 years ago? This is simply detrimental to the students as they would not be taught the art techniques that have developed in the past 45 years, they are being taught old outdated methods that are not being used anymore.

To continue on my point I would like to state that Art students should not be placed under the authority of older practicing artists whose work they are mandated to render obsolete. This guarantees bad advice and destructive criticism. This will follow up my previous point, by showing that no art teacher would be a young person fresh out of school or a younger artist, as they have not had time to practice their craft and they would first try to make a living through art before teaching. I would concede that there would be a few teachers that define this definition, but the majority of the teachers would be old and practiced leading to enact my point above.

Another quote from Dave Hickey that would clearly outline my point above:
Only saints can nurture real talent. I am a writer, not even an artist, and even I can"t avoid feeling a twinge of resentment when a pimple-faced twerp with a skateboard under his arm shows me a mature and persuasive work of art. I can see, much more clearly than the twerp, the road opening before him, the obstacles falling away, and it"s all I can do not to stick out my foot and trip him. If I were an artist, with a stake in the game, I would probably trip him, and tell myself that it"s for his own good. It wouldn"t be. Better to buy the damned art and take your profit on the back end.

Art in the context of an art school always looks bad, especially when it"s very good. Regular supervision and oversight of young artists" practice should be suppressed. My rule: "If you"re not sick, don"t call the doctor." This would further back up my point because artists should develop their craft on their own. Art is supposed to be an expression of ones thoughts or emotions. To be watched, graded and evaluated on your thoughts and feelings is simply not viable. It would destroy the students confidence and would also not be gradable. To give a high school credit for something that cannot be evaluated is not a viable education strategy.

If art students want to study Continental theory, they should learn German and French and study it in a philosophy department. Because (1) art schools are incapable of distinguishing properly between theory and practice; (2) art school classes in these subjects are little more than uncritical "slow pitch" indoctrinations taught by advocates rather than scholarly adepts; (3) all of the American translations of this work are poisoned by the moment of their making; (4) this entire discourse is now "historical""a dated, conservative, academic field of study and no longer live talk.

It is for the reasons above that I believe that arts should not be taught in school as arts are meant to be an exploration of ones self and it is detrimental to the artist themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
Briannj17

Pro

Okay now is the time to disagree:-)

"Students in art classes must conform to what the teacher wants them to learn and create, which stifles their creativity..."
Totally disagree on this one. Because no two pictures, sculptures or music is exactly the same. People make art the way they want to. Art classes are not a dictatorship, instead you have the tools in your hand to create whatever you want. I don't want to be brash but you can do what ever the hell you want with either your paint brush, hammer and chisel or voice and that is creativity in motion.

"Children motivated by the arts do develop better attention skills and memory retrieval, but this does not state how the arts should be taught in schools."
Am I hearing this correctly? School is usually the first step to becoming an adult. Studies show that it is while in school that children s brains develop most. https://www.theguardian.com...
Therefore this is the best time to teach art since it helps the brain develop even more! With singing, sponge painting the whole works! Where else are they going to learn to make art? Schools the best place.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...

Insulting? I'm pointing out the facts! Where were your sources? If it is just your opinion then it falls through, you needed to add facts. If they are needed in society they need to be taught in school! The children in school make up the FUTURE SOCIETY. Therefore the arts need to be taught in school. On balance which means the benefits are more toward teaching the arts, then not teaching them in school.

Studies show the brain stops developing around 25.
http://mentalhealthdaily.com...

Studies also show, "(Children) cultivate 85 percent
of their intellect, personality
and skills by age five."
https://larrycuban.files.wordpress.com...

Therefore schools is the best place to learn the arts since they are in their learning prime and their brains develop most while attending school.

Your quote doesn't sway me in the least. Don't use red herrings on me. How the teachers teach them doesn't apply here. The facts are already on the table from me. The art that is being taught is helping students do better in school, stay in school, and help them in their social life.
http://www.studentartguide.com...

It is obvious that there are many benefits of art in school. Therefore, on balance (meaning, on a scale) there are more benefits of teaching art in school. I look forward to what you post next.
minddrag

Con

Thank you for your argument, and I commend you on your very strong argument. I will now being to rebut your points, and then move onto my constructive speech.

In your speech you stated "Totally disagree on this one. Because no two pictures, sculptures or music is exactly the same. People make art the way they want to. Art classes are not a dictatorship, instead you have the tools in your hand to create whatever you want. I don't want to be brash but you can do what ever the hell you want with either your paint brush, hammer and chisel or voice and that is creativity in motion." I would first like to point out, that art classes are indeed a dictatorship, as long as they are under the school system.

To further evolve on this point, I would first like to examine how the school system teaches any subject. First off a curriculum is written up and assignments and assessments are made. This itself should be enough to rebut your previous point. This is because if there are assessments then the students are being told what to draw, and what makes it a good or a bad drawing. This would then stifle creativity and turn off young artists. But it does not stop there. Students are only allowed to use certain tools and they can only draw certain lines until they are "taught" the other forms. This is the evolution of the art curriculum. [1]

In your speech you also stated " School is usually the first step to becoming an adult. Studies show that it is while in school that children s brains develop most." This does not add credibility to your point. I will now seek to prove why. Schools are instituted as a place of learning [2]. Because schools are a place of learning it is obvious that the most recorded development in children's brains is in the middle of the day when the brain is most active, and because they are being taught. If children were to be taught in a different area at the same time, the levels would be just the same because the variables would not have been changed.

In your speech you also stated "I'm pointing out the facts! Where were your sources? If it is just your opinion then it falls through, you needed to add facts. If they are needed in society they need to be taught in school! The children in school make up the FUTURE SOCIETY. Therefore the arts need to be taught in school. On balance which means the benefits are more toward teaching the arts, then not teaching them in school."

First off, if I am logically rebutting your points, using logic and philosophy as I have been doing, sources are not completely needed because all I am doing is pointing out the logical flaws in your statements. I agree that the children in school make up the future society, that much is obvious. It does not gain any evidence towards your point as the fact that our future societies must be made up of children that completely understand the subjects needed for society and human understanding to advance such as math and science. I would rather have scientific advances then a painting, poorly done as it will be, due to the tutelage of our poor, conformist school system. Again, that was a logical rebuttal, so there is no source to put in. Just to make you happy here [3].

"Studies show the brain stops developing around 25." That is a great fact, but I do not see the connection it makes to your subject. This just shows that the arts need to be taught properly, not by our school system so that the children have the right understanding, and that there needs to be more stress on the developmental courses such as math and science so that theories and equations are embedded before 25!

You then move on to state that our children must be taught early on! I completely agree that the essential english and grammatical lessons must be taught early so that our children mat speak clearly and properly. I agree that math must be taught early so that our children can effectively calculate. I agree that business must be taught so that they can properly invest. I do not agree that the arts shall be taught, because society can function without them, and they do not lend them-self to the economy of the world. The arts only make up .025% of out total jobs, so clearly they are not needed considering the funding given to them in our school system! [4]

You finally stated something fundamentally wrong to the essence of debate. You stated "Your quote doesn't sway me in the least. Don't use red herrings on me. How the teachers teach them doesn't apply here. The facts are already on the table from me. The art that is being taught is helping students do better in school, stay in school, and help them in their social life."

Now how is using a quote, lovingly written by the creator of your american art school system, quoting the wrongdoings of our art system a red herring? I tied the quote back into the resolution, and explained what it meant, so how can it be a red herring?

A red herring is "Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument." [5]

You see that now my argument cannot be a red herring as I tied the quote in to the topic that we are debating and clearly explained it. Therefore it cannot be a red herring as defined above.

To conclude, the arts cannot be taught in school as it takes away from society advancing subjects, is distracting to the student and other students, wastes our governments money, and overall is taught wrongly by our education system. Since that arts in our school is taught in a dictatorship manner and marked by a teacher, is against the fundamental purpose of the arts as a creative subject to be graded and assessed. It is for these reasons that this resolution must and shall fall. Thank You!

Resources:
[1] https://www.edu.gov.on.ca...
[2] http://stand.org...
[3] My brain! OH WOW, that's a source eh?!
[4] http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
[5]http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Briannj17

Pro

Well let's negate...

"Art classes (Taught in school) are indeed a dictatorship"

Dictatorship: absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The source you used supports my argument. Look on page six if you will.
"The arts curriculum is based on four central ideas " developing creativity, communicating,
understanding culture, and making connections. Major aspects of these ideas are outlined
in the chart below.

Developing
Creativity:
" developing aesthetic awareness
" using the creative process
" using problem-solving skills
" taking an innovative approach to a challenge"

This is seen throughout the curriculum as well. Now on page 19:
"All children have the ability to be creative. Education in the arts builds upon this ability
and deepens children"s capacity for artistic expression and representation. Awareness of
one"s inner feelings and thoughts is a prerequisite to making art. Inspiration and innovative
thinking spring from this awareness and provide us with new answers and solutions,
and new questions to pursue. Through the creation and presentation of art works, students
express and communicate their creative insights in a range of forms and with varying
degrees of concreteness and abstraction.
Creativity involves the invention and the assimilation of new thinking and its integration
with existing knowledge. Sometimes the creative process is more about asking the
right questions than it is about finding the right answer. It is paradoxical in that it
involves both spontaneity and deliberate, focused effort. Creativity does not occur in a
vacuum. Art making is a process requiring both creativity and skill, and it can be cultivated
by establishing conditions that encourage and promote its development. Teachers
need to be aware that the atmosphere they create for learning affects the nature of the
learning itself. A setting that is conducive to creativity is one in which students are not
afraid to suggest alternative ideas and take risks.
The creative process comprises several stages:
" challenging and inspiring
" imagining and generating
" planning and focusing
" exploring and experimenting
" producing preliminary work
" revising and refining
" presenting, performing, and sharing
" reflecting and evaluating"
https://www.edu.gov.on.ca...

These are seen consistently in the curriculum where teachers allow the students to use their imagination to make something original. By the way curriculum's are guidelines. Teachers can adapt their own. But since the curriculum is very intent on keeping creativity in the classroom it, by definition, goes against your dictatorship argument.

"Because schools are a place of learning it is obvious that the most recorded development in children's brains is in the middle of the day when the brain is most active, and because they are being taught. If children were to be taught in a different area at the same time, the levels would be just the same because the variables would not have been changed."

Huh? How is this a rebuttal? What I was saying is that school is the most convenient place to learn music and since the arts benefits not only cognitive abilities but also social skills school will be the most logical choice to teach the arts.

"First off, if I am logically rebutting your points, using logic and philosophy as I have been doing..."

This rant you made is neither logic nor fact and is what I was originally addressing...

" School is supposed to be an academic environment. But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds. Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music....The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can...It is so easy to spot the artists in the classroom. The moment a teacher goes off on a boring rampage about something like the history behind the Electoral College, drummers start tapping a complicated rhythm on their desks, artists start doodling a hilarious cartoon of the teacher, and singers blankly stare at the chalkboard as they internally sing their newest choral song. The classroom is engulfed by creativity, and when the lesson is over, no one is sure where the Electoral College came from....This is the biggest problem with mixing extracurricular with academics. Students get too passionate about their art classes and completely neglect their core classes..."

You call this ^^^^^ logical?

"I completely agree that the essential english and grammatical lessons must be taught early so that our children mat speak clearly and properly. I agree that math must be taught early so that our children can effectively calculate. I agree that business must be taught so that they can properly invest."

Well you should also then agree that the arts should be taught because the studies I have shown you prove the arts to be crucial in developing a better cognitive ability, creativity,social skills, self worth, and loads of other benefits. http://www.studentartguide.com...

"The arts only make up .025% of out total jobs, so clearly they are not needed considering the funding given to them in our school system!"

"The performing arts industry in Canada generated $1.5 billion in operating revenues in 2012." http://www.statcan.gc.ca...

And in the U.S.A. arts contribute more to the economy than tourism!
"In 2011, the production of arts and cultural goods and services employed 2.0 million workers and generated $289.5 billion in employee compensation in the form of wages, salaries and supplements."
http://performingartsconvention.org...

"You see that now my argument cannot be a red herring as I tied the quote in to the topic that we are debating and clearly explained it. Therefore it cannot be a red herring as defined above."

Red Herring: "Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument."

"Only saints can nurture real talent. I am a writer, not even an artist, and even I can"t avoid feeling a twinge of resentment when a pimple-faced twerp with a skateboard under his arm shows me a mature and persuasive work of art. I can see, much more clearly than the twerp, the road opening before him, the obstacles falling away, and it"s all I can do not to stick out my foot and trip him. If I were an artist, with a stake in the game, I would probably trip him, and tell myself that it"s for his own good. It wouldn"t be. Better to buy the damned art and take your profit on the back end."

If this isn't off track I don't know what to call it....By the way you didn't properly quote this.

In Conclusion...

Since basically everything my opponent has said so far has been rebutted and since none of my original facts such as the effect music has children's cognitive, social and creative abilities it should be clear who your vote should go for. Vote Pro, For I have shown you that there are more benefits to teaching music in school then not teaching it there.

As for me, my name is Brian N. Johnson and thank you for reading.
minddrag

Con

Thank you for this wonderful debate, and I hope that we have many more in the future. I would first like to rebut my opponents points, and then I will move on to my conclusion.

You previously stated: Art classes (Taught in school) are indeed a dictatorship, Dictatorship: absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control." I would like to first agree with your definition of dictatorship. I do not see how posting the definition of something would rebut my point. I have shown that art classes are run by a teacher who is overbearing power and control, so therefore art classes are a dictatorship unless you prove it otherwise.

You later stated: "Because schools are a place of learning it is obvious that the most recorded development in children's brains is in the middle of the day when the brain is most active, and because they are being taught. If children were to be taught in a different area at the same time, the levels would be just the same because the variables would not have been changed." Huh? How is this a rebuttal? What I was saying is that school is the most convenient place to learn music and since the arts benefits not only cognitive abilities but also social skills school will be the most logical choice to teach the arts.

You later stated "These are seen consistently in the curriculum where teachers allow the students to use their imagination to make something original. By the way curriculum's are guidelines. Teachers can adapt their own. But since the curriculum is very intent on keeping creativity in the classroom it, by definition, goes against your dictatorship argument."

This would be an incorrect assumption. This is because originality is what any person makes, so even if a student is forced to create an elephant drawing per say, it would be original as it is the students drawing. This is not to say that it would be the students best work, or an example of the students creativity because he was forced to draw it.

Curriculum are indeed guidelines and the teachers can adapt their own interpretation of the curriculum, but what does not change is the point that there are assignments and work that must be done a certain way in a classroom to receive the highest marks, and that the student must do the work that the teacher assigns for them to do. Just because there is interpretation on the curriculum, does not mean that it is any less of a dictatorship. How can creativity be kept in a classroom where students are told what to make and what constitutes a good or bad drawing.

If you view an example of an art rubric here [1], you can see that students are graded on how well they follow the directions. This would show that an art classroom is indeed a dictatorship, and students are told what to create.

I will now attempt to clarify this point. I understand that what you were saying is that school is the most convenient place to learn the arts because of those benefits. What I had stated is that our brains are always the most active in the middle of the day, and that since we are in one place being forced to learn at that time, it is obvious that these benefits would exist. If school was in a different time of the day these benefits might not exist. So my point would be to say that these benefits cannot be directly correlated to school as if you were say being home-schooled at the same time, you would receive the same benefits.

In rebutting this point I again must outline my stance on this: Well you should also then agree that the arts should be taught because the studies I have shown you prove the arts to be crucial in developing a better cognitive ability, creativity,social skills, self worth, and loads of other benefits. [2]

As I have already stated, you cannot directly correlate these benefits to learning art in school to the fact that the location is at school, you can simply correlate them to the fact that the arts are learned by the student. This means that even if art was taught at home, you would receive these benefits, along with more time for more worthwhile subjects.

My final rebuttal is on this point: "The performing arts industry in Canada generated $1.5 billion in operating revenues in 2012." [3] And in the U.S.A. arts contribute more to the economy than tourism! "In 2011, the production of arts and cultural goods and services employed 2.0 million workers and generated $289.5 billion in employee compensation in the form of wages, salaries and supplements." [4]

I will begin by first stating that 1.5 billion in operating revenue is extremely low, as even the advertising industry, one of the smallest industries in Canada makes 7.0 billion. 2.0 million workers is also an extremely small amount, as agriculture and farming, which is an extremely small industry employs 8.0 million people.[6] Overall the arts are not a money producing sector.

Overall the arts make little money for the government, they cost a fortune in supplies and teaching. The arts take our childcare's educational time and uses it for a course that is not going to be needed later in life, and is not going to be followed by the majority of students. Te benefits that my opponent stated the arts gives are in fact false, as I have proved above. Overall the arts are useless in our education system as they are being taught in a dictatorship and are not nurturing the students creative instincts.

I would strongly encourage a vote against the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to insult my character and debating style, and has sued red herrings along with numerous other logical fallacies. My opponent has not taken this debate seriously from the beginning and has gone through great lengths to avoid rebutting my points logically, and has instead attempted to attack my method's not my points.

As for me, my name is the name that you see on my profile, and I don't need to egotistically tell you my name at the end of the debate!

Resources:
[1]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...
[2]http://www.studentartguide.com...
[3]http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
[4]http://performingartsconvention.org...
[5]http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
[6]http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Thanks m8!
Posted by CodingSource 1 year ago
CodingSource
A debate between two of the best emerging debaters. Excited about the outcome friends.
Posted by TheDeafCreeper 1 year ago
TheDeafCreeper
I would debate this, but I'm full pro
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@Vice well there are parent boards usually but the schooling does what the state government and district deem necessary
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
No, schools should do what the parents want.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
There are you happy now? Seriously I wasn't being chicken. I just didn't know a great title. Thanks.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
No reasonable person disputes that schools "should be capable to teach arts and music". Obviously, the inquiry is whether or not schools should teach arts and music, not whether or not they should be capable of doing so. The wording of this resolution gives you an unfair advantage. Don't chicken out. Debate something debatable.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Right on then. Well I believe schools should continue to teach the arts. If they have to fundraise so be it.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
Sincerely_Millenial
You realize that school have lost their funding to support the arts which is why they have cut the programs? My high school lost all funding for the arts and the parents were so disappointed that they donated enough money to the school to keep not only ALL the arts programs open but ALL the sports programs too.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 1 year ago
WhineyMagiciann5
That seems a little more balanced. honestly though I believe most people wouldn't pick that up. I noticed because before I joined this site one of the little tricks I did in debates was focus on the little flaws in my opponents argument. harder on this though since they can up and change the title of their argument
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jo021698j 1 year ago
jo021698j
Briannj17minddragTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did very well, but Pro used more sources that were reliable and had an organized argument whereas Con needed to have a more eye catching format. These are little details, but I thought Pro was stronger in this debate concerning formatting and citation.