The Instigator
GermaniaMagna
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Rap Music Is Appropriate for Children and Teens

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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,438 times Debate No: 15700
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

GermaniaMagna

Con

A1: Rap music is offensive as much of the content (lyrics) contains inappropriate language. Children should not be exposed to rap music, as they will pick up these offensive words and start using them on a regular basis, thinking that's it's alright.

A2: Rap music has sexist, abusive, and aggressive attitudes. Teens listen to these songs and suddenly over 750,000 teens get pregnant in one year, forcing most of them to drop out of school, and costing the United States approximately $7 billion dollars a year.

A3: Teens and children alike look up to these rappers, and see at least of them doing illegal drugs. This sets a bad example, and ends with them doing drugs also, as they think that it's good because their favorite rapper does it.

A4: These rap songs may tell the story of a rapper's life and how they went from the pits to fame and wealth, but this has kids thinking that if they drop out of school and live in dark alleyways, they too, will become famous and wealthy.
Danielle

Pro

1. Rap music contains offensive lyrics that children might repeat.

a) Not all rap music contains "inappropriate" language. There are several rap artists who choose to specifically avoid using profanity, including Will Smith. Moreover, "clean" versions of just about every rap song exist, where profanities are censored out in favor of more family-friendly vernacular. Con's first argument does not pertain to those records, meaning it cannot apply in negation of the resolution.

b) Rap music is far from being the only genre which uses profanity or adult themes. For instance, one of rock legends' Ac/Dc's most famous songs is called Big Balls [1]. Sometimes songs are less subtle but still have mature themes. Lady Gaga's chart topping pop song "Poker Face" is a song about being able to keep a poker face on so that she can be with a man, but fantasize about a woman [2]. In other words, there are questionable lyrics and themes across ALL music genres, so it's unfair and non-sensical to single out rap specifically. Even country songs curse [3]. If you say rap is inappropriate because of the language and content they use, then this must extend across all genres.

c) Con hasn't explained why being exposed to profanity is inappropriate. She hints that it's only not okay if the teenager repeats it. However, she makes no mention of being exposed to profanity elsewhere (say in the home) or specifically explain why this is an inherently bad thing. Also, I'd argue that not everyone is a parrot. In listening to rap music I hear "the N word" a lot, but that doesn't mean I go around repeating it in my everyday life. A parent could easily teach their child that the words they're hearing are not appropriate everyday language.

2. Rap music has sexist, abusive and aggressive themes. It promotes teenage pregnancy and dropping out of school.

a) Extend my previous arguments as they are applicable to this contention as well. Rap music is not the only genre with negative themes, so it should not be singled out. Further this does not encompass all rap music, and you cannot uphold the resolution via mass generalization. Some rap songs positively emphasize the opposite. For example, Lauryn Hill is a rap artist whose music is known to inspire and empower women [4].

b) Also on this point, exposure to these themes is not necessarily inappropriate. These are the facts of life. In fact many people are exposed to certain themes early on, and rap music is art that helps express and reflect on their experience. Some songs such as "Hip Hop Saved My Life" suggest rap music helped profusely as an outlet and potential escape [5].

c) Con hasn't proven that it's rap music specifically which has led to the statics she described. For instance, 750K teenagers got pregnant "suddenly" in a year, but keep in mind that MTV's reality show "16 and Pregnant" debuted the same year. Teen star Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant around the same time. In other words, there are a plethora of potential reasons for increase in the trend of teen pregnancy. Con randomly attributes the cause to rap music, which is irresponsible and unsupported.

3. Rappers promote drug use/abuse.

a) Many of the same arguments from above apply. I'd also like to note that rappers are entertainers and do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about. Eminem for instance talks about killing people in many of his songs [6], yet if those lyrics were remotely true he would have been in jail a long time ago. Likewise, actors who kill in the moves do not necessarily exemplify the traits they personify on screen for entertainment value. Con doesn't mention that celebrities of every kind are not always the perfect role models.

Also, many Catholic priests have been known to molest young children [7]. Would Con suggest that religion is therefore inappropriate for children because some people associated with religion specifically have not always made the right choices? As I said, parents are responsible for raising their children - not the entertainment industry. And people are responsible for their own choices. Anything could be an influence/catalyst propelling one to make bad choices. It would be wrong to single out rap music and ignore all of the potential good.

4. Rap music encourages people to drop out of school.

a) While it's true many rap songs contain "rags-to-riches" stories, Con is mistaken in that rappers typically glorify this lifestyle and those circumstances. For example, the Notorious BIG's song where he talks about dropping out of school and the subsequent situation thereafter is called "Everyday Struggle" not "Everyday Awesome." Not only is Con's accusation completely subjective (many rappers specifically encourage staying in school - 8), but even the interpretation of the same song can be subjective. For instance, while Con considers those lyrics to be glorifying a life on the streets, I have always thought the complete opposite and took it as a reinforcement to be thankful for how lucky I am to NOT be in that situation. I see them talking about that lifestyle as something unfortunate and to be avoided. Can con provide evidence of rappers promoting contrary?

In conclusion, censorship is generally inappropriate for all ages. Some rap songs contain violent, misogynistic, homophobic and overall negative themes that are not necessarily ones we want children exposed to. However, they're going to be exposed to it at some point or another, and it makes no sense to single rap music out specifically as the culprit; the bearer of bad news in a world with cable tv, the internet and more. Perhaps this exposure can help parents talk to their kids and have important conversations, such as not taking everything they see on television, in movies or hear on the ratio to heart. Children need to understand that in regards to ALL aspects of entertainment - not just music. We don't want kids thinking it's okay to play with real AK47s just because shooting people on Call of Duty is fun.

Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means. Children should not be prohibited from experiencing such an important aspect of culture - especially if it is pertinent to their own. To "rap" merely means to speak in a rhythmic tone over music, and said style can be used to depict a variety of themes including very positive ones. Music has been known to positively influence people in many ways, including rap. We can not single out and focus specifically and only on the bad.

I'll leave it at that for now... Back to you, Con, and thanks for this debate.

[1] http://www.lyricsdomain.com...
[2] http://www.examiner.com...
[3] http://www.lyricsfreak.com...
[4] http://www.softcup.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.azlyrics.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.rapbasement.com...
Debate Round No. 1
GermaniaMagna

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. I look forward to seeing the results. 'Bona fortuna', and may the best debater win.
..................................................................................................................................................
"These are the facts of life. In fact many people are exposed to certain themes early on, and rap music is art that helps express and reflect on their experience."

"Many of the same arguments from above apply. I'd also like to note that rappers are entertainers and do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about."
As you can see in the first statement, Pro states that rap lyrics clearly reflect the lives and experiences that the rappers have been through, but the next statement is completely contrary to that. In statement two, Pro says that they do NOT necessarily rap about their life and the experiences they've been through. Are the lyrics truthful or are they not?
...............................................................................................................................................

"For instance, while Con considers those lyrics to be glorifying a life on the streets, I have always thought the complete opposite and took it as a reinforcement to be thankful for how lucky I am to NOT be in that situation. I see them talking about that lifestyle as something unfortunate and to be avoided. Can con provide evidence of rappers promoting contrary?"
But does this make it true for other people? And yes, in fact, I can. Please go to the following link and read the first post, by user "Gurbik" [1]: http://www.narutoforums.com...
...........................................................................................................................................
"Rap music is far from being the only genre which uses profanity or adult themes. For instance, one of rock legends' Ac/Dc's most famous songs is called Big Balls [1]. Sometimes songs are less subtle but still have mature themes. Lady Gaga's chart topping pop song "Poker Face" is a song about being able to keep a poker face on so that she can be with a man, but fantasize about a woman [2]. In other words, there are questionable lyrics and themes across ALL music genres, so it's unfair and non-sensical to single out rap specifically. Even country songs curse [3]. If you say rap is inappropriate because of the language and content they use, then this must extend across all genres."
The following link will thoroughly explain my point: http://answers.yahoo.com... [4]
Yes, profanity may be found in genres such as rap, but no genre has as much or uses it as much as rap. The artist 2Pac recorded a song called, "Hit Em' Up", in which he is said to have repeated the F.Word approx. 49 times. Give me a song, from a different genre, that uses a word like that as many times as that song [5].
.........................................................................................................................................
"Many of the same arguments from above apply. I'd also like to note that rappers are entertainers and do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about. Eminem for instance talks about killing people in many of his songs [6], yet if those lyrics were remotely true he would have been in jail a long time ago. Likewise, actors who kill in the moves do not necessarily exemplify the traits they personify on screen for entertainment value. Con doesn't mention that celebrities of every kind are not always the perfect role models."
The lyrics do not have to be, as you said, "remotely true". Kids here these lyrics, and they start getting these ideas of killing people also. Words are like parts of a picture, and songs build up one big picture. Some kids will look at this "picture", if you will, and will look at it with disgust. Others will look, and keep on staring, undecided whether to think bad of it or not. They keep on thinking of it, it keeps on returning to them, and they seem incapable of letting it go until they find out for themselves how it would feel to be the one in that "picture" (Mind you, I am speaking in metaphorical terms.)
................................................................................................................
You may argue that the parents would tell their kids not to listen to the music if they truly do not want their children exposed to it. You may argue that the kid(s) will know right from wrong and will know not to commit the crimes that the rappers rap about in their songs.
"Up until 13 years old, children do not have the capacity to form their own opinions, and they depend on their parents to decipher all information for them." , said Dr.John Gray, a family therapist. He says that when a kid turns into a teenager, they start thinking abstractly, and they start thinking for themselves. This is a big part of the reason why teenagers are known for their rebellious attitude toward their parents, or their "hot blood", if you will [2].

Sites Used:
[1] http://www.narutoforums.com...
[2] http://www.parentingteensonline.com...
[3] http://www.webmd.com...
[4] http://answers.yahoo.com...
[5] http://answers.yahoo.com...
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

In the last round Con deviated from her original numerical points, so I'm going to respond to her individual questions/criticisms hopefully in a coherent manner. She begins...

"Are the lyrics truthful or are they not?"

----> Con makes it seem as if I have contradicted myself in noting that some songs are truthful and some are not. However, clearly songs, like movies, can be either fiction or non-fiction. While some songs exist strictly for entertainment purposes, some tell a true story. I don't see how this negates any of my arguments. My point was that since rap is a legitimate form of art and culture, that it can be used for good and to express certain truths. That doesn't mean that every rap song is true.

"I can give evidence of rappers glorifying the streets..."

----> Con says she can provide evidence of rappers glorifying the streets and yet she failed to do so. First, note that the link she sent us to was a forum where members can post anything they want, so it's far from a credible source. Second, the post she cites mentions a member of 50 Cent's group assaulting someone. While that may be true, that is NOT evidence of a rapper promoting the gangster lifestyle (perhaps merely living it). It was specified that we were talking about the concept of glorifying criminal lifestyle - not just living it. Con hasn't proven that the rappers involved glorified this situation in any way.

"You can't give me a song that curses as much as a rap song..."

----> I'm going to ignore the fact that Con provided a link to Yahoo Answers to make her argument for her. Once again, that is nothing but a forum where people type their own opinions. I'm not debating the members at Yahoo.com. I'm debating Con, so if Con has a specific argument that she would like to make then she can type it up in her own words and not expect me to respond to random people who cannot reply to me.

Basically, Con says no other genre uses as much profanity and challenges me to find song that uses a bunch of curse words at least 49 times. Challenge accepted. The electronic song "Fvcking in Heaven" by Fatboy Slim is an electronic song that uses the F word 120 times [1]. Reel Big Fish's "Another F.U. Song" is a ska song that uses the F word 50 times [2]. Blink 182 is a punk band, and the first line to their song "Family Reunion" starts, "Sh!t, piss, fvck, cvnt, c0ck sucker, mother fvcker, t!ts, farts, turd and tw@t... I fvcked your mom!" Needless to say, I can post innumerable other examples but I think it's pretty obvious I have more than met my opponent's challenge. My argument that rap is far from the only "inappropriate" genre stands.

"Kids hear the words of rappers and adhere to them; they do not form thoughts of their own..."

----> It seems Con has just skipped my rebuttal and re-stated her original arguments. I more than explained in the last round that parents and not entertainers are responsible for raising children, and how the themes explored in rap can even be used as a catalyst to start important conversations with one's children. Can Con prove that children would be sheltered from these things if specifically prohibited from rap music? I argued no, and mentioned cable television as just one of many other possible vessels of this kind of information. The school yard is another.

For clarity, I'm going to extend all of the arguments from above that Con has dropped and therefore I assume conceded to...

1a. Not all rap music contains inappropriate language; there are clean versions of rap songs
1c. Con hasn't explained why profanity is necessarily inappropriate and ignores other bad influences
2a. Con ignores the fact that positive and empowering rap music exists
2c. Con hasn't proven her R1 statistics about teen pregnancy were remotely relevant to rap music
3a. There are no perfect celebrity role models; Con also ignored my priest analogy
4a. Con could not provide an example of rappers glorifying dropping out of school

Con also completely ignored my conclusion about the dangers of censorship, and only singling out the negatives of rap in particular.

[1] http://www.answerbag.com...
[2] http://www.lyricsmode.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GermaniaMagna

Con

I feel that I have to make the point that Pro has been paraphrasing my orginal statements. Exempli gratia:
Statement posted by Pro: "You can't give me a song that curses as much as a rap song..."
Statement from my last argument: "Give me a song, from a different genre, that uses a word like that as many times as that song [5].

Clearly, Pro is rewording my statements, with the intention of changing their meaning. The statement from the example above (posted by Pro) is more aggressive, direct, less specific and it is denying the fact that Pro can give me evidence of a song, from a different genre, that uses a word like that as many times as that song. In my original statement, I am simply challenging Pro, not directly stating that Pro cannot. When it comes to being inspecific, I said to give me one that has as much profanity as THAT ONE song, not simply ANY rap song.
............................................................................................................................
"I'm going to ignore the fact that Con provided a link to Yahoo Answers to make her argument for her. Once again, that is nothing but a forum where people type their own opinions. I'm not debating the members at Yahoo.com. I'm debating Con, so if Con has a specific argument that she would like to make then she can type it up in her own words and not expect me to respond to random people who cannot reply to me."

Well, this is a tad hypocritical. Saying that you're ignoring that fact is simply another way of making it known to the viewers. Nevertheless, I am being pointed out for using Yahoo Answers, yet it is okay to go use another site that works the exact same way as Yahoo Answers: http://www.answerbag.com...
.................................................................................................................................

"Con also completely ignored my conclusion about the dangers of censorship, and only singling out the negatives of rap in particular."

You said that not all songs are full of curse words, as there are clean versions of them. But does that mean that the originals have some curses in them? As you said, there are clean versions of songs, and sometimes they are aired on the radio. (Depending on how much profanity is in the song) Most of the song is blurted out. As for singling out the negatives of rap, please, feel free to list the positive effets that rap has on teens.
................................................................................................................................................
". There are no perfect celebrity role models; Con also ignored my priest analogy"
I never said that there are any perfect role models; and whether we are role models for people or not, it doesn't matter. We as humans will always have imperfections about us. Yes, some priests may be child molesters, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them. Who ever molested those children went to jail, and hopefully their families got closure, but that is a totally different story compared to rappers, as recording music with profanity is not and probably never will be against the law.
............................................................................................................................................
"Con makes it seem as if I have contradicted myself in noting that some songs are truthful and some are not. However, clearly songs, like movies, can be either fiction or non-fiction. While some songs exist strictly for entertainment purposes, some tell a true story. I don't see how this negates any of my arguments. My point was that since rap is a legitimate form of art and culture, that it can be used for good and to express certain truths. That doesn't mean that every rap song is true."
In one statement you said that rap helps people "reflect on their experience" which supports the idea that the lyrics are truthful. But in another statement you said that they "do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about."
This supports the idea that the lyrics are untruthful. I myself, and potentially other people, found this quite baffling when I read the two statements, and simply asked which idea you are supporting. So, what are you trying to say with these two statements?
.......................................................................................................................................................
"It seems Con has just skipped my rebuttal and re-stated her original arguments. I more than explained in the last round that parents and not entertainers are responsible for raising children, and how the themes explored in rap can even be used as a catalyst to start important conversations with one's children. Can Con prove that children would be sheltered from these things if specifically prohibited from rap music? I argued no, and mentioned cable television as just one of many other possible vessels of this kind of information. The school yard is another."

As you said, parents are responsible for raising children, and will closely monitor what their children watch on television, just as the monitors at school will monitor the children to prevent and violence. I'm not saying that they can be sheltered from certain things forever, as they have to now what to do for their own good, but prohibiting rap music will definitely help kids make better choices. This would eliminate rappers (many of them are on drugs), who children look up to, and they would have less of these bad role models influencing them to make bad choices.
........................................................................................................................................................
When I analyze all of your arguments/rebuttals, I realize that you have only two main points:
1. Profanity can be seen in all music genres.
2. I abandon previous arguments to rebut. yours.

(Extending my previous arguments) Profanity can be seen in many genres, such as heavy metal and punk, but is not used as excessively throughout the ENTIRE genre (includes all songs in genre) as the rap genre.
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GermaniaMagna

Con

Since you forfeited the last round, there is nothing for me to rebut. I will restate some previous arguments and introduce a few new ones.

These are my arguments:
1. The rap genre contains extensive profanity and is not suitable for children and teens.
2a. Rap music may encourage kids to do drugs and other things that can be detrimental to their health.
2b. Other than health problems, kids may also get in trouble with the authorities, and this can ruin their chances of getting into a good college.
3. Many rappers are a bad influence on young children.
3b. Since teens have recently switched from concrete to abstract thinking, they are now making decisions for themselves, thus, rappers also badly influence the decisions they make.
4. (This ties in with ARGUMENT 2B) Rap music encourages children and teens to commit acts of violence (possibly felonies). Please see the following link: http://www.webmd.com...[1]
Adding on to ARGUMENT 4, girls who watch and listen to rap (videos) are three times more likely to assault a teacher/instructor and are more likely to get arrested than other girls[2].

Back to you Pro.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] http://www.webmd.com...
[2] http://www.ehow.com...
Danielle

Pro

My sincerest apologies for missing the last round. Fortunately, there is another round so my opponent will be to respond to my counter-arguments here. For clarity, I'm going to respond to every single point my opponent made and order them numerically. I'll begin with Round 3...

1. Con accuses me of re-wording her statements to change their meaning. She says that by paraphrasing what she said (I worded it as "You can't give me a song that curses as much as a rap song," but she said "Give me a song, from a different genre, that uses a word like that as many times as that song") that I am being aggressive, less specific, and denying the fact that "Pro can give me evidence of a song, from a different genre, that uses a word like that as many times as that song." This accusation is ridiculous. I was merely paraphrasing what she said which is obvious. She clarifies, "I said to give me one that has as much profanity as THAT ONE song, not simply ANY rap song." And that's exactly what I did. I provided an electronic song, ska song and punk song that has as much profanity as THAT song. She said it had to curse more than 49 times. I provided a song from another genre that cursed 120 times. Assuming profanity in music was a big deal (and I've argued that it's not), this challenge has more than been met.

Furthermore, psychological studies have proven that heavy metal music makes people aggressive and violent [1]. So again, it's wrong to single out rap music and say it has the potential for violence while ignoring the impact other genres can have as well.

2. Next, Con says I'm being hypocritical because I criticized her for using Yahoo Answers when I cited a source (Answer Bag) that works the same way. However, I cited Answer Bag as my source for where I learned about how many swear words a song has. Can con disprove that argument? No. Meanwhile, Con never presented an argument for me to refute. Her exact words were "The following link will thoroughly explain my point." As I said, myself nor the audience are responsible for going to other websites to read Con's point. She can cite that source as inspiration for her point or where she got her evidence, but she cannot refer us to read arguments on other sites. If that were the case then every debate could be argued just by spamming links. There was no hypocrisy on my end.

3. I said that Con ignored my conclusion about the dangers of censorship, and only singled out the negatives of rap music in particular. In response, Con says that it doesn't matter if there are clean versions of songs because the originals still exist. First, you'll notice that this has nothing whatsoever do do with the dangers of censorship, so it seems Con has still not answered my point. Second, the fact that clean versions exist make it possible to enjoy rap music without the profanity or negative lyrics that Con says ruin the song. Moreover, Con asks me to cite positive effects that cap music can have on teens. This is borderline abusive (a huge waste of my character space) because I already provided examples in previous rounds of some positive which Con has simply ignored.

To go more into detail, Murray Forman, professor of media studies at Northeastern University notes potential positive impacts of rap music, such as being "grafted onto some of the new power politics in the early 21st century." It allows people to express themselves; it's art and poetry. Forman said rap helps young artists get out of economic depression who in turn provide a lot of opportunities for their friends and loved ones. Rap also allows for young blacks to articulate a certain cultural perspective, and help others understand what is going on in the minds of young black people in the urban environment [2].

Rap lyrics can also be used to teach and reach people. Afrikabambata, Grandmaster Flash, Common, Nas and Mos-Def are just a few whose lyrical content promotes pride and social consciousness. In September of 2009, Jay-Z headlined a concert to benefit the families of those lost in 9/11. Rap artists, through the performances of their music, can do a lot of good [3].

4. Con writes, "Yes, some priests may be child molesters, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them." Right here Con defeats her own argument. Yes, some rappers might be misogynistic drug users, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them. Some like those I have mentioned specifically speak out against a negative lifestyle.

5. Con is apparently baffled by my contradicting statements. The statements are:

- "My point was that since rap is a legitimate form of art and culture, that it can be used for good and to express certain truths. That doesn't mean that every rap song is true."

- "Rappers do not necessarily live the lifestyle they rap about."

I have no idea why my opponent is baffled. These statements are obviously not contradictory in any way whatsoever. Additionally both of those statements are true. My opponent should be more specific about what she doesn't understand so I can help her understand, I suppose.

6. Next I'm just going to point out some of Con's statements and explain why they are illegitimate. She writes, "Prohibiting rap music will definitely help kids make better choices." We can accept this if Con presents evidence of it being true - otherwise it's just an unsupported hypothesis. She continues, "This would eliminate rappers (many of them are on drugs), who children look up to, and they would have less of these bad role models influencing them to make bad choices." First, it's completely false that rappers would be eliminated. Rapping is a form of art and people would rap even if it were not popular in the mainstream. Second, many times kids are only enticed by what is prohibited, because it becomes cool and taboo. This will only make rap more elusive. Third, Con contradicts her 4th point. Just because some rappers do drugs doesn't mean all of them ought to be eliminated, or cannot have a positive impact. In addition to losing negative role models, positive ones can be lost as well.

Con concludes by saying I have just two arguments: that profanity is rampant in other genres as well, and then she writes "I abandon previous arguments to rebut. Yours." I'm assuming that means she is dropping them, so I'll just re-cap all of my arguments thus far as a final reminder for Con's last round. Some of them will be repeated for clarity.

A) Not all rap music contains profanity.
B) There is excessive profanity in other genres as well, and they can also have negative effects.
C) Profanity is not a big deal anyway...
D) Rap, like movies, are often strictly for fictional entertainment.
E) We should not negatively stereotype and draw conclusions about ALL rap songs/artists.
F) Censorship is inappropriate and near impossible to enforce.
G) Parents are responsible for raising their children and ensuring distinction between entertainment and real life.
H) Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means like self expression.
I) Rap is an integral part of some children's culture and 21st century society.
J) Rap songs and artists can and do use their music for good and to promote positive messages.

Those are ten arguments for the PRO.

Con's Dropped Arguments:

- Con couldn't prove rap encourages teen pregnancy or glorifies a criminal lifestyle.

Thanks, Con. I look forward to an interesting final rebuttal :)

[1] http://www.braingell.com...
[2] http://newsnet.byu.edu...
[3] http://www.ehow.com...
Debate Round No. 4
GermaniaMagna

Con

As this is the final round, I would like to wish my opponent good luck.

This is my rebuttal to argument 4.

Con writes, "Yes, some priests may be child molesters, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them." Right here Con defeats her own argument. Yes, some rappers might be misogynistic drug users, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them. Some like those I have mentioned specifically speak out against a negative lifestyle.

I have never accused all rappers of drug use. Whenever I make the point that SOME of them use drugs, I always say most of them, half of them, but never ALL of them. (Argument 1) You said that my accusation is ridiculous, but indeed, paraphrasing my statements does change how the viewers understand them, and even the slightest change makes all the difference. I must ask the question: Do you really take the time to read the arguments made? Or do you skim through them and extend your previous arguments over and over again?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Next, Con says I'm being hypocritical because I criticized her for using Yahoo Answers when I cited a source (Answer Bag) that works the same way. However, I cited Answer Bag as my source for where I learned about how many swear words a song has. Can con disprove that argument? No. Meanwhile, Con never presented an argument for me to refute. Her exact words were "The following link will thoroughly explain my point." As I said, myself nor the audience are responsible for going to other websites to read Con's point. She can cite that source as inspiration for her point or where she got her evidence, but she cannot refer us to read arguments on other sites. If that were the case then every debate could be argued just by spamming links. There was no hypocrisy on my end."

Allow me to refresh your memory. Hypocrisy is when a person says/does one thing but says/does another. You accused me of using Yahoo.Answers for research and opinions. You're also accusing me of accusing you of hypocrisy, when you only got song lyrics. I also am inferring that you are accusing me of being irresponsible as I posted the link for you look at. I never said that it was your responsibility to look at it, but by not, you are acting irresponsible. I am not referring you to an argument on another site - YahooAnswers is not about arguments. And just because people post their opinions on it, does not mean that the question I referred to was solely based on opinion. Looking back on the link, I can see that the person asking the question is indeed experienced (they play multiple instruments and know about the many different genres of music). In short, they know what they're talking about. In the "Best Answer" section, the person is most certainly right in saying that, "it sells"(rap music sells).

In the end, it is wrong to accuse me of posting opinions when most of, if not all, this debate has been based on opinions. People are biased, whether you know it or not. Some will vote for me, because they think that rap is obscene and inappropriate. Others will vote for you, because they think rap is music and enjoy listening to it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I said that Con ignored my conclusion about the dangers of censorship, and only singled out the negatives of rap music in particular. In response, Con says that it doesn't matter if there are clean versions of songs because the originals still exist. First, you'll notice that this has nothing whatsoever do do with the dangers of censorship, so it seems Con has still not answered my point. Second, the fact that clean versions exist make it possible to enjoy rap music without the profanity or negative lyrics that Con says ruin the song. Moreover, Con asks me to cite positive effects that cap music can have on teens. This is borderline abusive (a huge waste of my character space) because I already provided examples in previous rounds of some positive which Con has simply ignored."

I believe that we have already debated your points on the positive effects of rap.

"A) Not all rap music contains profanity.
B) There is excessive profanity in other genres as well, and they can also have negative effects."

"Furthermore, psychological studies have proven that heavy metal music makes people aggressive and violent [1]. So again, it's wrong to single out rap music and say it has the potential for violence while ignoring the impact other genres can have as well."

You say that profanity can be found in the heavy metal and punk genres. This debate is about whether rap is appropriate or not. We are not debating about heavy metal and punk. They may contain profanity also, but that is besides the subject. Telling me that I am singling out rap specifically is ridiculous. This debate is about how rap is inappropriate. Of course it's solely going to be about the profanity in rap. You accepted this debate, thus, you should be debating the facts about rap, not other genres.

...............................................................................................................................................................................

"Next I'm just going to point out some of Con's statements and explain why they are illegitimate. She writes, "Prohibiting rap music will definitely help kids make better choices." We can accept this if Con presents evidence of it being true - otherwise it's just an unsupported hypothesis. She continues, "This would eliminate rappers (many of them are on drugs), who children look up to, and they would have less of these bad role models influencing them to make bad choices." First, it's completely false that rappers would be eliminated. Rapping is a form of art and people would rap even if it were not popular in the mainstream. Second, many times kids are only enticed by what is prohibited, because it becomes cool and taboo. This will only make rap more elusive. Third, Con contradicts her 4th point. Just because some rappers do drugs doesn't mean all of them ought to be eliminated, or cannot have a positive impact. In addition to losing negative role models, positive ones can be lost as well."

I have presented more than enough evidence of why rap is harmful to children and teens (if you have read my previous arguments). By saying "this would eliminate rappers", I mean that it would eliminate the main sources of rap (primarily the big name artists such as Jay Z and Chris Brown). People can still rap, but it isn't going to get them anywhere. Future generations would be raised not being exposed to it, and would be less likely to have a negative impact from it. Rap is ALREADY "cool and taboo", as you said. Soon it will be a lost fad. For example, The Beatles can be considered a "fad", in a sense. Maybe our parents (and possibly grandparents) listened to them, but not many of our modern day children and teens do. Rappers are already a bad influence without drugs, but with drugs, they are worse.

"Rap lyrics can also be used to teach and reach people. Afrikabambata, Grandmaster Flash, Common, Nas and Mos-Def are just a few whose lyrical content promotes pride and social consciousness. In September of 2009, Jay-Z headlined a concert to benefit the families of those lost in 9/11. Rap artists, through the performances of their music, can do a lot of good [3]."

I am running out of character space, so I will make this final rebuttal brief: Jay Z is an artist who promotes the "rags to riches" story, which (I have mentioned earlier) sends kids the wrong message. 50 Cent was sued for encouraging a "life on the streets life style", when a boy (14 years old) was assaulted by other gangsters [1].

[1]http://www.narutoforums.com...

******Some rebuttals were excluded for lack of character space******

Once again, good luck, Pro.
Danielle

Pro

Once again, many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

However, I must say, Con, that your question as to whether or not I actually read or skim the arguments is more than offensive. Not only have I responded to every single thing you've said in this debate, but the reason I "simply extend" my arguments is because you have ignored most of them. In fact in the last round I had to single out TEN arguments that you completely dropped in your rebuttal, so if anyone is going to be rude and ask if one of us is just skimming the debate then clearly it should be me. I think that will be MORE than obvious to the audience. Another thing I'd like to mention is that you literally dropped about 75% of my arguments due to lack of character space. However that's only because you copied and pasted what I said word for word in your response instead of just responding which was unnecessary.

That said, let's get back to Con's points. She begins by clarifying that she does not suggest ALL rappers are drug users - just some of them. In that case her argument makes little to no sense. I see she didn't respond to my priest analogy, so once again I'll waste character space repeating myself. While SOME priests are child molesters, it would be irresponsible to suggest that people avoid priests as a whole because of that fact. Similarly, while some or even most rappers might use drugs, that is nowhere near a good enough reason to avoid ALL rap. Con concedes this point to me since she never explained why rap music in general should be prohibited and not just the kind that advocates drug use, misogyny or violence.

Furthermore, even if Con actually took the time to explain that I would have defeated her argument by pointing out that rock stars use drugs [1], as well as politicians, artists, popes, composers, authors, etc. [2]. Clearly Con's argument A3 has been defeated. Just because some rappers do drugs doesn't mean rap music should be avoided. That's like saying since so many philosophers did/do drugs that philosophy should be avoided. Clearly that's non-sensical (and yes, many philosophers did drugs such as William James' nitrous oxide, Sigmund Freud and his cocaine, Plato and his magic mushrooms, etc.).

Next, Con says that I am "irresponsible" for not taking it upon myself to go to the other website where she expects me to read other people's arguments and accept them as her own. Extend my points about (a) that being bad conduct as it's cheating character space; (b) I cannot be expected to debate the people on Yahoo Answers as they cannot respond; (c) I used AnswerBag to quote song lyrics -- not to make arguments, etc. At this point I think only my opponent is naive enough to expect people on DDO to accept a link to Yahoo Answers as an actual argument. Either make the case here in the debate or consider it irrelevant.

Moving on, Con says "I believe that we have already debated your points on the positive effects of rap." In other words she completely contradicts her statement from the previous round where she writes, "As for singling out the negatives of rap, please, feel free to list the positive effects that rap has on teens." So in Round 3 she asks me to list the positive effects rap can have (which I already did in R1 and R2). Then when I re-wrote them again since they were ignored, she has the audacity to say "We have already debated your points." She completely contradicts herself by suggesting I never provided them and then saying we've already debated them.

Moreover, Con completely failed to respond to any of the positives I mentioned. She ignored Murray Forman's analysis about the impact of cultural expression. She ignored the various rappers I mentioned who rap about positive things. She ignored the fact that rap artists use their talents for good, i.e. Jay Z's rap concert raising money for the families of 9/11, etc. Con is completely incorrect in saying "we have already debated" these things because she simply never responded to those examples and others from previous rounds. She did say some rappers promote bad messages, but I never denied that fact. My argument is that it'd be wrong to assume every artist from a particular genre is to be avoided or presume that every rap song is negative.

Moving on, Con writes, "[Heavy metal and punk] may contain profanity also, but that is besides the subject." This ignores the points I have repeatedly stated since the first round about it being wrong and non-sensical to single out rap in particular, ESPECIALLY because it's inherent to so many people's culture. Not surprisingly these arguments were dropped by my opponent as well.

Next Con says, "I have presented more than enough evidence of why rap is harmful to children and teens." Well I have provided more than enough evidence of why rap can be positive or beneficial to children and teens, so this is a moot point. Additionally this is irrelevant. Just because I can prove that junk food is undoubtedly harmful to children doesn't mean that it should be prohibited.

Con continues, "I mean that it would eliminate the main sources of rap... People can still rap, but it isn't going to get them anywhere. Future generations would be raised not being exposed to it, and would be less likely to have a negative impact from it." I think it is appalling that Con wishes to eliminate a particular genre of music just because she doesn't like the style or content.

Finally, since that is all my opponent has left us with I will simply repeat the arguments that were dropped:

A) Not all rap music contains profanity.
B) Profanity is not a big deal anyway...
C) Rap, like movies, are often strictly for fictional entertainment.
D) We should not negatively stereotype and draw conclusions about ALL rap songs/artists.
E) Censorship is inappropriate and near impossible to enforce.
F) Parents are responsible for raising their children and ensuring distinction between entertainment and real life.
G) Rap is an art form, and all art can be used for positive means like self expression.
H) Rap is an integral part of some children's culture and 21st century society.
I) Rap songs and artists can and do use their music for good and to promote positive messages.

All of my opponent's arguments have been defeated (see R2 for a step by step analysis of me defeating each of her points). The arguments of mine that she bothered responding to in her rebuttal have also all been in my favor as well.

I would have liked for Con to explain why songs such as "Be Healthy" and "Revolution" by Dead Prez, "Diamonds Are Forever" and "Jesus Walks" by Kanye West, "Changes" and "Keep Ya Head Up" by Tupac, etc. are inappropriate for teens. Those are rap songs and I don't think they should be prohibited by any means but celebrated for their content.

Anyway, thanks for this debate, Con, and good luck in the voting period.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com...
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
RFD:
Conduct - Con: As Con mentioned in her last round, Pro accused her of not actually reading her arguments, when it was ridiculously clear to me that it was the other way around. Furthermore, Pro's entire approach stunk of self-righteous crap and bias. Finally, running out of character space because you were simply copy-pasting huge chunks of Con's arguments was very weak.

Spelling & Grammer - Con: Con's argument was so much easier to read and I think this is very important. I don't care if this point doesn't specifically mention formatting.

Arguments - Con: This was a no brainer. Pro dropped almost every point Con made and those she responded to, she responded to weakly.

Sources - Con: Please don't ever use 'narutoforums.com' as a reliable source ever again.

CONCLUSION:
Con: It sucks you came up against one of our strongest debaters on a subject she feels so passionately about, because you got pwn'd.
Pro: It's just business as usual. :P
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Sorry, but "Teens listen to these songs and suddenly over 750,000 teens get pregnant in one year." I literally LOL'd.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
Reprobation's comment is quite funny judging by the person who took the debate. -_-
Posted by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
does something absolutely have to contain references to drug and sex in order to constitute as rap music...? have you ever heard of run-d.m.c.?
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
But Danielle Took it.
Darn..
Posted by AznWords 6 years ago
AznWords
I'll consider taking this too
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
I might take this.
Posted by Reprobation 6 years ago
Reprobation
Only a fool would defend the mysogynistic, obscene, inspid, decadent nature of rap music. You automatically practically win.
Posted by Reprobation 6 years ago
Reprobation
Only a fool would defend the mysogynistic, obscene, inspid, decadent nature of rap music. You automatically practically win.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
I can't accept because I don't match the instigator's age and/or rank criteria. Apparently this lady wants to debate a youngster on this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
GermaniaMagnaDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Structure to pro. The "qoute system" system is a great sloppy way to use up characters and make your arguments seem longer, when it is easier to just title the argument like danielle did, and allow the voters to go up and read the individual arguments.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
GermaniaMagnaDanielleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
GermaniaMagnaDanielleTied
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: Straight 7 to Danielle. See comments for RFD.