The Instigator
xgracex
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should people be allowed to make songs on the radio like Nikki Minaj's anaconda?

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 2 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,161 times Debate No: 62379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

xgracex

Con

Nikki minaj's new song, anaconda, has caused quite a bit of controversy among the public. Is it okay for someone with as much influence over people (especially young girls) as she has to make a song like this? I personally think she should not make songs like this, because then people will think that they need to take off their clothes and talk about sex to be famous. The song has very sexual themes, and an even more sexual music video. I've heard this song played on a pop radio station that many kids listen to multiple times. It is not okay to influence children like this. Please leave your opinions below :)
MonetaryOffset

Pro

I accept.

FRAMEWORK

We are dealing with more than simply a normative resolution, as there are also legal implications. Con posits that he doesn't believe people like Minaj should be allowed to make songs of this song. Consequently, he has the burden of proof by virtue of the fact that he is advocating for a change in the status quo and in the law.

Rebuttals

First, I'd like to point out that our resolution is not based solely on Nikki Minaj's song, "Anaconda," but on songs like it. Let's review the resolution:

"Should people be allowed to make songs on the radio like Nikki Minaj's anaconda?"

Note also that the resolution specifies PEOPLE, not artists. The people making these songs need not be famous celebrities with an influence on society, nor do the songs necessarily need to be well-known or controversial. To win this debate, Con must be able to provide a case against all songs that are comparable to Anaconda, not merely one song by one person.

Con states, "personally think she should not make songs like this, because then people will think that they need to take off their clothes and talk about sex to be famous."

There are several problems with this contention. First, the question he poses in his opening piece is non-topical, because he is attempting to only deal with people with as much influence as Nikki Minaj. However, as I've pointed out, our resolution extends further. Second, he fails to demonstrate causation: he fails to actually demonstrate that people will, as a result of hearing this song, will think it is permissible to take their clothes off and talk about sex in the hope of being famous. If we take out Nikki Minaj and substitute any other person, as our resolution tells us we can do, fame goes out the window. He doesn't demonstrate at all -- and it is burden of proof to do so -- that this would have the aformentioend effect on the public, nor that this is grounds for banning it.


Con states, "The song has very sexual themes, and an even more sexual music video."

This may be so, but he is not making the transition from what is to what ought to be. He suggests -- and only suggests -- that sexual themes ought to be discouraged, but he does not at all substantiate such a point. He needs to be able to demonstrate why this isn't desirable and why we as a society should condemn sexual content of this nature.

Con states, "I've heard this song played on a pop radio station that many kids listen to multiple times. It is not okay to influence children like this."

First, his remark that many kids listen to songs like this are anecdotal. He hasn't provided any evidence of this claim, nor of his influence on children. Second, he is merely making an assertion not only that kids are influenced in such a way, but that is isn't desirable for this to happen. He has not, however, proven this point. He needs to flesh this out in order to have a chance of winning.



My Case


I. Free Market

A core economic principle is that resources are properly allocated in a free-market system where consumers are able to choose the goods and service that most appeal to them, thus promoting competition and improving quality and accessibility. If consumers choose to listen to songs of this nature, the government -- or Con -- should have no say in it. They may have fundamentally different tastes, but unless people have turned away form songs of this nature -- in which case, the music will no longer be played -- it should be allowed. He is advocating a top-down approach to disallow music of this kind, thus completely crippling the principles of free enterprise upon which this country was founded.


II. Freedom of Expression

The First Amendment is clear: the freedom of speech shall not be abridged. My adversary, in wanting to disallow songs of this kind, is attempting to stifle freedom of speech and expression. This is a form of censorship, and he fails to establish a standard by which he would do this other than "I don't like it, and therefore it should be banned." If we took this to its logical conclusion, the music industry would take because people have different tastes and most cannot agree precisely on which songs they would want to allow or disallow.


III. Only that which you allow to influence you can influence you

Con argued that music like Anaconda influences kids. Looking beside the fact that he failed to demonstrate causation in any way, let's look at this realistically: if you do not allow the song to influence it, perhaps by simply turning it off, it cannot influence you. If the song in any way influence you, it's because you allowed it to, in which case we should respect individual decisions, instead of stipualting that we know best.

IV. Parental Authority

Con argues that songs like this may -- and I say "may" because he hasn't demonstrated causation -- influence children. However, no legal entity is able to make this determination for parents. Parents are responsible for determing what their children are exposed to, and if they find content like Minaj's song inapproprirate, they, not the government, should be able to raise their kids how they see fit and prevent them from accessing it. Con's proposal completely undermines parental authority.
Debate Round No. 1
xgracex

Con

xgracex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
xgracex

Con

xgracex forfeited this round.
MonetaryOffset

Pro

Extend.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
I so wanted to see this debate. :-(
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
I was serious. I totes wasn't asking because Romanii wanted to know, either.
Posted by debatability 3 years ago
debatability
lol
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Do brains compensate for income, Liz?
Posted by debatability 3 years ago
debatability
my anaconda DONT WANT NONE UNLESS YOU GOT

...
...

INCOME
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Ah, you're right. I actually didn't know how the name was spelled.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Who's Nikki Minaj? Did he mean Nicki?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
xgracexMonetaryOffsetTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
xgracexMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF & unrefuted args