Should the arts (art, music, sport and drama) be banned as jobs?
Debate Rounds (3)
First of all, most professional arts employees are utterly selfish, as the pays for their 'jobs' are horrendously high and unjustified. How can the many artists, athletes, actors and musicians live without guilt, aware that people in our world still do not have access to the most basic of needs such as food or water? For instance, the football leagues have idiotic mottoes such as "For the Game, For the World", but these cannot be true as professional football is capitalistic. Capitalism cannot improve the world, as even though football gives everyone an opportunity to rise out of poverty regardless of what conditions they were born in, the percentage of people who rise is minimal, and the few that rise, are stupidly overpaid, leaving the rest with even less hope to overcome poverty. The arts would only ever be acceptable if we lived in a Utopian world, which we are far, far away from, and we should not waste time and money investing into entertainment at our current stage.
Another major disadvantage of the arts professions is that they contribute nothing towards the world that other jobs related to science or technology can offer. They construct no sturdy grounds for our future generations, but the opposite, in fact they widen the gap between the rich and the poor, increase health problems such as obesity, and cause people to become overconfident and blind of the state of the world around them. This is why I believe that the arts professions should be eliminated, and the arts should be seen as one of many aspects of a healthy lifestyle for individuals, but not communities, as it is today.
My argument is simple, and I could sum it up with one simple question: are we not free? We live in a free society, where we are free to do whatever we want as long as it does not violate anyone's basic rights to life, liberty, or property. A ban on arts would be a major assault on liberty. To ban a profession purely because it might be "unproductive" is completely illogical. Who cares if some person wants to go off and paint a picture, or watch a sports game?
The huge obstacle that needs to be overcome is social trend, as people do not like change; but if something is seen as wrong, then every effort should be made to try to inform others of the consequences of that action. People become so absorbed to social trends that it is the trends that silently take away their freedom, their consciousness and before they know, their opinions are manipulated and shaped. There has been a time when people painted images purely because of enjoyment or recording information, or when sports were played simply to keep fit and happy, but then someone began to pay another to do so, and before anyone realised, it became a social norm. Shortly after, those that were paid for exercise were almost worshipped for every action they made, and the money that could have gone towards helping those in poverty was dissipated among unnecessary luxuries. Moreover, why should a footballer be paid more than a doctor or a teacher? It is the scientific jobs that fuel our community, and the arts have taken well over their share of the cake.
Humans are animals, and any other animal tries to secure the best possible future for its offspring, but humans have began to become less like animals, and more like selfish machines. We focus more on the now than on the future, and that is a major mistake of humankind, and that mistake violates our original animal nature. People should not be banned from doing the arts as a profession, but refuse to do so without argument. However, social trends have violated our nature, and our empathy for those that will live on after we die is fading. So, I pose the question that Con has stated; "are we not free?" in the other direction. The arts cause social trends, which lead to us losing our original nature, and people are born without freedom in the third world. No, we are unfree anyway, but that is why we should patiently but solidly abolish the arts proffesions and ammend the art's original meaning.
Instead of wasting money teaching people about the arts, the government should just give this money directly to the poor, or lower taxes to make up for this influx of extra money. A social program such as this "anti-arts" program would be unproductive.
I would like to propose a question to my opponent, if people take up non-artistic jobs, would they become charitable?
The answer is no. My opponent stated that we are selfish and animalistic by nature, so we still will not share our money, we will just be gaining it in different ways.
My opponent's statements on social norms are purely false. People have been compensating each other for services since the dawn of time, regardless of the service. If a man saw a painting that a woman painted out of leisure, and the man liked it so much that he wished to own it, the man should be able to acquire the painting at an agreed-upon price.
Athletes, actors and artists are generally unreasonably overpaid for what they do, to an extent that is in no way acceptable. The knowledge of the public, that art professions can have huge salaries, is often the cause that drives many self-indulgent people into this field. These people then begin to live the lives of a celebrity, and their vision of anything apart from the themselves fades, as they end up dissipating heaps of money to buy luxuries that they don"t truly want or need. Although there are some artists that do take part in charitable events or donate money towards projects, their numbers are low and frequently, the donations are a minute percentage of their yearly wages.
According to con; "If a person wants to make the arts a foundation for his/her life, then who are we to stop him/her?". However, it is absolutely human to say; who are they to let themselves be treated considerably better when other people"s dreams are simply to survive and overcome poverty?
Furthermore, just as LillianaKang has said, the arts professions back other, less confident people away from doing the arts, as they cannot see themselves be named an "artist"; by naming something as a profession people will believe that it is a role that only applies to the workers in that sector; you have to be an artist to do art. In doing so, many people begin to feel that it is justifiable to observe someone else doing an art instead of actually doing it themselves, which can have drastic effects. For instance, an average football fan will spend more time watching sport on TV than playing football or any other sport. This sort of action, ignores the true meaning sport; to keep one mentally happy and physically healthy, causing a major increase in obesity and obesity-related diseases such as heart disease. The arts are a major component of a lifestyle for one"s self, but not a profession. Why pay someone because they exercise regularly?
Moreover, professional sports cause other problems such as gambling or negative social behaviour as fans take games too seriously. Although these are secondary causes of sports, without them, companies would not be able to take advantage of mentally ill people by extracting money from their addictions and less physical damage would be done to the society. Despite the fact that the arts celebrities can give hope to people, and something to keep them going in life, the public generally become less aware of a multitude of problems around them in focusing on strangers" lives. Due to having celebrities, people lose their time thinking about major problems such as poverty or global warming, as their priorities become to fit into the modern society.
There is a reason why celebrities are often named "stars"; for they are made to look as if they were beautiful " absolutely brilliant, in fact so marvellous that nothing is more important than following them as they move across the sky, when actually, they are a just a distraction; they prevent society from seeing the deep holes in the ground, into which we fall deeper and deeper.
On top of that, it is very important for each individual to use art for finding one"s self, and thinking about the emotions and opinions one has. However, by constantly observing other peoples" art, opinions of bad role models are silently force fed to the community at a mass scale.
Also, jobs in the arts are totally unproductive to the community; they contribute nothing worthwhile to the society that could develop the world. For example, doctors and dentists play a major role by treating ill people, teachers help people to do better in life regardless of what conditions they were bought up in, scientists develop more efficient devices to decrease global warming, pharmacists create medicines that save millions of lives, policemen and lawyers help to maintain law and order, farmers grow food that feeds the world" the list goes on. However, without the brainwashing of billions of people, the arts professions are left bare and completely unnecessary.
Finally, I would like to answer con"s question ("If people take up non-artistic jobs, would they become charitable?".) Non-artistic professions help the world in a completely different way; they help to reduce the problems in the society primarily. In general, people along the lines of doctors or teachers generally care more about the happiness and health of others around them, therefore it would be logical that a higher percentage donate money for charitable causes. On the other hand, those that are not charitable are a completely different problem, that also needs to be eliminated in the society.
Thank you WampumDP for a great debate!
Vote Pro for the elimination of all art professions except teachers " for humanity!
WampumDP forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.