The Instigator
Bruntru
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WampumDP
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the arts (art, music, sport and drama) be banned as jobs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 92430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Bruntru

Pro

The arts have always been an aspect of humans, they gave us a chance to express ourselves, to keep healthy and to relieve stress. However, the society has completely twisted the original meaning into forcing people to watch hours of television, making sport a competition, and converting a major component of the lifestyle into a paid profession. For example, just as eating or sleeping must be done to keep healthy and fit, the arts also play their part in our well being, but there are no such jobs as paid eaters or sleepers, because that would be ridiculous. On the other hand, however much ridiculous a professional eater may sound, in my opinion a professional artist sounds just as ridiculous.

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.
WampumDP

Con

(I will not be refuting any of my opponent's points until next round. I am assuming the first round is merely for opening statements.)

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?
Debate Round No. 1
Bruntru

Pro

Humans should be free; I strongly believe so, but my argument is not banning the arts immediately and abruptly, but introducing a higher awareness of what the consequences are that it can lead to, so that people would decide not to study the arts as a profession initially, instead of having their rights violated. Again, as I had said before, there is nothing wrong with playing a football match with a few mates, or painting a picture of a wonderful landscape; it is absolutely in the grounds of human nature to do so, but being paid for it, that is the true problem. Of course people should be able to enjoy themselves, compose a song about their feelings, but it is immoral for the arts to be the foundation of their life, as other aspects are equally important.

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.
WampumDP

Con

If a person wants to make the arts a foundation for his/her life, then who are we to stop him/her? Being an artist can be an extremely difficult job, where many artists fail to achieve greatness, fame, and fortune. Many people in the arts fall into poverty, but who are we to stop them? The government does not know what is best for an individual.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Bruntru

Pro

In this argument, I will be arguing for the abolishment of artistic jobs. The only exceptions are the arts teachers, to allow people to have all they need to compose arts themselves, and learn the basics of each art; rules of sports, techniques in painting, music theory and basic dramatic techniques, to allow people to discover the arts which they prefer to use as a regular component of their lifestyle

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

Con

WampumDP forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by cypress 9 months ago
cypress
It's too late to vote, but I am definitely on the con side. Abolishing jobs related to the arts is the most unnecessary, ridiculous, and dangerous thing to do. Millions of people rely on the arts for jobs and entertainment, and to ban it as a job (which is a major assault on personal rights) solely over some philosophical pondering is, as much as I hate to use this word, stupid.
The argument that it should not be a job because it is a basic part of human life is also ridiculous. Work is a natural part of human life, so why do we allow it?
In short, I was with WampumDP from before I even read the debate until now, and I don't plan on changing my mind, in my right mind.
Posted by Bensen 10 months ago
Bensen
Pro, why do you think sports is art? (I do believe athletes are paid too much though)

Secondly. Capitalism is great. Because America has gone away from it the last 10 or so years, you see an increase of the wealth in the top 1% and more poverty in America. America was the richest country and the most desirable country in the world at one point due to capitalism. And the immense poverty in the world is due to the fact that other countries have not adopted capitalism. America is in a corporation/crony capitalism economic system now, by the way.
Posted by WampumDP 11 months ago
WampumDP
My apologies to my opponent, I have been busy for the past few days and haven't had time to debate.
Posted by Bruntru 11 months ago
Bruntru
WampumDp, why have you forfeited this debate? I was really enjoying this argument.
Posted by Repunter 11 months ago
Repunter
ALL THAT PUT ASIDE:
When it comes to money, corruption, and those who are substantially immune to the world that is suffering, the industry of the arts is the least unaware. In fact, the top 0.1% which is infamously known for the large income inequality gap that so thrives on 48% of America's total income combined would be comprised of those fat-cats on Wall-Street and business-wo/men and entrepreneurs who seek to benefit the company they which to endorse and care for, and don't lay mind to those who are suffering.

So the Arts? I cannot say in an unbiased manner that the Arts is the real issue of income. America is a service-based country, and many others. The Arts is yet just a service Americans endorse simply because it is beneficial to health and stress-relief.

HOWEVER:
In a side note, I get this is an argument and I'm trying my best not to be bias but why is this even an argument?
We created the Arts to express and separate ourselves. There are just those that make a living off of it because they are being payed to do so. And eventually it was brought as an industry.

There are literally tons of other debates that would be more substantial to argue.
Posted by Repunter 11 months ago
Repunter
I am with the Con side on this matter, and I will attempt to be as little in bias as possible, for I am hoping to be a professional artist in the future (hint: I am a youth).

I believe the arts, without looking solely on their benefits, create a focus on expanding ideas and philosophies to those whom don't constantly portray their mindset towards the issues or controversies that art so infamously projects. I believe modern society, in itself, has pushed the boundaries of the art or THE arts in such a way that was not seen before (i.e. such as the Italian astronomer, Galileo).

I do not believe it is therefore right to place a ban on such jobs. The arts do attempt to contribute to a larger scale of humanities than many other industries whose purpose doesn't directly affect others by clientele (i.e. the medical industry). When you place such the idea of a ban, you indirectly argue that the Arts have no longer the need to be in an ever-relying culture that thrives it's relief upon the Arts. Which leads to the accreditation that the Arts must be more of a burden on economy over expression.

That said: Yes, athletes, actors, musicians, and many entertainers are payed extreme amounts of money.

But while it might be easy to assume that all of those are similar, athletes aren't held to the same standard as artists are (unless you're a female athlete, in which I must say, I'm sorry). Only because there is a larger business aspect into sports thriving off of the same consumer concept. Simply put, Athletes are paid more because they are allowed larger contracts because the teams in which they play more are provided more because sports leagues have little regulation on the income of higher-paid athletes which is only paid ridiculously because sports leagues don't regulate ticket and pricing costs from teams and television providers.
Posted by LillianaKang 11 months ago
LillianaKang
I am also on pro side for two reasons.

Firstly, art is too important for everyone to be a profession.
Art is natural human behavior. Art can flourish our lives, and everyone should do art. Expressing emotions into paintings, poetries, stories, videos, etc is helpful for mental well-being. However by having a professional artist, people gets reluctant to do art. They would think 'I don't know much about art, and I am not an artist, I should be a spectator'. Because art is important to all, society should encourage people to do so.

Secondly, "artist" is too vulnerable to be a profession.
Art is subjective. It heavily depends on tastes of individuals. There is no absolute standard for good or bad art or fixed measure for assessing its value and price. Think about Museum glasses happening, which someone drop his glasses in front of a painting by mistake. Ironically, people "appreciated" the glasses and took pictures, they thought it was part of the painting. There was another example that 8-year old girl's painting was sold for million dollars in U.S. As proven by several cases, there is no standard for products of artists and also a value of an artist. An artist is a too vulnerable profession, it cannot help itself from being disturbed by money. Artist as a secondary job shall more be proper (since we should not limit freedom of trading artistic products)
Posted by LillianaKang 11 months ago
LillianaKang
I am also on pro side for two reasons.

Firstly, art is too important for everyone to be a profession.
Art is natural human behavior. Because art can flourish our lives, everyone should do art. Expressing emotions into paintings, poetries, stories, videos, etc is helpful for mental well-being. However by having a professional artist, people gets reluctant to do art. They would think 'I don't know much about art, and I am not an artist, I should be a spectator'. Because art is important to all, society should encourage people to do so.

Secondly, "artist" is too vulnerable to be a profession.
Art is subjective. It heavily depends on tastes of individuals. There is no absolute standard for good or bad art or fixed measure for assessing its value and price. Think about Museum glasses happening, which someone drop his glasses in front of a painting by mistake. Ironically, people "appreciated" the glasses and took pictures, they thought it was part of the painting. There was another example that 8-year old girl's painting was sold for million dollars in U.S. As proven by several cases, there is no standard for products of artists and also a value of an artist. An artist is a too vulnerable profession, it cannot help itself from being disturbed by money. Artist as a secondary job shall more be proper (since we should not limit freedom of trading artistic products)
Posted by Got-Something-To-Say 11 months ago
Got-Something-To-Say
You abolish the arts, you abolish the meaning of life for all who cherish them. Art is who we are, and if you take away art, you take away from who we are and who we dream of being.
No votes have been placed for this debate.