The Instigator
kishemiro
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
LDdebaterCG
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

That Rap music should be banned

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 4 votes the winner is...
kishemiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,744 times Debate No: 6720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

kishemiro

Pro

I will not start first, but will clarify the topic and definitions.
Should = Implement a moral obligation
Banned = Made illegal
This will be an Ld debate, have a value and Value critereon
LDdebaterCG

Con

Rap music should not be banned My value is constitutionality and my value criterion is freedom of expression. I provide a burden for the Aff since the aff says we should ban music the aff must prove that banning rap will be more beneficial.

Contention 1. Rap music is a freedom of expression and saying we should ban rap is similar to me saying we should ban art or rock. also my opponent was supposed to write a 1 AC speech not just definitions so i could attack in the 1NC thusly this case will be unpredictable.

Contention 2. rap benefits our society. we hear our stereotypical gangsters break dancing and hanging out listening to it in our public parking lots. without this there will be no telling what will happen to our society drive by's may become like the mail man stopping by everyday at noon and our houses will become giant canvass for their grafiti all because they dont have rap to kill thier free time so what will happen instead of free time being dead other people will be dead and i dont know about you but i like not being dead.

Contention 3. wee have to be open minded towards others. our society is always open minded look at us now we have a black president who may or may not listen to rap himself. its a part of the African American life we could take away county to take away from the American's life and taking away culture ads expression is wrong and i would like to say to any voters you have to be unbiased in voting in this debate thusly i urge a negative vote
Debate Round No. 1
kishemiro

Pro

Ok thanks for accepting and i apologize for not writing a 1 ac speech in the first round.
Now allow me to constuct my case then go to attack my opponents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rap music is a detriment to society. My value in this round will be Morality. When listening to rap music we are not only having our morals affected, but having new ones added. when listening to this so called "rap music" people tend to be persuaded by the lyrics. Like kids are to violent cartoons. In order to achieve morality my Value criterion will is Consequentialism. Conseequentialism is where the ends justify the means. Yes, when banning any idea or music of some sort, there will be some resistence/protest but the idea of a better society justifies any losses therefore meeting my opponents burden.

Contention 1. Rap music is a detriment to our education via vocabulary.
Slang is one of the biggest problem when it comes to vocabulary, and we must ask ourselves where does it come from? When listening to rap music we tend to hear mutiple slang and other words that are "supposedly" a nickname for something else. For example the word "dough" in real life is basicly un baked bread, however in rap music it implies money. Obviously this is a negative affect in our society.

Contention 2. Rap music promotes Drug, Sex, And violence.
Take for example the famous song Paper Planes. This promotes not only drugs but robberies and the usage of guns. This clearly isnt what our society needs. Crime has been promoted in almost 20% of all rap songs. We see kids acting out these rap songs thinking they are hard cause they listen to it 24/7, know all the lyrics, ect.. and eventually they start to act arrogant like the rappers themselves. Few if any songs actually promote a better society, to obey the law, to stay in school. So if we ban rap music, we will see a decrease in the amount of violence and crime.

Contention 3. Rap music disrespcets women.
In rap music women are treated as objects, mere bargaining tools. the rap music supports the idea of judging a women by how she looks (especially the body) then rather how she is. They give them such nicknames such as "my b*tch or my hoe. this type of music supports the further idea of that women can be mistreated and traded or even sold in some parts. Eventually this is a slippery slope that leads to spousal abuse and prostituion.

By banning rap music we get rid of (or significantly reduce) these 3 major probelms and offer a much better chance of a better society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to my opponents case,

My opponents states his value is constituionality but never really extends how retaining rap music supports costituionality neither does he define it to the point of relavance.

His value critereon is freedom of expression ( which i belive is the same as freedom of speech as well)
Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion and how they express themselves among others however, the ability to produce and publish thier ideas to not only their society, but the whole world is a bit too much. Even the freedom of expression has its limits. if i want to express myself in a violent way can I simply hit someone? No, their are limits.

(Cont 1)
his contention one is simply his value critereon restated but he brings up that if we ban rap music, we should basicly ban rock and art. Ok, maybe we should ban those things, however thats irrelevant because the issue on hand is rap music.

(Cont 2) Rap music benifits our society
The argument my opponent makes is that rap music is benificial because it "kills time"
- first of all, killing time doesnt neccearily mean that the time was going to be wasted. Infact, Teens and Kids might even skip school just to go to a rap concert or stay home to listen to their new rap cd. The listeners might push away homework to listen to these songs. So yes, It does kill time. Time that could be used for benifitiary things.
-Second, Doing drugs and commiting crimes kills time doesnt it? or even cutting yourselves. Just because your bored and rap music is the awnser isnt a sufficient enough reason to promote or even retain this type of behavior. Boredem cannot be the excuse for insolent and reckless behavior.
-Third, There are other alternatives to kill time rather than listen to rap music.
The fact of the matter is that, if the child or teen has so much free time on their hand that they need to listen to rap music, it shows that they need to join a sport or hobby. however if we fill this free time with rap music they might never get a hobby or even go outsside for that matter.

(Con 3) we have to be open minded towards others.
The idea of having to be open minded towards others is flawed. We SHOULD be open minded towards others is the true statement.
Now the idea of being open is to benificiary ideas rather than detrimental ones. We should be open minded about new activities and foods, not trying drugs or commiting crimes.

it is because by banning rap, we achieve a better society , there is no other vote then Affirmative
LDdebaterCG

Con

Going down the flow My opponents value is morality this in no way links to the resolution where as my value of constitutionality stands strong because the US has constitutional ideaology and it is already been Implied in the last 2 rounds the house we are speaking of is the US. so this is why my value stands and his falls.
His value criterion of consequentialism now i ave a copy of blacks law dictionary given to me by my father right hear under consequentialism it says "see Utilitarianism" and there it says where the outcome is greater than its loss. well this is basically what my opponent portrays whats more its here in blacks law dictionary and consequentialism is a wrong way to see life and its basically saying hey lets kill 10 to save 100 kill 1000 to save 100000 the ends justify the means this is a wrong way to view life in any matter it is a fact that Hitler was a Utilitarian and he was certainly in no way moral.

Contention 1. Rap music is a detriment to our education via vocabulary. my opponent simply implies that slang is bad but provides no warrant as to why slang is bad. Slang is considered a different way of speaking. secondly this argument has no solvency Banning rap will not stop people from using slang slang will always be around just like other languages of Chinese or Spanish so as you can see his contention falls

Contention 2. Rap music promotes Drug, Sex, And violence. Advertisement around the world promotes drugs sex and violence its a way of companies to get people to you know buy guns and cigarettes and stuff. so my opponents argument on this contention also has no solvency because rap will in no way stop drugs sex and violence he even brings up violent cartoons which also promote violence.so as you can see so far both of his contentions have no solvency

Contention 3. Rap music disrespects women. We disrespected women far before rap came into the picture we didn't even let them vote until recently in the last 50 years we didn't let them vote and spousal abuse already happened before rap came in and so did prostitution that goes back to the 1800's and i doubt rap existed in the 1800's maybe in the 1950's but not the 1800's and women had nicknames before rap as in the 1800's as "my wench or my harlot" so the only issue here is the idea of using women as objects which we already have done "hey babe get me some dinner" as my grandpa used to say before he died my dad said he would do this even when he was 40 which was in 1940 which is definetely before rap came in.

By banning rap music we get rid of (or significantly reduce) these 3 major probelms and offer a much better chance of a better society. As i have proved none of these 3 problems have any solvency with rap and his value and value criterion crumble

Now moving on to defend my case

his contention one is simply his value critereon restated but he brings up that if we ban rap music, we should basicly ban rock and art. Ok, maybe we should ban those things, however thats irrelevant because the issue on hand is rap music. (No this is completely relevant because if we ban rap we are on a slippery slope and what would stopp us from banning other forms of expression like dancing art or music and my opponent says maybe we should ban those things then stress makes a worse society because it will be illegal to express your self all because we banned rap.

The argument my opponent makes is that rap music is beneficial because it "kills time" yes and my opponent dropped my argument about gangsters getting bored from no rap and doing drive by's and graffiti so extend that silence is consent by the rules of LD it is now a fact that the banning of rap will result in an uprising of graffiti and death so rap in this case really does benefit societyand my opponent's only argument against this is that it could be time better used. well people have thier own way of dealing with stress be it rap or be it "hobbies or sports" as my opponent says or listening to rap the fact is we all have stress relievers and we need them to get on with our lives and without a stress relieve society becomes anarchy and this is certainly not benefitial.

(Con 3) we have to be open minded towards others.
The idea of having to be open minded towards others is flawed. We SHOULD be open minded towards others is the true statement.
Now the idea of being open is to benificiary ideas rather than detrimental ones. We should be open minded about new activities and foods, not trying drugs or commiting crimes.

This is where my opponent contradicts him seld yes we SHOULD so we need to be and htis is how our society functions we are very open minded here in the US we have a black president which is a real break through. but then he says " Now the idea of being open is to benificiary ideas rather than detrimental ones. We should be open minded about new activities and foods, not trying drugs or commiting crimes." now this is where the corrupt utilitarian comes into play he will only be open minded to things he wants to be open minded towards which is "Benefitial ideas" well what is benefitial and what isnt is all based on point of view so my opponent is not in anyway being open minded which he supports in his 3rd contention. well only listening to ideas you wanna listen to is not being open minded. so his argument falls and part of his case with it.

So as you can se my value stands over his my Value criterion stands over His and my contentions stand while his crumble i have taken out entire case while mine stands and i urge a negative vote.
Debate Round No. 2
kishemiro

Pro

As a road map im going to defend then attack.

(Value)The only arguement agaisnt my value is that it has no link to the resolution. However as I explained in my constructive that if we ban rap music we upholding morality. Morality is your beliefs of bad and wrong. Rap music is affecting this for the worse.

(Value criterion) My opponent states that to kill 1000 to save 10000 is no way to view life in any matter and that hitler was a utilitarian. Hitler is in no way sharing the same ideas because he was commiting genocide because he disliked the particular group whereas rap music DOES cause harm and by eliminating we will achieve a better society.

(Cont 1) Slang is not a lauguange, if it was, itd be supported through schools or etc. There is little to no positive impact that slang brings. Also Text acronyms such as Lol and others are considers forms of slang and that proves how slang is clearly a detriment. The argument agaisnt solvency is irrlelevant because the affirmative is not trying to prove that if we ban rap music slang wont exist, but proving that banning rap will cause a decrease in slang.

(Cont 2) Again my opponent is saying that my argument should be disregarded because the affirmative provides no solvency. The negative stated that the affirmative's burden is a MORE BENIFICIAL society rather than solvency to any issues. The argument states that rap promotes drug sex and voilence so therfore, by using pure logic, if rap was gone there would be a decrease in the issue. I concede to the point where advertisement also promote drugs sex and violence however the affirmative is not trying to prove solvency but rather than a decrease in the issue so therfore my opponents argument falls.

(Cont 3) The negative brings up that we have been disrepsecting far before rap came into the picture and all these past speculations. First of all the affirmative is not saying that rap is the cause of the disrepecting however that rap is promoting the disrepting of them. Second, Yes we did disrepsect women in the past however we fixed our mistakes such as allowing women sufferage and etc. Thats what the affirmative is trying to do, attempt to fix the problem.

Again all my opponents arguments are based on the point that affirmative offers no solvency. I have proved that solvency is not our goal rather than reduction.

Now on to my opponents case
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opponent drops my argument on his value critereon and as my opponent states "Silence is consent"
(Cont 1) As i continue to state, the topic on hand here is rap music, not if we should ban rock or even if we will. And that we are able to express ourselves to a limit where its not detrimental.

(Cont 2) The main argument is the usage of rap music as a stress reliever. This argument is completely flawed and heres why:
First, my opponent provides no warrant in why not relieving stress is harmful to the society.
Second, There is no fact that rap music will actually relive stress in any benifitial way.
Third, relieving stress does not outwiegh what you have to do to accomplish it. Doing drugs and having sex also relieves stress but are they benifitial?No.

(Cont 3) My opponent ignores the fact that we "should" therefore make an attempt or give a chance. We arleady gave rap a chance and seen the effects. Also the fact of being open minded is only to benificiary ideas. His argument agaisnt being open to benificiary ideas is basicly contradictory. No, because as i stated the true stament is we "should" be open minded therefore giving a chance, so in the case of rap music; we have already gave it a chance.

It is because my opponents attacks are based on that the affirmative doesnt offer solvency whereas our case is based on reduction. And that i proved on how by retaining rap music will provide little to no benificial effects, i urge a affirmative vote.
LDdebaterCG

Con

well my opponent wanted LD so i assumed that he was experienced and knew all of the rules. in LD the Affirmative HAS TO PROVIDE SOLVENCY. I learned this is my first few months of learning LD so extend all solvency arguments because no argument was made except that my opponent didnt have to which as one of the basic rules of LD is that he does because in any debate you want to solve the problems you use as contentions and they need to be 100% solved if this is effective. Such as Kill one to save more the Aff saves more lives this is a 100% true statement and can be used as an entire contention so extend all solvency arguments.

Value: Morality. this is a flawed value ideals on morality constantly change we thought it was moral to have black slaves 100 years ago but ideas on morality change so why have a value so arbitrary.

Value Criterion: My opponent argues Hitler had in no way shared these Ideas however i stated Hitler was a Utilitarianist and no matter what he did what he believed comes out to a better outcome which is exactly what my opponent is doing and Util is no way to think because it is not moral which doesnt hold up morality or the principles of LD

(cont 1) slang isnt a language I never stated it was i stated it was a different way of speaking. i was misquoted i did state it was LIKE a language not that it was so my opponents arguments do not match to my contention argument and extend my argument on solvency as stated before.

(cont 2) again solvency is a given you must provide in every case extend this and well as advertizement promotes the following there would be no decrease violent video games that involve gangsters violent cartoons tabacco companies and almost any where you look sex is implied. so my opponents argument fails while he provides no solvency and my argument stands so this contention falls

(Cont 3) Again solvency and the fact we disrespect women anyway i can promote hitting my sister to my sister but she will still be in favor of it so this contention doesn't stand and extend my arguments.

Moving on to defend my own case .

No arguments made on my value so my value is now accepted as the paramount value which means i should win this debate right now and nothing would be against it.

I refuted the argument made on my value criterion and said freedom of expression was basically an inalienable right and said with my first contention and my VC never to take these away so since in the last round no argument was made about itmy value criterion is now the paramount VC

( Cont 1) as i stated before i can double refute the argument made on my VC and cont 1 because they are basically the same.

(Cont 2) I did providee a warrant for this saying some deal with stress by listening to music. and second listening to music as a stress reliever is universal everyone likes their genre and listening to music is far different than drugs and sex is a beutifull natural thing and it is benefitial in it produces more people which is benefitial to society.

(Cont 3) My opponent provides no argument as to how i stated hes only listening to what he weants to he is hearing exactly what he wants to hear and not the other side

You should vote negative because my value precedes his my VC precedes his and my contentions have solvency and are more cleanly built as you can see.

As you can see my value is the paramount value my VC is paramount and my contentions stand while his crumble so i urge and negative vote reminding my voters that my opponent did not go over voting issues.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 5 years ago
iamadragon
Wow, CON really sucks. PRO's argument is total putrid filth, and CON should have destroyed him.
Posted by iamadragon 5 years ago
iamadragon
I hope you don't actually think rap should be banned, because it just makes you an ignorant fool.
Posted by Maya9 5 years ago
Maya9
I can't even force myself to vote on this one. Pro's arguments were deeply flawed, but well presented. Con's arguments were on the right track, but very poorly presented.

Both of you have a lot to learn.
Posted by kishemiro 5 years ago
kishemiro
Oh btw LDdebaterCG:
The actual rules are that CX debate offers solvency and Ld just has to prove the resolution true.
Policy debate creates a plan.
Ld just proves the resolution true.
So basicly all your arguments in the third round is dropped.
Posted by Chestertonian 5 years ago
Chestertonian
I voted pro because con needs better punctuation.
Posted by kishemiro 5 years ago
kishemiro
Well Im not a master at ld debate but i could tell you what i know.
Posted by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
kishemiro:

If you're willing to teach me how to LD (however hard or useless that will be, I don't know), then I'll gladly accept your debate on this topic. Or, you can just start a normal conventional debate.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 5 years ago
HeedMyFeed
This debate is somewhat bad.

Pro is just stating generalities and con is stating warrantless claims.
Posted by SniperJake94 5 years ago
SniperJake94
Hey LD,

U can post by saying if we ban rap music it will go against the constituition
Posted by SniperJake94 5 years ago
SniperJake94
Hey LDdebaterCG

During ur first round u could have refuted his by saying he wanted a LD based debate. But he didn't. And start asking questions in the 2nd round.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Habluka 5 years ago
Habluka
kishemiroLDdebaterCGTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by hendrixliveson 5 years ago
hendrixliveson
kishemiroLDdebaterCGTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by SaraMarie 5 years ago
SaraMarie
kishemiroLDdebaterCGTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chestertonian 5 years ago
Chestertonian
kishemiroLDdebaterCGTied
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:70