The Instigator
Beast444
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
000ike
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Vanilla ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the Beat for Queen"s (Under presure)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
000ike
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,942 times Debate No: 17787
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

Beast444

Pro

Vanilla Ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the beat from Queen's (Under Preasure)
000ike

Con

Given that pro has not began his argument, to be fair, I will turn this into a round for acceptance. I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Beast444

Pro

Vanilla Ice (Ice Ice Baby) stole the beat to Queen's (Under Preasure).
My argument as pro is tht if I were in a band and I wanted to get popular I could easily put a few extra notes in to Led Zeppelin (Stair way to heaven) and call it my own.
Thank you, and good luck
-Beast444
000ike

Con

My opponents resolution was that Vanilla Ice did steal the beat. His only support for the second round was highly irrelevant and proved and supported nothing:

"My argument as pro is tht if I were in a band and I wanted to get popular I could easily put a few extra notes in to Led Zeppelin (Stair way to heaven) and call it my own."

There is no need for negation to the quote above simply because the debate has nothing to do with my opponent joining a band, nor does it involve "Stair way to heaven."


Now, Pro has the burden of proof, and my responsibility is to negate. So, if he cannot fulfill his obligation to provide proof to his claim, then I win by default.


Evidence against


Steal: "
take something without permission"

[1]

1. The world of popular modern music is without pure originality. When one finds two pieces with the same beat, far be it from him to assume that the beat was stolen. I will name a few popular songs with the exact same beat.

a. Alicia Keys's "No One" & Black Eyed Peas's "Where is the Love"

b. Second example is Video 1


Having the same beat is simply not enough evidence to prove that a beat was stolen, the prevalence of
"same-beats" in modern music is so high, that pro would be suggesting that most artists are theives. I refer to my previous definition of steal. No where in the dictionary is steal described as "replication by chance".




2. Furthermore, in order for the beat to be stolen, Pro must prove first that the beat was the property of Queen in the first place. According to a source on music copyrights, it is the song in whole that is under sole ownership by the artist, not the song in part. [2] A beat is merely a part of a song, a rhythmic pattern. Having people own rhythmic patterns is unheard of. Unless "Ice ice baby" in WHOLE is the same or dangerously similar to "Under Pressure" in WHOLE: lyrics, key signature, tempo, melody and all, then nothing is stolen.

I will show you that the two songs in question have VERY different melodies and lyrics. Therefore:

a. they are not similar or the same ( in WHOLE)

B. so nothing was truely stolen. The beat is not owned.


1. proof is in Video 2 and Video 3





SOURCES
[1]
http://thesaurus.com...
[2]http://www.copyrightauthority.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Beast444

Pro

As pro I should say bringing up joining a band and Stairway to heaven was only an example of what my argument is. Please listen to the videos you have listed and listen to the bass line, they are clearly the same. The only thing different is that Vanilla Ice adds one more beat/bass. That is why I brought up joining a band and adding notes. Also as pro Alisha Keys and Black eyed peas have nothing to do with this debate.
-Beast
000ike

Con

Rebuttals

1. "Please listen to the videos you have listed and listen to the bass line, they are clearly the same. The only thing different is that Vanilla Ice adds one more beat/bass. That is why I brought up joining a band and adding notes"

Did I argue that they were not the same? No. They are clearly the same, without doubt, but Pro's resolution was not that the beat of "Ice Ice Baby" and "Under pressure" are the same. His resolution was that the beat was stolen from "Under Pressure". With that in mind, my opponent has yet to disprove or negate both my contentions of the "same-beat" prevalence, and the ownership of song in WHOLE, not in part. Therefore I extend both contentions to the third round.


2. "Also as pro Alisha Keys and Black eyed peas have nothing to do with this debate"

I mentioned Alicia Keys and the Black eyed Peas because they both have songs with the exact same beat. (refer to Videos 1 and 2)

I admit that the debate has nothing to do with them, but I used them to show the prevalence of "same-beats" in modern music and give Pro an idea of the amount of artists that would be thieves under his accusation. I used it to form the point that having the same beat in modern times is commonplace and does not automatically imply that it was copied or stolen. The mention of Alicia Keys and the Black Eyed Peas, though irrelevant when isolated, returned to relevance when it formed that contention. My opponent's mentioning of his joining a band led to no substantial contention or proof. Therefore, his attempt to denounce my comparison like I denounced his is without merit, given the different situations.

I hold that my opponent has failed to refute either contention from round two, so again, I extend.

1) "Same beats" are commonplace in modern times often by chance. My opponent, having the burden of proof, would need an argument more substantial than that to fulfill his burden.

2) A song in WHOLE is what is owned, meaning the lyrics, the key signature, the melody, and all. If a small PART of one song appears in another song, maybe a swift excerpt from the melody or in this case the beat, the ownership does not exist. Hence the beat is not "STOLEN" since no one owned it. If my opponent has objections to this, I would like him to explain why all artists who reuse beats do not simply GET SUED. The only situation under which a beat can POSSIBLY be owned is when the beat is created independently of a song and sold. The patent on "Under Pressure" applies to the song in WHOLE because a whole song was created and then patented. Ripping off parts of songs, unless any of those parts are specifically under patent, unfortunately, is not only legal, but widely accepted and commonplace. Hence it is not thievery, and therefore, Ice Ice Baby did not steal anything ( steal implying that the object in question was owned to begin with).







Debate Round No. 3
Beast444

Pro

If you go to this website "http://www.songfacts.com...; it proves they took without permission. Now I believe you said steal means "take without permission. So that proves that they did steal the beat/bass in the song.
- Beast444
000ike

Con

Using my opponent's link as my own source, it states "...Vanilla Ice agreed to pay Queen and Bowie a settlement"

Something cannot be stolen if it was paid for, the negation of the resolution is within Pro's "proof". The resolution and Pro's entire debate session did not specify the technicalities. Had the resolution been " The beat for ice ice baby was SAMPLED from Under pressure" or "AT FIRST, the beat for Ice Ice Baby was stolen from Under pressure" then my opponent would have a more binding case. Since that is not the situation, with pro's introduction of songfacts.com, he negated himself.

Vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Beast444 6 years ago
Beast444
Any way they paid them after they used it.
Posted by Beast444 6 years ago
Beast444
It's alright, Good luck
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
I apologize, it won't happen again.
Posted by Beast444 6 years ago
Beast444
I do not like you attitude about you thinking you are gonna win
Posted by imscrappy 6 years ago
imscrappy
Found the following in the tutorial section regarding the basis for decision when voting:

"Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include:

Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters.
Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round.
Comments made by other members of the site."

Therefore, my comments should not be considered to sway the voting outcome by any voters.
Posted by imscrappy 6 years ago
imscrappy
@000ike - I'm sorry if you feel that I cost you the debate, but fail to see how this is so. If the item in question is the unsanctioned use of the beat from a song, which you were arguing against, and the actual portion of the song that is considered to have been misappropriated is the bass line, then my point only strengthens your position. Your second point on me not following the site rules is possibly valid since I am new to DDO and might have shared my thoughts in the wrong place - the Comments section. If I am in violation of any such rule, then you have my apologies. I will go back to the tutorial and re-read the rules to ensure that I am not in violation.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
I was so sure I would win this. Oh well.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Don't you know the site rules?? you cost me the debate!
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Please don't provide help for my opponent in the comments. It is cheating.
Posted by imscrappy 6 years ago
imscrappy
It is true that the bass line is what was illegally sampled, and was settled out of court.

http://www.fairwagelawyers.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Beast444000ikeTied
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 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: wow, I'm not sure what happened. While Pro could have made a case (which still would have been hard, but possible), he didn't really do anything.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Beast444000ikeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should learn how to use sources - as evidence, not argument. Pro didn't provide analysis that the beat was stolen. Con did a good job in his refutation. Neg win. Pro needed more constructive material.
Vote Placed by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
Beast444000ikeTied
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: Con's argument was superior to that of Pro's
Vote Placed by Mestari 6 years ago
Mestari
Beast444000ikeTied
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 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: Con made clear arguments while Pro just made a random unrelated statement in every round.