The Instigator
phil42
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
morrisnj
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Whether the NEA should be abolished

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 3 votes the winner is...
morrisnj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 62115
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

phil42

Con

Affirmative: The National Endowment for the Arts should not be abolished.
morrisnj

Pro

I believe the NEA is an unnecessary and a pointless agency in the United States government today. The NEA"s sole purpose is to give money to local artists and projects. It promotes unethical and offensive art, as in the New York City art exhibit, "Sensation". The US government should not be granting subsidies to an agency whose sole purpose is to promote local artists and projects with no benefit to the outside community.
Debate Round No. 1
phil42

Con

phil42 forfeited this round.
morrisnj

Pro

The NEA is taking government funds from more important projects, and bringing it to local artists. Which in my opinion they should have to earn the money themselves. The NEA as an organization to promote local artists and projects should be a privately funded organization. I think that the US government should take the NEA of government subsidies and see how they and local artists can come up with the money on their own.
Debate Round No. 2
phil42

Con

phil42 forfeited this round.
morrisnj

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited another round, I will write my conclusion. On balance, the NEA should be abolished on the following grounds. First, they are taking government money, no matter how little or much, from things such as education, military, e.t.c. Second, all the organization is doing is taking money from hardworking people's pockets and distributing them to artists who want an easier way that doesn't involve them taking money out of their own pockets. Third, there have been so many successful artists who have raised money for themselves and have proven themselves time and time again.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Get government money out of it and see if it survives on its own .If not, then render it to the fate of buggy whips.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Ah, alright, makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
Posted by phil42 2 years ago
phil42
Sorry, I am arguing that the NEA should not be abolished. Good question, sorry I wasn't very clear.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, neither does it to me, but then I look at R1, and I can't decide if she's saying what she's affirming or what the affirmative must affirm.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Doesn't look like it to me.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
So, just to clarify: you're going to argue for the abolition of the NEA?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
phil42morrisnjTied
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: Fofeiture
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
phil42morrisnjTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources used no argument made by con.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
phil42morrisnjTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits.