The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

conglomeration over creativity

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: 10/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 62968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Is there a place in this world for for creativity. with the rise of industry, blooming in the 20th century, the idea of a populous working towards a single goal took root in the city's as new companies begun to mass employ people with the single aim of production. Men would stand at the production line all day performing their one task so that they can save enough money to support their lives. This would grow the company, the company would employ more people, the people would try to earn and the vicious homogenous circle would begin again, feeding itself. I put forward the idea that this cycle has grown so large, so massive that it has spread beyond the mere employees; marketing and and cooperate mergers have left us with no option but to be part of the system. we all work for what materialism holds over our heads; the latest phone, a new car. has consumerism grown so large that there is no logistical place left in this world for the creative man, replaced by marketing teams who are content to manipulate the word to turn a coin. I sadly believe it has, being a young man looking out at the world. My options are logistically are to falter under the weight of society's pressure as an independent fee thinker (be it the solitary nature of independent thought vs the conglomerates) or to work with the system until I work my up the 'corporate ladder' to a position where I could free myself from the system. however when I get to the top of this ladder like many of the great men of history, will I will have had my teeth to the grindstone so long that I will mistake it for the air I once craved. I fear this is the case. I will have become merely the manager of a system that condemns creativity as I will still have to follow the system still further to keep my place of materialistic power secure power secure.


I accept this challenge, and in the course of the next few rounds will demonstrate how creativity is not dead, and while corporate gamesmanship might earn you corporate position, such gamesmanship can also be done outside the corporate ladder to achieve personal fulfillment.
Debate Round No. 1


I open with the example of William Wordsworth. One of the Original English romantic poets, a rebel of his day, well known for his alternative political agenda, Wordsworth was worn down by the system which he could no Longer fight against. He took a ephemeral job in his local post office for the want of some coin.
I think this is a prime example to my point; that even the most creative and artistic among us cannot survive as individually creative for want of material gain that only the monetary system can provide.
Thus I pose my question; do any of us in modern society really live without the want of , a bigger TV, the latest phone, or monetary gain (to pay our rents.) ? I believe that for the vast majority the answer is no.


It seems Pro would like to hold two separate arguments in which to demonstrate a point, the first seems attached to materialism, the second being the death of creativity. Con can address these in tandem.

Creativity and artistic endeavours are two separate things. Artistic expression for profit can be done, and its not a omni-present boogey man of corporate dream smashing that prevents it from happening. Creativity in the form of Art needs to be good, polished and refined out of the gate if the artist wants to survive solely off that talent. Writers, comedians, painters, sculptors, craftsmen of all stripes, those whom we know by name got to their place in history by being masters of their craft. They employed industrial creativity AND artistic expression in which to make their mark. The fault doesn't lay with anyone other than the one trying to bring that talent to market. I have no desire to own a collection of limericks because a poet decided working AND writing just wasn't in the cards for them. As blunt as it is to say, if the 'creative individual' is bringing something to the market that no one wants, how can you fault conglomeration for it?

"We" all work for materialism. Well, since you have identified the problem: stop? I personally don't own a mobile phone. My car is a 2001. Usually, what I buy when the mood strikes is for entertainment, but the remainder is when the need necessitates. While my instance is not remarkable, I am confident I am not alone, and such a decision is not a hard one. I have found that I am more easily able to patronize local artists specifically by NOT buying something for the purpose of having it. That type of buying decision is for lack of a better, a cop out. Your dollars are yours. Blaming a marketing campaign for yours and your monies' separation is the type of creativity that should have been put to work for you rather than inventing a reason for having spent your money.

While it is clich" to argue being your own boss, and doing what you want so the money will follow, its just as clich"d to pigeon hole those poor creative spirits stuck in the web of corporate constraints. Creativity, risk, drive... these are all concepts that must be employed if you want to work outside the safety of the corporate ladder. If they are not present, then maybe a 'drone' in the corporate world is the better alternative: the best place for a person lacking those qualities has already been found.

Lastly, to directly point something out to Pro's question of living without want, Con noticed how 'Monetary gain' got tacked on at the end with '(to pay our rents)'. Con would like to consider that part reaching, we all need to find an income to keep a roof over our head. Monetary gain is the means by which you keep yourself fed, sheltered, and clothed. Con hardly considers that 'materialism', as the absence of which would be societal donation.
Debate Round No. 2


Far from addressing these issues separately as Con suggests I seek to demonstrate that the lure of materialism is habitually resultant, in many cases, of the death of creativity and so the two are linked.

Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create. I belive that maybe at heart some of them they are every bit as artistic and creative as those successful musicians and artists I mentioned earlier but with the exception that they lack the ability to work with the system to turn a profit, to market, to sell their creativity. Con seems to be arguing that creativity is only possible with the ability to turn a profit and I would argue that this means the death of creativity in so many for lack of business know how that being creative is turned into an almost elitist thing for those both creative and business minded. Surely this thining out of the creative for lack of an ability to work with the system to gain a profit is the definition of the death of creativity for many.

Con argues that it is easy to abstain from the perks that conforming to conglomeration gives. I would argue that with the rise of social technology (like the smartphone) more than ever the lack of conformity (and so lack of desire for material possession) leaves the practitioner at a disadvantage as the person who is slower to find information , more inconvenienced to communicate quickly on the fly with someone you cannot see in the flesh. Thus the man that does not conform to a system in favour of keeping his creativity is at a disadvantage , making creativity a less viable option. I also would imagine con is not alone, largely because owning a "2001" is really not that remarkable in terms of being independent from the system and I"m sure many other reasonable people have done the same. Thus I would ask why that example is so relevant to showing how con flourishes outside the system and feels so free with this in relevance to this non remarkable gesture towards independence.

As I have addressed above, these concepts "Creativity, risk, drive" can be in spades in a candidate however can these really get anywhere without the structure of a corporate ladder to direct the creativity, thus moulding it so much that it is no longer true creativity.

I would like to remind con that in his last paragraph he is highlighting the reason than many turn away from creativity in favour of the monetary gain; to achieve these things he lists. In fact, he has done rather good job of highlighting the necessity of monetary gain to the ordinary person thus suggesting the necessity of conformity to the system. My above paragraphis highlight the enevitable result of this conformity".. the majority death of creativity.


Aw, Jeezus, dude. Really, you choose literally the last effing hour to make your point? I am just coming home from my bachelor party, you couldn't have picked some time.. maybe 24 hours ago to unleash all this?

The lure of materialism is habitually resultant. Source or example or explanation? D'aw, gee. None present.

"Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create." ---- whom were inferior to another. This is not a hard concept. To reference a movie from pop culture, you are NOT a special snowflake.

I fail to see a fault of 'the system', if those that are in said system would prefer to hope there best simply don't stack up to other efforts which make the subjective material inherently inferior.

'Con argues....' pretty much everything after that is both speculation and reinvention of my premise, both of which are self evident.

Infromation is not a precious commidity anymore. Nearly, literally, all the inspiration, failed works, successfuly works, mediocre works are at your finger tips. Pro would like to highlight that people need money to survive, and the terms of their aquisition should be on their terms. That, in short, is horse manure. The death of creativity comes from the overwhelming deluge of 'that which is not creative'. Seriously, look at the movies. How many 'remakes' have we been subejected too? Look at advertising campagins. How many rebrandings have we seen?

Pro wants to be a special snowflake for the purpose of being a special snow flake.

Look, I want creative folks, but whats NEW is the easiest market decider of what is old, vs what is new.

Pro desperatley needs this debate to hinge on an emotional argument. Stifling creativity is the Pro verbiage for 'No one cares'. How is that conglomerations fault? Similar cop outs are 'after his/her time' or 'misunderstood'. Its not conglomeration, or some bizarre conspiracy that wants more, new, different. Its we, as a market place. We have desires, we have interests, and literally, we have voteed with our dollars what variety of threshold to the past we would like to connect too.

A novel idea doesn't require an ad campaign.

Pro is mounting a GREAT ad campaign for the standardization and acceptatnce of mediocrity.

No thank you. Its been done.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Christofar 2 years ago
My appologies if i caused you to much inconvienience. It was not intended at all i just only found time to adress the debate when i did. no harm done though, you know what they say " if you cant stand the heat, get off of the online debate site" ;)
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
Sorry for the tone the last round carried, but I was really hoping not to be rushed, or have to crowbar in some time before the wedding. All apologies, and I concede conduct.
No votes have been placed for this debate.