The Instigator
Cf9498
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

schools shouldn't cut art from the budget

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 9 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,102 times Debate No: 25538
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

Cf9498

Pro

schools shouldn't cut funding for art in there budget because it encourages children to go to school every day.
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank Cf9498 for presenting his arguments.

I. Art Isn't Important

"School is supposed to be an academic environment. But the arts have somehow infested the hallways and taken thousands of students hostage with pretty colors and soothing sounds.

Students go to school to learn the derivative of 48 x 2 and the Kreb's Cycle, not to paint abstract nothingness or to sing bad choral music."[1]

II. Art Can Distract Students

"The arts, which are a required credit in many schools, distract students and create wannabe starving artists, who skip class because they don't want to put their precious guitar away, or who never leave the art room because they have to finish their masterpiece painting of a soda can."[1]

III. They Would Have to Cut more Important Subjects if Art was Kept

"The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math." Cutting art means more important subjects.

IV. Artists, phooey!

Artists make little money, waste college funds, feed off the government, raise the debt, paint horrible pictures (today), are "artsy", are weird, eat their paintings when they are hungry, and so forth. Why should we promote them?

V. My Opponent's Argument

My opponent said, "it encourages children to go to school every day." I hated art. I got a C in it the last time I took it. If I had to take Art again, I would be MORE inclined to skip school. And so would a lot of other kids.

Thank you.

Sources:

[1]: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...
[2]: http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bandfreak18 3 years ago
bandfreak18
I would NEVER EVER in a million years get rid of arts. Arts teach children many things. such as confidence, creativity, non-verbal communication, problem solving, dedication, accountability, the list goes on and on. I don't know what I would do without arts. They've formed me into the person I am and I would never be anything like myself if it wasn't for band, art and theater. Although it may not be the best option for a career, its definitely important as a child is young. Studies have shown that children exposed to arts do three times better on tests, they develop a new side of their brain, but they also learn who they are. There are so many options in music and choir. Art gives the child a chance to express himself. There are trillions of ways to paint a canvas, yet every child will do it differently. If it weren't for arts, I would hate going to school. I wouldn't have any good friends. I wouldn't be who I am today. I totally disagree with @Artorsis and if you want to take me up on this go ahead. There's no good reason to cut the arts.
'All Science and no Arts make Johnny a dull boy.'
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@Artorius:

A1: The Arts are unimportant

I'll concede that art is somewhat important in elementary school and maybe early middle school, but it isn't so relevant later on. School is designed for students to get an adequate grasp of everything they are supposed to know to get either at least a job, or so that they can go on to college and get a career. Very few artists ever become successful enough to even rent themselves a loft uptown.

Having a greater grasp of art at the expense of subjects like Science and Business is really going is most likely going to wreck your life's chances at anything.

Also, I didn't say the budget should eliminate art. I said it should cut art's funding.

A3: They would have to cut more important subjects if Arts were kept.

I'll again concede that geography is rather unimportant. However, certain looks in history are very important. Looking at history helps us learn from our mistakes, gives us a greater grasp and heritage, and gives us a greater feeling of cosmopolitianism than art ever will. Language even more so. How are we ever going to accomodate those illegal immigrants (that's a joke)! However, more seriously, French is the international language of business, Chinese is really going to help you out in just about every field, in the years past, Russian and Japanese were very important to American security and interests. And don't even get me started on reading and mathematics.

In the end, learning art is going to help us very little in getting any successful career or even job; the only thing it could do would be to make you an artist, but like I said earlier, being successful is highly unlikely.

These are spur of the moment and could be so much better. If you approve the resolution, "Funding for the Arts should be Cut" I would be happy to challenge you.
Posted by uncertain 4 years ago
uncertain
I wanna debate as pro/for art program. I'm sorry but all the con's argument are rather shallow, except the last one that attack the pro
Posted by Artorius 4 years ago
Artorius
If you insist,

A1: "Arts are unimportant."

First off, that source is... shoddy at best. I don't see an author OR any other opinion of a professional, just another tabloid writer trying to influence people with unfounded opinions. Meanwhile, the President of Cornell University thinks JUST the opposite [1]. It is folly to look at school from a PURELY academic standpoint. Rather, one must also look at it from the standpoint of educating, not JUST from the standard "oh, must get into university with good grades" viewpoint.

A3: They would have to cut more important subjects if Arts were kept.

Not really. Is History any more applicable to current topics like reading and mathematics? Could we bear to let go of language courses for the sake of other "more important" subjects? Forgive my French, but our beef is with the ARTS. not Language or History or any other course. You have already outlined an alternate solution, and it is a better solution to sacrifice other courses like History and Geography (especially Geography, I hate Geography and it fits into an entire course already, no need to give it its own course in High School), rather than sacrifice arts.

[1] http://www.edutopia.org...

My apologies, these arguments are INCREDIBLY simplistic and weren't well thought out, but they should address those two points specifically.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@Artorius:

Dude, I had fifteen minutes to create an argument out of nothing. I could do so much better than this. However, points I and III are very valid and I would love to see your arguments against them here.
Posted by Artorius 4 years ago
Artorius
Anyone else wanna debate this? I'd wipe the floor with these fallacies, and I hope everyone else would as well.
Posted by uncertain 4 years ago
uncertain
Sorry guys I repeated three times!!! Gosh
Posted by uncertain 4 years ago
uncertain
Pro did a poor job! I'm an artist so emotionally and logically I won't agree with con. It is really sad to see con's arguments here. He only sees stereotypes and hears what the myth makers tell him. Well most of us are like con unless we are within the industry, which is art here.
Posted by uncertain 4 years ago
uncertain
Pro did a poor job! I'm an artist so emotionally and logically I won't agree with con. It is really sad to see con's arguments here. He only sees stereotypes and hears what the myth makers tell him. Well most of us are like con unless we are within the industry, which is art here.
Posted by uncertain 4 years ago
uncertain
Pro did a poor job! I'm an artist so emotionally and logically I won't agree with con. It is really sad to see con's arguments here. He only sees stereotypes and hears what the myth makers tell him. Well most of us are like con unless we are within the industry, which is art here.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 5 years ago
Clash
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 nicely refuted Pro's argument. Furthermore, Pro gave several arguments which clearly proved his case and in contrast to Con, they didn't contain of just one sentence. Sources goes to Con too because Pro didn't have any sources.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Obvious win is obvious.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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: Self-explanatory vote really.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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: Self explanatory
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good show Sir, Good show.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: God, I hate Con's arguments; every last f*cking one of them. But, he won. Clearly, in fact. Pro presented no arguments and had poor grammar and spelling, to boot. Victory (unfortunately): Con.
Vote Placed by igaryoak 5 years ago
igaryoak
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar were not satisfactory. Con fails to address any of Pro's arguments properly; the only time Con addresses Pro's arguments, Con uses anecdotal evidence.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree with CON. KFC.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Cf9498Ron-PaulTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro had an assertion and Con had several arguments. Pro's only sentence was orthographically incorrect due to a capitalization error.