The Instigator
Phil
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points
The Contender
nypuller
Con (against)
Losing
56 Points

The Government Should Not Fund The Arts

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2007 Category: Arts
Updated: 13 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 30,426 times Debate No: 5
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (30)

 

Phil

Pro

The US Government, or any government for that matter, should not be in the business of funding the art industry. For the same reason the government shouldn't fund gas companies or stock brokers, artists should have to prove their worth in the marketplace.

Professional artists choose their job like the rest of us (unless you live in a socialistic country). Artists know exactly what the salary and risk is before they choose their profession. The government should not take someone else's hard earned money and give it to someone just because they're an artist.
nypuller

Con

I strongly believe that arts have the right to be funded by the government. The main reason that the government began funding the arts (which the idea of creative funding started back the United States constitution itself) is because, it is meant to allow artists to retain the materials necessary to perform their creative tasks that they have undertaken. The government states that creativity is important and essential to a well formed society and allows other parts of the brain (which would otherwise go unused) to be accessed. Also the amounts of money that these artists are paid are very miniscule and more times then not they are "supported" by a tax deduction rather than an actual physical income. The argument stands that if science can be funded to further help mankind in advancing ourselves to understand about our body's, chemical reactions, the solar system etc. Then why can't art be funded to advance ourselves with the use of our creativity and the good our creativity can bring to this world.
Debate Round No. 1
Phil

Pro

Hello nypuller, and thanks for accepting my challenge to debate this topic.

Let me start by saying I don't agree with your premise that we should even be funding science. There is a clear economic market for both science and art. If you want to be an artist, then you should take that risk just like the millions of entrepreneurs in the country who have to save their money, start a business, and often times go years without being cash-flow positive.

We all love pizza, and I hear tomatoes are good for the brain, but again, it's not the US government's role to fund the arts, just like it shouldn't be funding pizza restaurants.

If your art is in demand, then people, schools, and other organizations will purchase it. If you create something that nobody wants, then you won't sell it. The problem with government funding, is that all of the garbage gets the same type of funding as the good stuff. The only means to determine art-in-demand, is to let the free-markets decide.

We all have to take risks in the marketplace. Artists and scientists should not be exempt from this rule just because of some philosophical point of view. After all, why should I be FORCED to pay you for your art creations? That's my hard earned money, not yours.
nypuller

Con

nypuller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 2 years ago
K_Michael_Tolman
When you say the government shouldn't fund science, You're wrong.
Take NASA for instance. The reason the government funds them is because the space initiative is a valuable asset to the U. S.
The Government funds science in to places. Research, And education.
In education, It is often with Universities that are government funded anyway, In all areas to some extent.
In research, It is generally for topics that can directly benefit the government or people of America; a valid reason to fund something.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Ha, tie breaker!
Posted by Akira13 4 years ago
Akira13
Are you saying that artists don't work as hard?
Posted by Danielle 11 years ago
Danielle
The government shouldn't fund science, Phil? I'll be glad to debate you on that :)
Posted by shalominthehome 13 years ago
shalominthehome
one's passion is permissable (not the world's best speller; sorry) if they are positive that whatever it is truly is their passion. its not theft because when we pay taxes that go to the government, they SHOULD be giving back to finance communities so that they can enrich their lives with things such as the arts. also, do artists not pay taxes?
Posted by Klashbash 13 years ago
Klashbash
Should one's passion in life consist of leeching off of someone else's wealth without consent? It's theft because government subsidizing of the arts is from taxpayer money. The taxpayers produced the wealth by their own labor. The government did nothing but use threat of force to obtain the money. That's theft. I believe schools should be privatized but that's a debate for another day.
Posted by shalominthehome 13 years ago
shalominthehome
but if someone has found their passion to do something, shouldn't they go with it. i think its prety hard to give up on a passion. i also dont think that art really has to do anything with theft. not all art can nessicarily be purchased. for instance, should a school play not be funded? school plays fit under the arts...
Posted by Klashbash 13 years ago
Klashbash
I find it repulsive that you would advocate the theft of others. Artist funding can be done in the market where if consumers want it they can buy it.
Posted by shalominthehome 13 years ago
shalominthehome
i think that if someone has found their passion for any type of ary, whether it be musical, drawing,perfoming, or anything else i cant think of, should go with it. i think not funding is completly repulsive
Posted by Klashbash 13 years ago
Klashbash
Jazarcturus, I propose that the federal government should stop issuing grants for cancer research. Somebody else's cancer is not my problem. Neither is my own possible cancer another person's problem. I developed the wealth that is by force taken away from me by the government to fund this research. My own portion of the wealth I created could not have existed without my own sweat. Nobody has a claim to this wealth except me. Stop supporting theft.

Greenlove, the government funding of arts infringes on my right to keep the fruit of my labor.

Volleynolley, you're willing to support theft aka taxes to fund a source of inspiration? That's a dangerous slippery slope and could be used to justify the government financial assistance of just about anything.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
PhilnypullerTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I find the argument of Pro on utility to be more persuasive than Con argument for enriching peoples creativity. While Con does make a good point in saying that the amount of money given can be small or "sometimes" be supported by tax deductible. This does not remove Cons argument that the State would be taking money from individuals to fund what many might see as a pointless use of their money. I suppose I will give conduct to Pro but leave argument as a tie, Con did forfeit the final round, and I did find Pro slightly more convincing.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 years ago
fire_wings
PhilnypullerTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 years ago
dsjpk5
PhilnypullerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by NiamC 7 years ago
NiamC
PhilnypullerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by GOP 7 years ago
GOP
PhilnypullerTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
PhilnypullerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Econ value args are demonstratably stupid
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 7 years ago
Seeginomikata
PhilnypullerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct due to con forfeit. Con made arguments for societal benefits while pro argued individual protection. Government money is for society, not the individual, con wins on logic.
Vote Placed by philosphical 11 years ago
philosphical
PhilnypullerTied
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 Xer 12 years ago
Xer
PhilnypullerTied
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 Yoni 12 years ago
Yoni
PhilnypullerTied
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 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.