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: 14 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 30,709 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 11 through 13 records.
Posted by jazarcturus 13 years ago
jazarcturus
Phil man, science that is at the complete mercy of the free market can be a dangerous premise. There's very little money in cancer research, do you propose the federal government stop issuing grants for these programs? 3 years ago there was a shortage of flu vaccinations because there was very little money to be had in the production of sed vaccinations, does that justify that the elderly be without them? It's nice to think that the world can function in a nice little liberitarian utopia; unfortunately, the world just isn't that simple anymore.
Posted by greenlove 14 years ago
greenlove
The arts allow for creativity and expression. The funding of arts allows for free speech, and that is one of the central cores of the united states government. Also the funding of the arts would benefit the government financially at times. The proceeds of government funded art museums would be a great financial contribution. Art is a multi-faced industry, it is not simply reduced to displaying art. Art education allows students to express themselves, and public art allows for more public enjoyment, as well as a 'tourist' attraction. Art is a part of society, and so the purpose of government is to best serve society, and persevere societies best interests.
Posted by volleynolley 14 years ago
volleynolley
Just as scientific research is beneficial to the people, the arts (as displayed in museums or performed in a theatre) are a source of inspiration to the people. Participation in, as well as viewing of the arts, also provide educational opportunities.
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 12 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.