Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane
Full Description:
Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane. That is, art is the best of creative expression in man, or it is his worst expression. For purposes of this debate, it is one or the other; we cannot argue that it is both. This is an economy of scale; either the greater quantity of artistic expression is one or the other. The two terms, sacred and profane, are to be debated in strictly a secular realm, even though some art is religious in nature, either as sacred or profane, the religious aspect of it is to be completely removed from the argument, other than by reference as a contribution to the total array of artistic expression. Voting cannot consider it but by its reference as such, and not on the basis of it’s religiously sacred, or profane nature.
Definitions: [according to the OED]
Art: [as a count noun] 7. Any of various pursuits or occupations in which creative or imaginative skill is applied according to aesthetic principles in the various branches of creative activity.
Secular: adj. 1. Of or pertaining to the world
Sacred: adj. b. Dedicated, set apart, exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose.
Profane: adj. 3. Of persons, behavior, ect.: characterized by, exhibiting, or expressive of a disregard or contempt for sacred things ||full stop|| end of OED, but I add: i.e., sacred in the sense of that word’s definition in this debate.
Debate Protocol:
3 rounds:
r1, r2: argument, rebuttal, defense
r3: no new argument. Rebuttal, defense, conclusion
All arguments of declarative statements that might, otherwise, be consider as opinion must be accompanied by formal referenced sources of scholarly origin, as the CoC, Voting Policy, and Debate Instruction on the debate text entry form stipulate. This is a voting protocol requirement. It is not necessary to cite sourcing on common knowledge matters. For example: “the Earth orbits the Sun” needs no source citation. Whereas, “Our Solar System orbits the Milky Way Galaxy at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr” would be prudent to source.
Shared BoP for each side
PRO offered a resolution with little room for conflict: art is either dedicated to some special purpose or else to express contempt or disregard for the dedication to special purposes. By such terms, a stop sign is sacred art. Nevertheless, PRO set out his argument with eloquence and erudition.
CON's instinct to attack the definition is correct but CON's arguments quickly devolve into semantic jibber-jabber. For example, art is for war and war is not a person therefore art is not sacred. But PRO did not define art as exclusively dedicated to a person, art can also be dedicated to a purpose and war is certainly chock full of purpose. To challenge PRO's thorough argument, CON needed to give us a superior take on sanctity or profanity. CON tried to argue that because that because the universe is without purpose any reaction within that universe is likewise purposeless but CON failed to demonstrate with any proofs that the universe is without purpose and so fails to persuade this voter.
PRO correctly calls non-sequitur and jauntily refutes the jibber-jabber. CON extends the meaninglessness of existence/ neurons firing randomly argument which I would have like to see PRO address more directly but PRO correctly advises CON that such an argument falls far outside the range of PRO's discussion and (this voter adds) remains unproven.
Argument to PRO
PRO pulled a variety of classic and well established artistic perpsectives to reinforce his case. CON offered a few sources but using a children's definition for creativity hurt the case and no evidence was offered for the only argument with any legs: that the universe is devoid of meaning.
Sources to PRO
Conduct to PRO for 3rd round forfeit.
Thank you for voting
NOTICE: Only 2 days remain for voting!
If I were you I'd keep it until it is good for a Kritik. You are revealing parts of your argument.
I'm aware, I'm using, "As con you can negate" as a perspective flip, saying if you were con you'd be able to do the same. Leaving this to voters is fair, still haven't decided how I'm going to argue this, want to adhere to your original intent but I disagree with your resolution's premise, I can argue both potentially.
I suppose you can argue whatever floats your boat in your rounds, and voters will decide your adherence to the intent of the resolution as worded. Have your say. The Constitution is misused in just such fashion.
By the way, your pronoun use is wanting. You're Con, not me. You say, therefore, As Con, [that's YOU] I can negate. S&G says as much.
"The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane.""
As Con you can negate the resolution itself. You are making the claim that art is either sacred or profane, I can contend/negate that by saying art is neither sacred nor profane.
The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane." Either it is sacred, or it is profane. Period. What about that tells you that one option is that it is neither? That resolution would be: Art is sacred and profane, or it is neither. But I did not word it that way. Syntax is everything.
Good luck with the debate!
Thank you Supa, it's good to be back!
You returned? Welcome my fellow SVTFOE fan!
The resolution is "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane", I was intending to argue that this dichotomy was false, to negate the resolution as an untrue statement. The desc. says, "For purposes of this debate, it is one or the other; we cannot argue that it is both." I was intending to argue against this claim, that it is neither. The either/or is unclear since it leaves an opening to question the either/or itself.
Bamboozled? The resolution is clearly an either/or statement. The first four sentences of the full description emphasize that either/or. The definitions are careful to define each term of the resolution separately and distinctly. Sorry, but it is your misunderstanding, not my bamboozlement. I hold with all statements. No do-overs.
At least you can prove that art is not sacred, that is half of your bop
I misunderstood the premise of the debate, thought I'd be arguing that art is neither sacared nor profane, not that it is profane. Willing to debate within either parameters but I do feel bamboobzled
It should be! Can't wait for your response
Thanks for accepting the debate. I'll be posting my r1 soon. This should be a lot of fun.
*person draws single blue line* "yes" "*Y E S*"
yes
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Thin_Blue_Line_flag.svg/325px-Thin_Blue_Line_flag.svg.png
*person draws single blue line* "yes"
Thank you for creating this, sounds really interesting! Looking forward to the art debate