Check out the Tournament Ladder
Community votes at the 24 hours mark upon the completion of this debate were 8-9 in favor of CON (so close!) so we have a final decision!@calvinwhorne Congrats for advancing to the next round!@agent00mama Hard luck on this one, hope to see you at November's tournament (last chance to qualify for a free entry at Dec' $5,000 Championship):https://www.qallout.com/tournament
I can't see you right now. Or hear you.
Lost you again
@agent00mama Thanks for the debate!
@calvinwhorne Right back at ya! :)
@calvinwhorne Literally the sources I have are all cited above. Minus a few. But defining words is such an important part of any debate. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
@agent00mama Yes, it is. But it's not really a debate if circular, self-proving definitions are used. I'd much rather have a debate where there is more ground on both sides. For instance, in this debate I could have defined art in a way that excluded the artist, and then you would have the choice to either accept my definition (and automatically lose) or we would just end up talking past each other. I'd be much more interested in these debates if it wasn't just a discussion of definitions.
I truly hope Qallout debaters choose to move away from narrow definitional debates and can focus on debates that can actually impact the perspectives of those watching. I’ve seen quite a few debates as of late that feel like debaters are trying to focus on motion technicalities and not really discuss the deeper impacts of what a topic is going for. While defending a stance like the one pro attempts might be easier for advancement in a tournament, I honestly don’t see the value to this format if this is what every debate looks like. I guess it goes back to what the community interprets the spirit of debate and the motion at hand is. I would theorize, even given the tag of #morality on the video, that this debate was not supposed to be about Webster Dictionary’s conception of art. That being said, onto some analysis. This debate starts out with some definition work that narrows the motion and then a quick pass off to con. Con rightfully pushes back on this and lays out a very solid and well crafted series of arguments that discusses whether or not the artist’s actions should impact the perception of art itself, a framework that gives much more equitable ground to both sides. That defense is enough to convince me that this is probably where the debate should be. Definitions alone shouldn’t win debates; they should help define the parameters of the debate in order to ensure clash. I’m not quite sure what pro expected cons ground to be with the way the round was set up.Even if you don’t buy cons ideas of what art should be, they win on pros terms. The turn of the Eric Gill example is one that I find damning to pros case. The response to this turn is about whether or not aesthetic sense is synonymous with art, but con convinces me it should be included in this conversation when they discuss how it has no value if not seen or consumed. I also feel like the defense of why interpretation and audience being included in how art is defined in this round is one con convinces me is the right way to characterize this motion. The auction items point pro brings in is interesting, but it doesn’t deal with vast majority of how people consume and interact with art or serve as a reason why this case is an exemplar for all instances where art is being consumed. There is not really a sufficient response to the idea of people who consume art without knowing about the artist as well. Even in the Walt Disney hypothetical pro ends with rests on this idea that everyone knows all the possible information about Walt Disney and makes a choice to consume or not consume media with that knowledge. They even say that free market will still decide if Walt Disney’s media is art independent from his actions, which plays into cons points. Furthermore, pro offers little refutation other than reiterations of the dictionary definition to large portions of cons case.By the end of the debate cons case just creates a more reasonable interpretation of the motion, stronger refutation and points of positive material, and compelling case, winning my vote.Overall, two clearly strong debaters. The potential for a deep and compelling philosophical debate on both sides was high here, but I feel like pros focus on the circular definitional debate did result in kind of a missed opportunity. I’d love to see this debate again where it existed in the more philosophical world of con.
@mar Definitions are important. My philosophy is just that though. That Art cannot be separated from the artist. And I defined one key term. Art. I entertained his ideas though. But most had to do with the value of art as influenced by an artists behavior, or someones perception/preference of what constitutes good art. Art by definition is important to understanding that it is attached to the artist. Our interpretation of the world around us, based on the definition, could arguably be art but only unique to us as an interpretor. We are all artists with an original point of view. Writers of our own lives. So I maintain the notion that art, by definition, which supports my philosophical position, cannot be separated from the artist.
@mar Totally agree with you.. the best debates are the ones where both debaters focus their limited time on the actual resolution and not just alignment of definitions.We're trying to address this by a) Fine tuning the wording of the resolutions with 2-3 QallOut top debaters and b) Allowing the debaters to align on definition pre-debate if they want toAny other suggestions from your experience?
@gigi It’s hard to say what would be broadly effective on a platform like QallOut. I come from a very specific type of debate backgrounds where wordings like this one would be prefaced with “This house believes that,” with the word believes indicating it’s a philosophy motion. My style also had a gov burden to set up an equitable debate. But, I think that same set up might not translate well to non BP debaters. That’s why when I suggested this motion on the FB group the definitional fiat that happened in this debate didn’t even cross my mind (this is one of my favorite motions and I’ve seen it debated a bunch of times, but this is the first time a gov team ran a definitional win case). I might suggest for QallOut that motions like this one that the motion could be phrased in such a way that the definitional debate isn’t possible. Something like, “When consuming art, you should consider the artists actions and philosophy.” That might be a little less open of a motion, but it definitely would mitigate some messy modeling for a variety of debates.
@gigi Or another possible wording might be something like, “People should not consume art created by immoral artists.”
For some people, it's true that art can't be separated from the artist. However, I can, and I do. I care not one whit about the creator, only about the creation. Obviously, art can't literally be separated from the artist – he or she will always be the creator. However, that is mere definitional pedantry not rising to actual 'debate.'Which is why I voted CON.
@chasuk Irony is that in one of the last debates that I lost I was told by the judges that my opponent gave definitions which made his position stronger. Now I am reading comments about how the definition I gave is why some are voting CON. I guess there is no pleasing everyone and it depends on the audience. None the less. I think definitions are important to communicating concepts and ideas.
@agent00mama I think it depends on the function of those definitions. Personally, I appreciate definition work that clarifies what the sides are and helps make sure everyone is on the same page. Definitions are helpful in setting parameters, but in isolation as argumentation (especially when the definition results in a truism making one side unwinnable) are not as helpful. I am truly curious. Given how you set up the round, what did you originally see as opp ground?
@agent00mama I think definitions are important, too, but for one purpose only: to make sure that both interlocutors are 'on the same page.' If definitions are not calibrated, then in a very real sense the interlocutors are arguing different things.
@yaz That's the debate I was hoping for, haha
The title definitely points at definitions. However, the audiences experience being greater and based in subjectivity is an excellent point. Although, I couldnt help but laugh at the comment about Picasso making art about his affairs and womanizing because he actually did! Con should have pointed out something like how people believe Emil Nolde made anti-Nazi art, and tell all of these stories about his paintings being a reaction to that society, because much of his art was burned as degenerate by the Third Reich, when the reality is that he supported Hitler. Pro saying it’s up to the market doesn’t answer that. Great debate. I’d love to debate this one, although the title needs adjusted.