CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Jannamarieke

Reward Points:28
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
92%
Arguments:15
Debates:4
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

Ok, your definition of what art is remains completely unclear (CAN anything be art at all in your view and if yes - what's your definition of art?) but let's forget those instances when someone painted on private (such as your) property but painted on public property? Or the case where the artist got permission of the owner? Considered the last case you cannot declare graffiti as vandalism PER SE.

Thus, if you consider graffiti as a possible art-form (just as paintings on canvas, sculptures, dance performances are) you must admit graffiti is art in certain instances.

Because sometimes it is art and contains and idea that is better expressed by graffiti than masturbating. See for yourself on the the link below

Supporting Evidence: here (www.xa-xa.org)

Further, the ban on burqas by the government violates the principle of separation of church and state - one of the most important political principles securing the secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.

The official argument of the liberals in Belgium was 'safety', but other arguments were that it should promote the emancipation of muslim women. Forced emancipation will not work however: those women won't throw of their burqas collectively but will stay at home instead. Women should be convinced by education and arguments that they have the right and freedom of chocie, not by prohibitions.

The Freedom Party (PVV) of Wilders is the polls for the upcoming national elections the 2nd of 3d largest party. In the local elections of last month the PVV was the largest party in two cities, on of them was The Hague. The PVVs main program is anti-muslim and anti-immigration and is categorized as right populist by some and extreme right by others.

Since right populist parties, like Wilders Party for Freedom, annexed the political and media stage, the image of Netherlands turned from a tolerant into a xenophobic nation.

2 points

No i did not get in backwards.

- First, being on drugs does not disproves someone being an artist. Many artists are on drugs. Picasso, Pollack, Dali, Warhol all used drugs. Would you deny they were artists?

- Second, that's beside the point. Graffiti can be art and can be plain vandalism, depending on the purpose of the maker. If you want to define art by it's purpose and not by it's reception you must admit that graffiti is sometimes art. And i believe it is by it's purpose only we can define whether something is art.

Two examples: 1. some decorative item X that is produced without any intention of being art, but is defined as art by the buyer is no art.

2. some object Y that is made as an artwork by the maker (with the intention of causing effect in senses and mind) but is not (immediately) widely recognized as art is still art. Van Gogh for example was only recognized as an artist after he died. Was his work no art?

3 points

If the maker of the graffiti work considers herself an artist, it is art. If you consider art as that product was is deliberately made with the intention to affect senses and emotions, then graffiti that is intended as art should be considered as art.

The starting point is the artist and the subjective experience of humans. Then, if someone considers graffiti vandalism (because they feel their wall is vandalized) it doesn't make it vandalism.

Supporting Evidence: "Fountain" (Duchamp) (en.flossmanuals.net)

The only just cause can be resistance of aggression. Aggression is here the 'use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights'.

Moral agents bear moral responsibility. Moral agents are capable of reflection, forming intentions and behaving accordingly. The opposite is being determined. If you consider a soldier moral responsible then you believe he is more then just an extension peace of disc ion makers.

@ Aveskde "

Please study democracy further. That's not how democracy works, specifically there are many types of democracy and in our democracy (I assume US democracy) it is based on representatives, meaning that the government we get is never truly what we want but instead a compromise between what our representatives want and what they promise us in order to gain our support."

-> Most modern democracies are representative democracies. We do not participate directly in decision making but we 'delegate' this to a selection we consider to be the most capable to decide for us. BUT does this mean citizens (either from US of NL, like me) can lean back, close their eyes and ears and wait for the next election to pass their judgment? Of course they CAN (physically), but it doesn't mean it is right. As citizen you never delegate your conscience or your individual responsibility. If the government you choose decides to exterminate your neighbor and the rest of the minority group in your society he belongs to, can you just tell him: ' I'm sorry man, this was not what I truly wanted but a mere compromise... Bad luck.' ?

Civil disobedience, resistance, petition, demonstration, collective actions: your civil and political rights do have a purpose.

"The military doesn't work this way, sorry."

-> That things don't work in a certain desirable way doesn't mean we cannot condemn it. Perhaps the concept military apparatus - with it's hierarchical structure that relieves everyone within from any individual responsibility should be seen as the left-overs from the pre-modern era where the idea individualism still had to be invented - needs a rigorous update.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here