Con ~ Round 1

My claim is that modern-day pop and rap music on the radio is unhealthy, misleading, and generally bad for society- assuming that we would all want to strive to achieve a better one.

Pro ~ Round 1

Though I actually do find today's modern music to be of very bad taste and probably have a taste in music that dates beyond anyone on this forum, I have to say that I am FOR modern music on the radio.

Like it or not, this garbage music appeals to the majority of people, and the only way radio stations can stay in business is to play things that would garner an audience and thus, appease the sponsors via advertisement.

Con ~ Round 2

The meat of it all:

First of all, we'll have to analyze Kleptin's response.

****"Though I actually do find today's modern music to be of very bad taste"

Kleptin, this is purely opinion, and has nothing to do with my actual claim. Taste can mean that someone just doesn't like the way the music sounds, but that in itself isn't unhealthy or bad for society.


Now you also mentioned something about this "garbage" music appealing to the majority of people. That is unfortunately true, but truth is not measured in mass appeal-

Through things like MTV, people are fed an image of life. Much rap on the radio advertises the idea that these rappers would blow somebody away for looking at them wrong, and sell crack just because they want money for some new rims... Also, the idea is thrown at women to go after those rappers, and put on minimal clothing and dance on their cars-

One such song is by a rapper by the name of "Yung Joc", with a song called "It's goin' down", which is still all over the radio.... Here are the lyrics, in which he's talking about a trap, going around with a pistol on his lap, and of course- all for money:

http://www.metrolyrics.com/...



Analyzing it further, most people do not know what a trap is. A trap is a slang word for a place where dealers will gather to sell drugs- mainly crack, sold in somewhat of a drive-through fashion.

Now the FCC(Federal Communications Commission) says that rappers can't say the F-word on the radio, but it's alright to promote dangerous drugs and violent, gun-pulling mentalities... See the problem here?

Is this anything for kids to grow up listening to? Music does reflect life, and kids mimic these people they look up to- crack dealers make terrible role models, in my opinion. Let's not forget, the radio is entirely public- a four-year-old can tune in at any time...

You also mentioned advertisement... What's more important: the sponsors, or the musical creators? On a side note(and purely my opinion), I believe that music and the market for music is changing. No longer does a musical artist need to pay a recording label to market their music, put it on the radio, and put it where people can hear it. Now, anybody can get a myspace page and throw their music up there, make a website, and directly market their music- The playing field is evening out.

Pro ~ Round 2

"Kleptin, this is purely opinion, and has nothing to do with my actual claim. Taste can mean that someone just doesn't like the way the music sounds, but that in itself isn't unhealthy or bad for society."

I never said it had anything to do with your claim. I'm just emphasizing the point that the purpose of modern music on the radio is beyond what people like to hear, that's all.

"Now you also mentioned something about this "garbage" music appealing to the majority of people. That is unfortunately true, but truth is not measured in mass appeal-"

Argumentum ad Populum doesn't apply here. Truth is not measured in mass appeal, but I'm not trying to argue that the popularity of the music makes it good. I'm arguing that the popularity of the music corresponds to an increase in revenue, which is why we should expect that type of music to be on the air as opposed to other kinds of music.

"Through things like MTV, people are fed an image of life...Let's not forget, the radio is entirely public- a four-year-old can tune in at any time..."

In this section, my opponent details the social consequences of broadcasting this music. I need to remind my opponent that media influence on pop culture is not unidirectional, it is cyclical. The media exists to provide stimulus and excitement by stretching social boundaries. Anything beyond that would be rejected by society and would have no effect on it. Through time, society would become more and more tolerant of this stretching and would require additional stimulus, much like how one develops a muscle.

In other words, there must have been an appeal towards this sort of violent lifestyle for society to accept its existence in music, and following with this cyclical trend, we are beginning to see more and more of it. This means that the modern music you are hearing is a reflection of a natural change in society and societal ideals.

"You also mentioned advertisement... What's more important: the sponsors, or the musical creators? On a side note(and purely my opinion), I believe that music and the market for music is changing. No longer does a musical artist need to pay a recording label to market their music, put it on the radio, and put it where people can hear it. Now, anybody can get a myspace page and throw their music up there, make a website, and directly market their music- The playing field is evening out."

My opponent assumes I will answer that we should value the creators of music more than the sponsors, and following that, argues that we allow for artistic expression in other methods, and need not broadcast it on radio.

First of all, I can say that the answer to the first question is irrelevant to this debate. The issue is whether modern style music should be banned from radio. Broadcasting music that will generate revenue from sponsors does not harm musical creators, so this is a false dichotomy and should be ignored.

Second, I would like to respond to my opponent's point on music and the changes in music. If it is true that anyone can market their music, isn't it fair that any type of music should be allowed to be played on the radio?

Con ~ Round 3

Read post below please...

Anxiously awaiting my opponent's response! Lol...
what!? 100 characters! Rediculous...

Pro ~ Round 3

I empathize with you, but it's not really that people are inactive, it's just that people would much rather be debating than reading other debates. I do vote, but I rarely venture outside the first few topics on the news page.

Sorry you had to forfeit and I hope you do decide to stay :/