The arts are not relevant to society

Thank you very much PossieTV for your very interesting and unexpected speech, (unexpected in the way that you went a direction that I did not anticipate) and I look forward to your next and final argument. Before I begin my constructive speech I would like to rebut some of the points that my opponent has made in his speech. First off I would like to point out a definition that my opponent neglected to state, which is society. Society is defined as "an organized group of persons associated together for religious,benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes." [1] To figure out why I am posing this definition I would like to draw together a few statements that my opponent has made. In my opponent's speech he said that the resolution boiled down to "Are the arts crucial to society?" I would like to first state that yes he has interpreted the resolution correctly. In my opponent's speech he also stated "There are only three things vital to survival* (food, housing, and clothing) and are therefore only three occupations vital to society." Now if the definition of society is as stated before (an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes[1]) Then I would argue that there is another thing that is crucial to society. The other thing, which is crucial to society, is communication. Now as my opponent has helpfully defined art as, (the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance) Then I would like to then point out that writing and communication is expression that is beautiful and more than ordinary significance. I would like to point out that the building of homes can be described as a production of something appealing or above ordinary significance. This is because it is the creation of a house that is appealing to all who do not have on and is one of the three needs, as my opponent helpfully stated so it must be above ordinary significance. The same can be stated for clothing. Clothing is not absolutely essential except for specific climates. This means that outside of specific hot or cold climates, clothes are made to be aesthetically pleasing and beautiful to the eyes. I am absolutely sure that if you talked to any chef or cook, that they would state that cooking is an art. Cooking is a production of something of quality that can be beautiful or appealing to people. This means that the production of food is also an art. Now that I have refuted my opponent's points I am going to move on to my constructive speech. I would like to state before beginning that I am also going to be talking in this speech about modern society, as well as past society, and the three needs that I have stated above. Historically the arts have been known to motivate individuals and generate economic and societal well-being. I have already gone into great detail on why the arts are important for the emotional well-being of society. I will now go into detail on how the arts generate economic well-being. The arts currently provide 5% of the US total GDP, and employ 2% of the US population. Based on 225 million people the arts employ 4500000 people in the United states, which is 1 in 5 people in Canada. The arts make 591 billion dollars a year. In the United Kingdom they spend 0.1% of their GDP on the arts and receive a stunning 0.45% GDP back from that investment each year. The Arts also makes up a large part of different countries GDP. The arts also contribute 11.3 billion to just Toronto"s GDP. This is because of tourism. Many people visit Egypt solely for the purpose of seeing the Pyramids of Egypt which are a work of art. England is also a very big arts tourist town, due to the Beatles and Abby road. Many people go to see the house of Anne of green gables in PEI, which was a book by Mont Montgomery, which 100 years later people still go to see. All of these things are works of art and can make up a sizable chunk of many countries" economies. How can side pro say that the arts are not relevant in society if we gain a lot of money off the arts? Many countries are deeply rooted in debt and this is a problem in society. If the arts are helping us pay off that debt then they are needed. The arts are also extremely important in education. To sum up the points in education I will read this quote by Plato: "Music is a more potent instrument than any other for education, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul." Many people feel motivated during their school days because of the arts. I myself go through the halls between classes with music playing through my headphones. This motivates me and other students to do well in school. The arts are an instrumental (heh heh get it?) part in many people"s lives and need to be taken seriously. Education and economics are gigantic building blocks to our modern society. Since I have proved in my speech that education and economics are both extremely tied to the arts, and that the three needs that I outlined in my rebuttal section are all related or are art, there is no reason that this resolution must stand. In conclusion for the reasons that I have stated as Con, I firmly believe that this resolution, be it resolved that the arts are not vital to society will and must fall. I thank my opponent for his arguments up until now and I look forward to his conclusion. Thank you.