Lady Gaga's Music as a whole is Immoral

I'm just going to follow my opponent's arguments right down the flow- 1. What is Lady Gaga's Music? - My opponent completely dismissed my argument as being semantic - Intellectual property can have joint rights (i. e. be owned by more than one person) - If Lady Gaga wrote the song from her own creative instincts, then despite whomever sings the song it is her song. My opponent's argument is completely semantic in the realm of ownership. Just because another artist has the rights, or joint rights to sing a song by Lady Gaga, does not man that Lady Gaga has had no creative influence on the song. - If Lady Gaga written a song, it is her music; thus it falls within the realm of the resolution. Again, my opponent's attempts to diverge from the specified realms of the resolution; thus they do no fulfill their BOP. - I am not unfamiliar with intellectual property laws; as a digital artist, I have had my work stolen many times, and am accordingly familiar with the DMCA as well as various other laws of copyright, licensing, an trademarks. I am also familiar with Lady Gaga's music, which is why I no longer listen to her. This argument is a straw-man. - My opponent's final conclusion proves this argument to be completely irrelevant. 2. Majority matters- - Via context it of the prior rounds; "as a whole" should be understood as a total entity. Not only is completely abusive for my opponent to have offered a new definition at such a late point in this debate, but it is also unwarranted. - In the music video for telephone, Lady Gaga and Beyonce kill multiple people. However my opponent will simply dismiss that argument, so in the song itself alcohol is referenced. As well as that the meaning is essentially a girl telling her spouse to leave her be because she's partying with her friends. This is the promotion of marital unfaithfulness and selfishness as a whole. - In "Hair" a girl finds her identity through her looks. This promotes a shallow attitude, and the idea that looks are all that matters. - My opponent admits this C is abusive; and has not refuted the fact that they've indicated that a good majority of Lady Gaga's songs have some degree of moral repugnance. At this point I've won this debate both on the front I intended in the first place, as well as through the abusive criteria my opponent has imposed on me. - Also on this note it is key to point out that my opponent still has not specified which songs are or are not morally good or bad on the three albums they've specified to be acceptable fodder to debate. this is abuse in and of itself as it give no ground to debate; without prior knowledge of Lady Gaga's music a reader of this debate will have had nothing to go on in order to vote. This is abusive. 3. Does one sheep infect the entire flock? - My opponent's entire refutation here is based on themselves. While they may not buy the CDs, the fact remains that millions of people do. In fact, back when I did listen to Gaga I bought the CD (My cousin did actually, but we lived in the same house). - Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. " 4. Lady Gaga's music glorifies Sex and Vanity- - I've made my argument here abundantly clear in prior rounds; and none of my opponent's refutations legitimize Lady Gaga's music. - My opponent brings into play an argument about judging certain members of society; not only is this completely irrelevant to this contention, but it is also unwarranted. - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil. " - =Conclusion= - My opponent has not yet legitimized Lady Gaga's music based upon our agreed moral compass of scripture. - My opponent has completely ignored a good majority of my arguments in favor of making new arguments on his own part. - My opponent continually violated the resolution's intention, even after I clarified what it mean in the beginning; my opponent ha even attempted to redefine many of my own terms and definitions.