The arts are not relevant to society

I apologize that this is so late, things kept coming up. Because my opponent's definition of the arts is a little ambiguous, allow me to provide the dictionary definition. The arts are "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." [1] I would like to begin by thanking minddrag for posting this debate. I will concede that the arts are relevant to society in the sense that they are intertwined into the fabric of society. Relevant is defined as "relation to the matter at hand." [2] The arts are most definitely relevant to society. They are very closely connected to it. You can't have a conversation with someone without some form of the arts coming up. I will also concede that the arts serve a purpose. They make people happy and allow people to have creative ways of expressing opinions. Neither of these two concessions (if I understand my opponent well) are the crux of this debate. It seems as if this debate hinges on the question, "Are the arts crucial to society?" To this question, I would argue no. I would like to point out a secret assertion that my opponent works into his argument. When he says "The arts have changed the world on many different occasions." he assumes that just because something changes society, it is fundamental. This is not true. Take the invention of the computer for example. It immensely changed society, but was it necessary? No it was not. We could go on surviving just as well without computers. This is the same with the arts. Human beings can survive and even thrive without the arts. We can communicate without poetry, we can share ideas without paintings, and we can have houses without beautiful architecture. We can have an existence without beauty. Allow me to expand upon my argument. There are only three things vital to survival* (food, housing, and clothing) and are therefore only three occupations vital to society (those who make food, those who make housing, and those who make clothing). These three occupations can be preformed without any use of the arts. One can make food without invoking the arts. In other words, I would say that a cooked salmon is not art and therefore art is not necessary for making food. One can build a house without the arts. I can make a little wooden square house and would not call it art; art is therefore not necessary to housing. One can make clothing without the arts. A leather tunic and baggy pants are not art and therefore are not necessary to clothing. Because all of the necessary functions of society can happen without the arts, the arts are not necessary to society. Here is my argument in a logical syllogism. Argument A (argument about the basics of society) P1: If the arts are fundamental to society, then society could not function without them P2: A society only needs things vital to survival in order to thrive P3: The only things vital to survival are food, clothing, and housing P4: These things can happen without the arts C: The arts are not fundamental to society. *Note: I would like to challenge my opponent to think of some other thing vital to survival that cannot happen without the arts. Source(s) --------------- 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...