Lady Gaga's Music as a whole is Immoral

** NOTE: I noticed when reviewing this there is a major formatting error on the endof DDO's code. I apologize, but I haven't been able to fix it despite several efforts. I am saving this as a word doc, please message me if you can't copy/paste the weird section and read it on your computer **Alrighty then. Thanks for the timely response! This will be, in essence, a line by line 1. What is Lady GaGa's Music? This seems to be a rather semantical argument. Lady GaGa's music is her own. Specifically, the music that is her intellectual property. When Lady GaGa writes a song for another artist, that music is NOT her own - she has ceded intellectual rights to it, and often, when there are several writers working together, it is not possible to know which writer wrote which set of lyrics. Let's review my clarification: For the purpose of the debate, I will use (and expect my opponent to use as well) songs performed, written and published (no leaks, etc - you can get them on iTunes and in a store) by Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I'd like to point out that my opponent is admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter, which the voter should keep in mind. This deals with Lady GaGa's music: it is hers, and it is not licensed to another person or group without her express consent in the first place. Should someone be sued for violating copyright on, say, Telephone, then Lady GaGa (and her record dealers) would be the plaintiff. This is legally, her music, and as such, the sole subject matter of the debate [1] . Pro is trying to say that the subject matter is everything she's ever touched musically, but, like I pointed out above, the actual contributions are unknown. This does not, however, to seem to have a huge impact on the debate until my opponent points to more examples of her immoral music because...2. Majority MattersThe Oxford English Dictionary defines the phrase "as a whole" (and subsequently, "in general")in the following way: as a single unit and not as separate parts ; in general usually; mainly: [3] These definitions present an ugly problem to Pro: he has to prove that all of Lady GaGa's music is immoral, down to the very last piece of her legally owned (ie, her own) work. Surely, Telephone isn't a bad song? Or Hair? Now, I chose not to use this rather abusive condition, so I rested on phrase "in general" which implies mainly - meaning, the majority of any given piece. I am in no way defying the resolution, I am following the phrase "as a whole" to the fullest. Pro tries to dodge this with the notion that if one song is bad, the entire set is, or if "... any part of the song is morally objectable, the song is entirely immoral." While I'm more willing to accept the latter of those two statements, the first one is the one he's used to cop out of the the majority argument. Quickly, when I said "little to nothing morally objectionable" I meant it. That "little" occurs in very few songs (not enough to change the majority) and generally comes in the form of totally censored obscenities that do not reflect the song in its entirety. 3. Does One Sheep Infect the Entire Flock?I'm going to jump a head to a claim he makes defending his own case: "However by listening to even one, he supports all of these songs; thus this argument is a moot point. To explain further, my opponent mentions albums; and in buying an album he buys all of the songs on that album. and even where he to burn the CD onto his computer, deletes all of the bad songs, and throw the CD away; he has still paid for, and thus supported these bad songs." On a side note, I don't buy albums in whole for the reason. I buy select singles digitally from iTunes - but that's not important, we're discussing the morality of Lady GaGa, not whether I'm moral or not for listening to her. Now, let's follow Pro's logic to it's fullest extent: You go to the wonderful Musée du Lourve in Paris, France. You pay for the entry tickets. You stroll though the exhibits, but suddenly -- gasp! -- there is a nude goddess on a pedestal in one of the stairways. You shake it off, but then stumble upon the Islamic Art exhibit (not to insinuate there's anything wrong with Islamic Art, I enjoyed that section very much)! Following Pro's chain of logic, since you supported the sustaining of these pieces of art with your money (even if you avoid said exhibits exhibit), whether they be naked, Muslim, or otherwise, you support naked Muslim people defiling your staircases. Of course, Pro is smarter than to think this, which is why his logic fails. As I expressed in the former round, 'the one bad sheep taints the whole flock' idea doesn't apply in cases of art. Likewise, if you buy a book of works from a living artist, where 99 out of 100 works are wholesome by Pro's standards, yet one has objectionable content, it is a stretch to say that once that one picture is removed or ignored, you are still supporting the content matter of that single picture.We can see that when viewing this debate, it must be through the lens of "has pro proved that a majority -- the whole; mainly; in general -- of Lady GaGa's music is immoral?" If not, there is nothing to do but vote CON.4. A/2 Lady GaGa's Music Glorifies Sex and VanityUsing the majority matters principle proved above, it can easily be said that while some songs have some vain and sex-glorifying music, the majority is not so - on the whole, that is (remember the Oxford definition). I'll take his objections on a line by line. "First, when Gaga speaks of God, she never specifies which God she speaks of. This "God" Could be anything from Zeus, to Appolos, to Ares, to Erebos. So we don't know that this is necessarily a good thing."I don't believe this is a serious objection. You say yourself that she describes herself as Catholic, and online lyrics write it as "God" (with a capital letter)."in which we where born into by our sinful nature."The song discusses physical things. "no matter black white or beige" etc etc. These are things that we certainly should be proud of - God made us just as we are, whether we're smart, dumb, attractive, or ugly. That's in essence the message of the song. "Next this song says not to be insecure if your heart is pure, yet there is not weighing mechanism to gauge purity there ... and is thus immoral.Purity in relativity to society. I feel you're reading far too deep into these, but let's look here: the essence of the song explained through the lyrics is this: even if society says you're a terrible person, you're not to judge yourself by their standards. It doesn't mention what this standard is, but, it doesn't matter - that message is TRUE. As a Christian, it is also imperative not to judge ourselves by society, even if it labels us as "bad kids".I'm running out of room so I'll make this quick.- I agree to my opponent's moral compass, and also agree that much of what Lady GaGa sings isn't good. As I explained, though, each goes on a case by case basis (which I have provided, and as the instigator, Pro has the BOP to negate) and thus I negate the resolution, since the majority of her music doesn't violate this debate's moral definition.-I have addressed the idea that I'm supporting all songs when buying one songs.- Lady GaGa's influence is overplayed to a huge degree. Everyone has music tastes, but to assume that each of LG's 38,000,000+ plus fans take every word to heart and acts upon them is absurd. Eminem has 41 million. A random goat has 300,000+. Spongebob Squarepants has more fans than Obama[4]. I'd like to see hard evidence that shows GaGa's supposedly massive influence over vast crowds. I'm out of room. Thanks for this awesome debate. I look forward to your response! [1] intellectual property defined: http://www.wipo.int...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4]http://www.facebook.com...