Rap music contributes to violent crimes

======== Argument 1 ======== Pro acknowledges that while there can be considered negative aspects to listening to rap music, that there are positive aspects as well. Because that is the extent of what this argument discusses, we can see how this is a draw: this point makes no real argument and is therefore unnecessary. ======== Argument 2 ======== A) Point A discussed how rap music had positive influences regarding increased interest in politics and current events, as well as increased academic performance. Pro completely dropped this argument and therefore this point is awarded to the Con. B) Point B noted how only studies with misogynistic themes promoted misogynistic attitudes. Once again, Pro completely ignored this argument and this point go to the Con. ======== Argument 3 ======== This point illustrated how rap music only had a correlation with violence when it was accompanies by rap VIDEOS (so it's not the music itself). This is a strong argument in favor of the Con position, and yet Pro dropped this argument as well so once again this is a point for the Con. While Pro did say, "The production of rap music equals the production of rap videos," we can't consider that a sufficient argument. It is not the content of the music in the rap videos but rather the violent images. This problem could be solved by (a) rap music existing without videos or (b) rap videos existing without violent content. However, none of this is even relevant when you look at my next point... ========= Con's Point 1 ========= What I said was that listening to rap or heavy metal has not been shown to increase suicidal ideas and anxiety, or adversely affect self-esteem among college-aged men and women. Actually, students listening to a nonviolent rap song experienced more depressive symptoms than those who listened to a violent rap song. Once more, Pro completely dropped this important argument. ========= Con's Point 2 ========= Pro did respond to this point, which pointed out that rap has helped impoverished people become famous and escape the hood. Pro's rebuttal was insufficient. She stated that while SOME people make it out of the hood, some people don't, and the ones that don't get sucked into a life of violence and crime. However, this is the complete opposite of what my point had established. I argued that people would become interested in music INSTEAD of adopt that life of violence and crime (and drug and other gang activity). In other words, music or ambition to succeed in that regard took precedence over the bad stuff. ========= Con's Point 3 ========= Pro writes, "Explain how these behavioral problems before rap were not evident until rap was introduced?" I have no idea what she's talking about here. What my 3rd point was is that rap has a bad rap; I pointed out how subjects who were given a violent lyrical passage were more inclined to rate it as dangerous or offensive if they believed it came from a rap song than if they were told that it originated from a country music song. This proves that people are biased towards rap music; nobody seems to notice or care when negative themes are depicted in any other genre besides rap or heavy metal. Instead of responding to this, Pro went off on something completely incomprehensible. ========= Con's Point 4 ========= My 4th point explained how behavioral problems associated with rap music usually begin before these individuals begin listening to rap, and this indicates that the music itself does not cause behavioral problems or addiction. Pro responds with, "There are situations where people may develop the problem through the music" which means absolutely nothing since she hasn't soured this fact or proved it. Also, she adds, "[They may] have had it before, or never occurred one throughout. Once again, it was never stated that rap music 100% did not influence this said behaviour." Bad spelling and grammar aside, this point is useless; it does nothing to combat my argument that the music itself does nothing to cause/influence bad behavior so therefore it doesn't pertain to upholding the resolution. ========= Con's Point 5 ========= My 5th point noted how everyone was responsible for themselves and their behavior, and that censorship opposed the democratic ideals that we uphold as a nation. Pro responded with, "It may be the responsibility of the parents and the individual themselves, but perhaps it is needed on a greater scale to be the responsibility of society to protect the future of tomorrow." No, I completely disagree. It is not society's obligation to raise your children. It is the job of the parents, and the individuals to be responsible for themselves and their own actions. Further, Pro adds, "for the infringement upon civil liberties, that could go any way regarding any issue. Such as: drinking age, age of eligibility to vote. etc." This is false, as drinking and voting come with age restriction; however, in limiting the music, you're limiting the production and sales of something - not just regulating one's age of consumerism. Moreover, these limitations exist to protect society. Pro has failed to prove how rap music itself correlated to violence, so she certainly failed to explain how rap music was a danger to society and therefore her resolution does not stand. ======= Conclusion ======= Pro concludes with, "there may not be consistent evidence that rap on its own significantly influences behaviour, but there is no consistent evidence that rap doesn't either." This is a terrible argument. First of all, she's the instigator in this debate; she has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution and therefore must present the evidence for her side. Furthermore, this is a completely BS and straw manned argument, as I DID present evidence of studies showing that rap music itself did not instigate violent behavior. Therefore, Pro's argument just fails on so many levels.