Rap Music Is Appropriate for Children and Teens

This is my rebuttal to argument 4. Con writes, "Yes, some priests may be child molesters, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them. " Right here Con defeats her own argument. Yes, some rappers might be misogynistic drug users, but that does not give you the right to accuse all of them. Some like those I have mentioned specifically speak out against a negative lifestyle. I have never accused all rappers of drug use. Whenever I make the point that SOME of them use drugs, I always say most of them, half of them, but never ALL of them. (Argument 1) You said that my accusation is ridiculous, but indeed, paraphrasing my statements does change how the viewers understand them, and even the slightest change makes all the difference. I must ask the question: Do you really take the time to read the arguments made? Or do you skim through them and extend your previous arguments over and over again? __________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Next, Con says I'm being hypocritical because I criticized her for using Yahoo Answers when I cited a source (Answer Bag) that works the same way. However, I cited Answer Bag as my source for where I learned about how many swear words a song has. Can con disprove that argument? No. Meanwhile, Con never presented an argument for me to refute. Her exact words were "The following link will thoroughly explain my point. " As I said, myself nor the audience are responsible for going to other websites to read Con's point. She can cite that source as inspiration for her point or where she got her evidence, but she cannot refer us to read arguments on other sites. If that were the case then every debate could be argued just by spamming links. There was no hypocrisy on my end. " Allow me to refresh your memory. Hypocrisy is when a person says/does one thing but says/does another. You accused me of using Yahoo. Answers for research and opinions. You're also accusing me of accusing you of hypocrisy, when you only got song lyrics. I also am inferring that you are accusing me of being irresponsible as I posted the link for you look at. I never said that it was your responsibility to look at it, but by not, you are acting irresponsible. I am not referring you to an argument on another site - YahooAnswers is not about arguments. And just because people post their opinions on it, does not mean that the question I referred to was solely based on opinion. Looking back on the link, I can see that the person asking the question is indeed experienced (they play multiple instruments and know about the many different genres of music). In short, they know what they're talking about. In the "Best Answer" section, the person is most certainly right in saying that, "it sells"(rap music sells). In the end, it is wrong to accuse me of posting opinions when most of, if not all, this debate has been based on opinions. People are biased, whether you know it or not. Some will vote for me, because they think that rap is obscene and inappropriate. Others will vote for you, because they think rap is music and enjoy listening to it. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ "I said that Con ignored my conclusion about the dangers of censorship, and only singled out the negatives of rap music in particular. In response, Con says that it doesn't matter if there are clean versions of songs because the originals still exist. First, you'll notice that this has nothing whatsoever do do with the dangers of censorship, so it seems Con has still not answered my point. Second, the fact that clean versions exist make it possible to enjoy rap music without the profanity or negative lyrics that Con says ruin the song. Moreover, Con asks me to cite positive effects that cap music can have on teens. This is borderline abusive (a huge waste of my character space) because I already provided examples in previous rounds of some positive which Con has simply ignored. " I believe that we have already debated your points on the positive effects of rap. "A) Not all rap music contains profanity. B) There is excessive profanity in other genres as well, and they can also have negative effects. " "Furthermore, psychological studies have proven that heavy metal music makes people aggressive and violent [1]. So again, it's wrong to single out rap music and say it has the potential for violence while ignoring the impact other genres can have as well. " You say that profanity can be found in the heavy metal and punk genres. This debate is about whether rap is appropriate or not. We are not debating about heavy metal and punk. They may contain profanity also, but that is besides the subject. Telling me that I am singling out rap specifically is ridiculous. This debate is about how rap is inappropriate. Of course it's solely going to be about the profanity in rap. You accepted this debate, thus, you should be debating the facts about rap, not other genres. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "Next I'm just going to point out some of Con's statements and explain why they are illegitimate. She writes, "Prohibiting rap music will definitely help kids make better choices. " We can accept this if Con presents evidence of it being true - otherwise it's just an unsupported hypothesis. She continues, "This would eliminate rappers (many of them are on drugs), who children look up to, and they would have less of these bad role models influencing them to make bad choices. " First, it's completely false that rappers would be eliminated. Rapping is a form of art and people would rap even if it were not popular in the mainstream. Second, many times kids are only enticed by what is prohibited, because it becomes cool and taboo. This will only make rap more elusive. Third, Con contradicts her 4th point. Just because some rappers do drugs doesn't mean all of them ought to be eliminated, or cannot have a positive impact. In addition to losing negative role models, positive ones can be lost as well. " I have presented more than enough evidence of why rap is harmful to children and teens (if you have read my previous arguments). By saying "this would eliminate rappers", I mean that it would eliminate the main sources of rap (primarily the big name artists such as Jay Z and Chris Brown). People can still rap, but it isn't going to get them anywhere. Future generations would be raised not being exposed to it, and would be less likely to have a negative impact from it. Rap is ALREADY "cool and taboo", as you said. Soon it will be a lost fad. For example, The Beatles can be considered a "fad", in a sense. Maybe our parents (and possibly grandparents) listened to them, but not many of our modern day children and teens do. Rappers are already a bad influence without drugs, but with drugs, they are worse. "Rap lyrics can also be used to teach and reach people. Afrikabambata, Grandmaster Flash, Common, Nas and Mos-Def are just a few whose lyrical content promotes pride and social consciousness. In September of 2009, Jay-Z headlined a concert to benefit the families of those lost in 9/11. Rap artists, through the performances of their music, can do a lot of good [3]. " I am running out of character space, so I will make this final rebuttal brief: Jay Z is an artist who promotes the "rags to riches" story, which (I have mentioned earlier) sends kids the wrong message. 50 Cent was sued for encouraging a "life on the streets life style", when a boy (14 years old) was assaulted by other gangsters [1]. [1]. http://www.narutoforums.com... ******Some rebuttals were excluded for lack of character space****** Once again, good luck, Pro.