Pick your own debate - 1B

For the sake of convenience and clarity, it should be noted that my opponent's argument boils down to one sentence: violent music causes kids to have violent behaviors, thus appropriate censorship of music should be allowed. The keyword is violent; I doubt my opponent would be against music that encourages love, peace, and warm cookies. While shaky, "violent music" can be thought of as music that talk mainly about drugs, violence, sex, etc. With that said, it should be clear that my main focus is to respond to my opponent's claim that violent music leads to violent behavior in children. ===== Emotional connection of music, and the consequences ===== Yes, many times the point of art is to make an "emotional connection" with the audience, despite how vague that phrase is. However, most people do NOT listen to music for some "emotional connection", but rather because they simply like the sound of it. My opponent states that music helps "get people emotionally connect[ed] to a certain idea", and I totally agree with that, but the fact is that most people do not pay attention to the lyrics as so much the sound[1]. Skeptical? Just get a random kid, and ask him for a playlist of his songs (most teenagers have some sort of iPod or playlist on their computer). Choose a random song, and ask them if they recognize it. They most likely will. Now ask them what it MEANS/what the lyrics say. Most would not know this. So we can see already that my opponent's notion of emotional connection shouldn't be overemphasized, as not much importance is placed on the lyrics compared to the sound. So what does the sound of music, or music, do for a kid then? Yes, we are all aware that listening to music is pleasurable, but what other effects or uses does it have? In a Swedish study, out of three options the one chose most was "atmosphere creation and mood control". In laymen terms, it's simply a way for kids to control and enhance emotional states. When a kid is happy, then can turn on songs that are "happy" or bright. It's already been noted in even infants of 8 months to be able to discriminate between "happy" and "sad" songs. However, what in relevance is this to violent music? Well it can be a way to vent out anger and frustration. Being a heavy metal fan myself (definitely not rap), it many times help controls emotions and stress. Besides that, it's purely for pleasure. But of course, there's always a demographic of those who pay attention to the lyrics. But, as my opponent states, does it really influence behavior? The answer is no. Studies have already suggested that the "initial causality" is not a "heavy metal syndrome" or "gangsta rap syndrome" that causes teenagers to have antisocial or violent behaviors, but rather it's antisocial or perhaps insecure teenagers to seek out such music. >>>"If an artist claims that his music has NO EFFECT on his listener, then the artist is essentially saying that his music does not make any type of emotional connection with his audience. Therefore, how can his music even be considered art?"<<< People listen to music mainly for pleasure, not to connect to some higher ideal. ===== Should we censor it? ===== But let's grant that violent music produces, or at least helps produce, violent behavior. There is no controversy that AT LEAST ONE person in the world has been influenced by the lyrics or sound of music to do bad things. But should artists still be allowed to freely distribute their music? Yes - it's their right. HOWEVER, for the mom's in distress, there's an easy solution. Censor it yourself. The resolution is implying some wide scale or perhaps government-sanctioned censorship of music. While artists should still be able to "freely publish any music of their choosing", whether it be "considered obscene", people can still censor it for themselves. There is no law against a mother taking away a kid's music, no matter if it was justified or not. That being said, parents can take on the initiative themselves to watch for their kids music if they are concerned. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's "psychological" edge of his argument has been refuted. However, as a fall back, even if my counterargument is negated, he still has to answer my second argument. Parents can censor it privately, but artists shouldn't have some ever-pressing censor on their music when they publish it. This would bring to mind nationally-sanctioned actions/bills/departments or organizations like the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of American film rating system). ---References--- *NOTE* - All my sources can be found from the report below. It has a wealth of information, and though it's conclusion may be different from my own, it has many sources that this debate applies to. 1. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...