BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder.

>>>>>>>>>> Sorry but... This debate isn't about what beauty is... in fact, its saying that art need beauty! :D So, once again i will say that all you've done is write a no argument that belongs in the left side because you said "Art Needs Beauty" but continued by saying "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Which i agree with, but supports the yes side in saying that art does need beauty
A standard in art (as in everything else) is required and it exists

[[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-saturday-essay-our-modern-age-requires-a-new-definition-of-beauty-1073410.html]] Beauty can be defined as anything with symmetry/order that appeases the mind. Therefore, according to that definition/standard: beauty can be in ordinary things. However,the monetary value of that 'pulchritude' really measures 'how' beautiful and rare/unique/original it is. Art is therefore, standardized with 'price tags' : a masterpiece: a carefully crafted delight to the senses; can hold up a trillion dollar bid , where as a common rose bouquet can not. >>>>> So you agree that Art needs beauty but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is a yes side argument :P
Art is faulty by definition.

Art is about creativity, which means deviations from perfection, or faults. If I run the same document through a printer that works perfectly 200 times, I will get 200 identical documents. If I run the same document through a slightly faulty printer, it could produce one of millions of interesting variations. That which is faulty is also chaotic, it grinds against what we instinctively know should be, it makes us want to fix it. Art inherently contains these qualities which are not beautiful.
Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder.

Different people like to express their personalities in different ways. Who are you to be critisizing other peoples work? Is it YOUR job? Whose job is it to say wether a work of art is good or bad? Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder. We all have our own styles that we like and that is fine, but how would you like it if we all came up to your work and trashed it with our words? You wouldn't like it, so think about it the next time you are about to call a work of art bad.
Put it in a historical context...

One might also take a historical stance to this debate. Long before this 20th/21st century of sublime comfort, the world was not as pleasant a place in many ways - one might suggest that the magnitude of beauty in art prior to the cynicism of our modern age has much to do with juxtaposing the living standards that the human race was used to. (For that matter, that statement can also apply to the juxtaposition of cynicism in art against the pleasantries of the modern world.) One might also suggest that most artists throughout history, at least in the western world, were supported in large by the Church and commissioned to produce works that inspired faith in God. This is not art as we have come to know it: an individual's subjective interpretation of an individual's experiences in a world full of other individuals.
Art is more sophisticated than that.

But these advertisement are beautiful in some way... beautiful to some people at least. No not everyone finds every piece of art beautiful, but someone does. Lets look at a few examples: War Propaganda Posters from WWII: A Swastika would look very beautiful and appealing to Hitler and lead Nazis because it means so much more to them, but America would see it as ugly. Beauty to some, ugly to others. Cigarette Ad: Beautiful to addicts, ugly to opposers Now lets switch the scene and looks at music. Hardcore heavy death metal is beautiful to some, while country is to others. Theres no right and wrong in the aspects of beauty, but the end result it a type of beauty to someone
Problem, there shouldn't be standard becuase everything is art

Everything we see/hear/feel/create, well, 'everything' is art where God or the clock-worked universe is the artist. All skills are art All creation/destruction (indocti discant) is art. Cave paintings were/are art. Good/bad writing is art. To claim that something is not art because it does not fit some pompous criteria/standard is an elitist realization of Marx's Bourgeoisie, who standardize art(where/when there are no 'real' substantial definitions of beauty/art) to keep themselves rich and the proletariat poor. Posthumously commercially exploiting (poor proletariat)artists like Vincent Van Gogh; to keep themselves rich.
In capitalist states with free market economies, the private sector is the biggest employer as oppos...

In capitalist states with free market economies, the private sector is the biggest employer as opposed to the civil service or state owned companies. Therefore, when a large company fails, such as a big steel-maker or the mining industry in a certain area of the country, it can lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in direct layoffs and thousands more indirect ones throughout the supply and distribution chains of these companies. Often the entire local economy of a city or region can revolve around such a big corporation (like the car manufacturing industry for Detroit in the U.S.), and a bankruptcy can push that whole area into years of poverty. In such circumstances, government intervention is necessary to support vulnerable companies and protect jobs.
Some sectors of the economy have an inherent risk attached to them, such as banks, who lend more mon...

Some sectors of the economy have an inherent risk attached to them, such as banks, who lend more money than they have cash in hand. But banks play a key role in “oiling” the economy; they provide the credit that lets the rest of the economic sectors do business. If the financial sector was overcautious when they lent money because they constantly feared bankruptcy due to bad loans, then that would lead to significant capital liquidity issues and ultimately hurt the economy more, because it would stifle growth and innovation. For these reasons the government should provide key firms with guarantees of support that will encourage them to lend the money that our economy needs to maintain economic growth.
If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil...

If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.
Some businesses/ industries are of a strategic importance for their countries. States need to be se...

Some businesses/ industries are of a strategic importance for their countries. States need to be self reliant and be able to provide for themselves in case of an international conflict or be protected by the fluctuations on the international financial markets. For example, being able to provide food for your population is crucial in the case of an international conflict. Therefore subsidies for farmers who would go bankrupt without them can be crucial for a country's survival.
In capitalist states with free market economies, the private sector is the biggest employer as oppos...

Bankruptcies are the free market's self regulating mechanisms. Through supply and demand, the market will eventually reward companies that display specialism, innovation, long-term investment and bright ideas, and punish companies that are wasteful and badly managed. That is important because keeping failing companies on “life-support” holds back healthier firms and harms the economy overall. By allowing bad companies to survive using public money, they will continue to keep trapped important market resources (such as labour force) which could be better utilised by new, more innovative companies. Government support may also allow them to undercut their competitors in the market place, and so prevent the growth of smaller and more innovative companies as well. These would otherwise eventually fill in the gap in terms of employment and bring in government revenue through taxes.
Some sectors of the economy have an inherent risk attached to them, such as banks, who lend more mon...

The market already has reward mechanisms to encourage banks and other companies to not be overcautious when lending or investing. Usually, the riskier the investment, the higher the return in profit for the investor. Therefore there will always be banks and companies willing to “oil” the economy, by not being overcautious when it comes to investment. While some risk is good, having bailouts as a “safety net” encourages recklessness and excessive risk taking in the quest for profit.
If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil...

If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.
Some businesses/ industries are of a strategic importance for their countries. States need to be se...

Such an attitude is isolationist and it stifles international stability and cooperation. Countries do better if they specialise in producing goods that are best suited for the type of natural resources they posess. Trading with each other means the chances of conflict go down because every country will have a stake in international trade. And goods will be cheaper for everyone because they will be produced in the most efficient manner possible.
During the Cold War, Western powers often supported illiberal regimes for reasons of realpolitik. ...

The hypocrisy of turning on a regime once maintained is morally reprehensible. The new world order cannot be accepted as necessarily a safer place; stability may be safer than universal democracy bought with many lives and a great deal of resentment. The concept of democracy itself may be degraded in the eyes of many if it comes to be associated with invasions undertaken for suspect (e.g. economic) motives.
To rely on multilateral action is utopian. The UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affa...

Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerously dependent upon the political whim of foreign electorates – often unwilling to commit the troops and money for long-term rebuilding of nations. The worst of all scenarios may be a bloody invasion and regime change, followed by anarchy when the external power swiftly withdraws. Even when invaders remain to oversee the installation of a new regime, they may choose pliant appointees rather than risk the uncertainty of true democracy.
The cost of a state 'facilitating' the free entry of foreign labour is just not worth paying. As we...

The cost of a state 'facilitating' the free entry of foreign labour is just not worth paying. As well as the huge cost of services, there are less jobs for domestic workers to take up, and there is downwards pressure on their wages due to the increased pool of potential employees. This once again impacts the most vulnerable sections of society to the greatest degree as the unemployed and low-skilled workers pay the heaviest price. Each European member state should be allowed to prioritise the welfare of its own needy citizens over the free movement of non-citizens.
No-one is saying we should end all labour migration, but merely that any supposed benefits of free l...

The free movement of labour is not just an individual right, but an important part of free trade per se. Industries, finance, goods and services do not just move themselves between countries. For their free movement to occur between EU states a large degree of labour movement is necessary. Any interference with this for political ends would distort the (most profitable) market allocation, and a system based on applications and decisions would delay and hinder all the above aspects of the common market (aside from the bureaucratic costs). The economic costs of this across the whole Union would be huge.
No-one is saying we should end all labour migration, but merely that any supposed benefits of free l...

No-one is saying we should end all labour migration, but merely that any supposed benefits of free labour can be achieved without a laissez-faire approach. For example, work permit schemes are a tried and tested method. This would allow for the use of foreign labour when there is an economic benefit, whilst maintaining the control of a populace over what degree of migration occurs. This means that we can have all the benefits of free labour, whilst ensuring that the scale never imposes too great a harm. Priority could still be given to European citizens to preserve the ethos of the common market.
EU member states signed up to the common market in their own self interest - not for 'the good of th...

In a Union of states, self-interest and group interest are not so easily separable. If all members states gave up on co-operation when it was not fully to their benefit there would be no co-operation at all, and this would be to the detriment of all members. Such collective action problems are only overcome when members are willing to tolerate costs in some areas in exchange for benefits in others. A country may of course withdraw from the Union, but it cannot expect to be a member and not play by the rules, for such a Union could not sustain itself. This would be a much worse outcome.
EU member states signed up to the common market in their own self interest - not for 'the good of th...

EU member states signed up to the common market in their own self interest - not for 'the good of the Union', or wider Europe. Indeed it is likely that they would never have signed up for the latter system at all. As EU membership is clearly a contract, based on the perceived benefits of membership, the states should be able to opt-out of protocols which are clearly disadvantageous to them, especially if they can offer viable alternatives in their place.
European integration is not supported, but threatened by excessive integration. When citizens feel ...

One of the major problems with (relatively) low public support for the European Union is the idea that it is merely a forum for business and bureaucracy, and gives nothing back to ordinary people. The right to free travel and labour (and related rights of study, schooling and healthcare) are some of the most tangible benefits the Union gives to its citizens. If there is ever to be a viable European identity, which itself is necessary for further integration, then it must be based upon the provision of some goods and rights to its citizens. Withdrawing one of the few rights it has granted currently would deal an enormous blow to this identity.
European integration is not supported, but threatened by excessive integration. When citizens feel ...

European integration is not supported, but threatened by excessive integration. When citizens feel that such fundamental rights as the control of their borders or economies is being taken out of their hands then their enthusiasm for 'ever closer Union' wanes yet further. Real integration must proceed at the speed EU citizens are willing to allow it, not only to be legitimate, but to be sustainable in the long term. If this means jointly negotiated restrictions in some areas then perhaps this is healthy, rather than detrimental, for the Union.
The 'free movement of labour' is a misleading term because it is not simply about bringing down barr...

The free movement of labour would be meaningless if some basic services were not provided. If, for example, EU citizens had to purchase private schooling or emergency medical care when they worked abroad then it would be an option for only the top earners in the Union. Free labour movement requires some facilitation by the accepting state - the question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs of this.
The 'free movement of labour' is a misleading term because it is not simply about bringing down barr...

The 'free movement of labour' is a misleading term because it is not simply about bringing down barriers to migration. EU member states are not only required to permit entry, but also provide a number of services (e.g. health care, education for children) to European migrant workers. This can place a huge burden on welfare services that are frequently stretched. States are thus forced to divert resources away from their most vulnerable domestic citizens towards the citizens of other countries. This is a clear failing in their duty to their own populations.
The cost of a state 'facilitating' the free entry of foreign labour is just not worth paying. As we...

This is a simplistic cost/benefit analysis. Looking at the bigger picture shows that competition for wages reduces inflation and allows companies to expand their workforces, inevitably employing more 'local' people. An expanding, cost competitive economy is the best protection socially excluded citizens can have, as it ensures welfare services can be funded and provides a ready supply of work. Statistics show that the EU states which received the largest migration of labour from the new EU accession countries grew faster in economic terms as a result.
Multilateral aid arrangements help ensure that different bilateral arrangements do not work at cross...

Multilateral aid contributions by the USA are likely to trade-off with American contributions to other UN or multilateral projects. Americans question the value of international aid, and are particularly suspicious of America’s involvement in international institutions. In an age of increased budgetary pressures and increasing suspicion of international institutions, efforts to support multilateral economic aid would likely result in calls for cutbacks in other multilateral commitments, such as support for peacekeeping. Bilateral arrangements are easier to justify as serving specific national interests.
Multilateral aid tends to be less tied to the political self-interest of individual donor countries....

Multilateral aid tends to be less tied to the political self-interest of individual donor countries. One criticism of bilateral aid arrangements is that they are often drawn up based on self interest. Major powers who provide international aid have tended to direct their aid to former colonies or countries with which they have significant strategic ties, economic interests or potential markets. Often, aid money must be spent on goods or services from the donor country. While the United States does not have as developed a colonial history as some other major donor states, it does have a history of providing aid to countries it sees as strategic partners. This was particularly true during the Cold War, but has now emerged as a practice in the war on terror. Aid that is given multilaterally is therefore much more likely to go to developing countries on the basis of need, and of where it has the most potential for good.
Multilateral aid, particularly when delivered through NGOs or the UN, allows for the efficient pooli...

Multilateral aid, particularly when delivered through NGOs or the UN, allows for the efficient pooling of financial resources. Much as when an individual makes a donation to a major charity, their small contribution goes much further when combined with those of many others. Particularly in the face of pressure to reduce foreign aid, America can still make a significant impact on development in other parts of the world through combining resources with other donors. By contrast, bilateral aid arrangements are often short-term and subject to change at short notice as a result of political or economic shifts in the donor country. Multilateral aid programmes are therefore more stable and can plan more usefully for the long-term.
Multilateral aid arrangements tend to avoid unnecessarily coercive conditions. One of the strongest...

Multilateral aid arrangements tend to avoid unnecessarily coercive conditions. One of the strongest criticisms of bilateral aid is the tendency for donor countries to place strict political, diplomatic or economic conditions on the receipt of that aid. For example, the United States greeted Pakistan’s cooperation with the war on terror with a generous economic and military aid package, despite years of sanctions previously. Countries receiving development loans have often faced requirements for changes in internal policies on a range of issues not always directly tied to the aid itself.
Multilateral aid arrangements develop a sense of cooperation among nations with the additional advan...

Multilateral aid arrangements develop a sense of cooperation among nations with the additional advantage of reducing conflict. Efforts to solve problems, such as poverty, disease and conflict through multilateral efforts suggest that these are “world problems” and not exclusively the problems of a recipient country and an interested donor nation. An increase in multilateral efforts improves the general sense that we are ‘one world” with common difficulties in need of common solutions. Multilateral approaches to solving these problems expand a sense of goodwill.
Multilateral aid arrangements help ensure that different bilateral arrangements do not work at cross...

Multilateral aid arrangements help ensure that different bilateral arrangements do not work at cross-purposes. Years of development experiences have demonstrated that donors sometimes make mistakes in the arrangements they create. Dependency is sometimes fostered, conditions imposed on contributions are sometimes unreasonable and those administering the aid do not always consider the broader picture. If more than one country is approaching the recipient nation with different goals or conditions in mind, their uncoordinated efforts could cause unintended negative effects.
Multilateral aid tends to be less tied to the political self-interest of individual donor countries....

Providers of aid, for the very reason that they are spending their own money, should have their interests served by an aid arrangement. Significant opposition exists to foreign aid in the United States. For this reason, it is important to demonstrate to the American public that their tax dollars are being spent in a way that benefits the nation and/or is used responsibly by the recipient nation. Sadly, many aid dollars have been wasted on countries with corrupt regimes that have misused the funds, or the recipients have lacked the resources internally to use the funds productively. This misuse is more likely to happen if aid is channelled through, and supervised by unaccountable international bureaucracies instead of given direct to countries in need.
Multilateral aid, particularly when delivered through NGOs or the UN, allows for the efficient pooli...

Multilateral aid through NGOs or UN agencies is less cost-efficient. Direct aid means that that aid is immediately reaching its destination and can begin working for the recipient government. When funds go to multilateral aid organizations, some of these funds will be spent by the agency itself for administrative purposes. Those funds which reach the field are often seriously delayed. Moreover, when NGOs are used, the potential for abuse of resources exists, meaning less of the funds actually reach their intended destination. The UN, in particular, has a bad record of financial inefficiency.