Being innovative is more important than being right

Note: Do not watch the linked videos until directed to do so. I thank my opponent for his refutations! So concerning aesthetic arguments, I agree wholeheartedly that musical taste is subjective, but that doesn't refute the fact that there are standards for what makes something pleasing and what makes it obnoxious. Simply winning the claim that art is subjective and doesn't win an argument for innovation. One doesn't like music just because it's art, they like it because they enjoy the musician's style, the genre, their friends like it or whatever else. For a type of art to be innovative, it must fundamentally change the face of the specific field of art it encompasses. That's why we look at bands such as The Beatles as a game changer[10], but people like soldier boy were one-hit wonders[11]. [10] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Furthermore even with my opponent's delightful analysis of Eminem and Justin Bieber, it doesn't reject that rightness in some form preceded these artist's notoriety. No matter what yo think about Justin Bieber, you would be lying if you said he couldn't sing well, unlike exhibit A (watch the first video). Eminem also knows what he's doing when rapping, he's got some really clever lyrics that flow well, unlike exhibit B. Even though the two aforementioned videos seem kind of. .. awkward, the artists undeniably worked really hard on them. They weren't innovative however as the artists didn't quite get it right. To be innovative you need the right look, the right style, the right philosophy, the right message -- something has to be right before that art is innovative. Finally before I move on I want to note two things, 1. My opponent refutation her fringes on being an Ad Hoc Rescue[12] as it isn't in line with my opponent's original point of contention concerning innovation being more important than rightness, but instead concerns itself with artistic subjectivity, [12] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 2. The issue of rightness and innovation being in conflict was never addressed. Pro offers analytic refutation that rightness isn't precedent to innovation, but leads that analysis into music. I've already addressed the music argument, so. .. Pro still drops the conflict argument, and Con wins precedence. Finally, getting technical again, My opponent cites the auto industry's attempt to tackle rising mega-trends such as an aging society and concludes that proposed solutions gives innovation precedence to rightness. However this assumption is but that, an assumption. There is nothing innovative about a proposal until it can be put into action, something I show in very my first round. [3][4] Myman's proposals are nothing but science fiction unless he has the proper mechanics to support his proposals. People are naturally creative, but a creative thought doesn't mean a solution has been found. Just because I'd like to solve world hunger by turning trash into food using a machine that runs on water, doesn't mean I will do it. I need to figure out how to do it first. Knowledge of the correct solution must be present before an idea becomes innovation. There is nothing innovative about feeding people wet garbage because I'm sure my machine is 'innovative'. In Conclusion, Unless one has a right view of the world, their ideas aren't innovative. Therefore innovation is not more important than being right, as rightness is a necessary precedent to innovation.