The Big Issues page 3 (locked)

OK, then I shall write a summary of the exact opposite, free-market capitalism.

right now we know what we are up ageints fire the misslies

but seriously recycle

[post deleted, obvious troll is obvious]

ummm I thought we were talking about global warming.

Anyways, we can’t truly say that man made global warming is real or not. We only have accurate temperatures of the earth for only the last few hundred years. It will be much longer before we will truly know if this is natural or if it is man made. Palientologists have looked at ice core samples in the artic reigions and have a vauge idea of what the temperature was. I can’t explain it that well if you want to know more research the topic.

Uh, no, we’re not talking about anything in here. Please read the first post if you’re confused. There are numerous threads on global warming – please post in one of those if you’re interested in discussing it. Click here to see a list of some of the global warming posts (the list is after the series of charts in the Affirmative Opinion).

What are we not allowed to talk about?

[post deleted for blatant racism]

I’m going to lock this thread, since there’s no reason for anyone to be posting here. If you would like to claim an argument on any of the topics here, please send me a shout/whisper and we’ll get you published in this thread.

Games as Art

Gamers and game developers are often quick to defend their passions as art to try to validate them in the public eye. At the same time, art critics are hesitant to permit what many consider amusement for children to be considered “high art”. Roger Ebert was perhaps one of the most famous critics to vocalize this opinion, and later wrote:

A year or so ago, I rashly wrote that video games could not be art. That inspired a firestorm among gamers, who wrote me countless messages explaining why I was wrong, and urging me to play their favorite games. Of course, I was asking for it. Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell’s soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it. [Roger Ebert]

So, can video games be high art? Are there any examples now, or is this only a potential direction they can head?

---

Affirmative Opinion by Xandersears:

I believe that video games are an art form. I am not particularly well read on the subject but hope that I can still put forwards an adequate argument to support my belief.

I think that the key issue here is what art truly is. One approach to finding this answer, would be to look in a dictionary, which I have done for your convenience.

In the Oxford English dictionary, the relevant entry is as follows:

1: the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture.

2: the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively.

For a little cultural balance, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the relevant entry is as follows:

1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation: the art of making friends

4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced

Of course, dictionaries cannot always be classed as the definitive source of answers, especially for a topic as controversial as art, but nevertheless, both dictionaries provide definitions that would allow video games to be classified as an art form; they certainly require creative skill to produce and are very visual. In fact, they share many characteristics with film, which is now an almost universally accepted art form.

I must pause at this moment to state that I do not believe that all video games are art – many games, especially the recent trend for drab, grey-brown graphics and unimaginative concepts, seem to me to be anything but artistic.

However, what makes me believe that video games are art is that even in games such as those mentioned above, there is more than just the concept and the graphics. A video game is akin to a collage in visual arts – pieces of art stuck together to produce a larger piece of art. The graphics play a large part, certainly, but there are also elements such as the music and story that are already accepted as art on their own.

I do not believe for a second that a collection of art stuck together in any way is automatically art itself, but I do believe that in many cases, it is.

About halfway through writing this, I did an internet search for video games as art, and one of the first results was an extensive essay on the subject, which I quickly scanned through. One point I immediately noticed was an emphasis on the idea that art is media which can evoke feelings in people who see, or otherwise experience it. This definition is one that seems very feasible to me – as much so as the dictionary definitions, which are very vague.

I believe that most gamers would argue that at least one game has made them feel some emotion. It may even have been something such as anger or frustration, perhaps down to a particularly difficult level, but many games have to ability to evoke something deeper. Therefore, video games still seem to satisfy the criteria.

I turn now to Wikipedia, something which is far more open to public influence than a dictionary or a private essay. It says that “An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced”.
By this definition, video games are art simply if their creator wills them to be. It does suggest to me that an object cannot both have a function and be art simultaneously, but drawing on my previous analogy of the similarities between video games and film, as both serve a similar purpose (to entertain) and yet film is still considered art, so it could follow that video games are too.

In conclusion, whether you classify video games is an art form is purely down to how you classify art itself. However, those who make broad statements about the lack of possibility for video games to be art are, I think, quite simply narrow minded.

---

Negative Opinion not yet written:

Banning Homosexual Marriage:

One of the most hotly-debated subjects in politics and internet-forums today is homosexual marriage and what to do about it. This argument pre-supposes that gay marriage is a sin according to at least some major religions (that is, we will assume the Bible says it is a sin for the purposes of this topic – to debate the religious aspects go here [link to be inserted when this section is written]).

Over 40 states have some sort of ban, either implicit or explicit, against gay marriage. Yet some state supreme courts have struck down these bans as being unconstitutional. A number of questions arise. Do we have the right to ban gay marriage under our current constitution? If not, should we amend the Constitution to allow it? What implications will allowing gay marriage have on polygamy/incest laws? Is this situation comparable to laws preventing interracial marriages? Should the State even use the religious term “marriage” when making laws?

---

Affirmative Opinion not yet written:

---

Negative Opinion by FuzzyBacon:

There exists on both sides of this issue many issues and concerns. The reasoning stated for objecting to granting homosexual marriage rights have been stated on the website supporting Proposition 8 (Shown below). Proposition 8 was passed in November 2008 for the state of California, and effectively disallowed homosexual marriage by constitutional amendment.

While this argument is much larger than the actions of a single state, the arguments given by supporters of the action represent most of the popular arguments concerning gay marriage

Summarized, they are as follows:

- It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
- It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
- It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

An excellent essay by Scott Bidstrup can be found here. In it he offers many of the popular arguments used to defend denial of marriage rights, as well as refuting and offering potential underlying reasons for the fear and mistrust the he faces.

To expand upon the reasoning of those who oppose gay marriage, let us look more closely at their arguments.

The first point made, as seen above, is an ad populum, or argument from popularity. It attempts to make the argument that the will of the majority is necessarily correct. However, this is fallacious in nature, as the will of the populace does not always represent that which is right or correct.

To offer an example of a time when the will of the majority was clearly incorrect, you need only refer to the civil rights movement that eventually ended in legal equality for African Americans. Granting them equal voting rights was not something that most citizens were willing to accept, in much the same way that they are unwilling to accept gay marriage rights.

The second point is a brief argument from outrage, attempting to deny the practice of Judicial Review (As codified by Marbury v. Madison), which established that one of the abilities of the Supreme Court is to strike down unconstitutional laws, regardless of how the voters feel. Prop 8 is unconstitutional for a number of reasons, however, and therefore, the Supreme Court acted correctly (I feel). While this does not apply to the nation at large directly, it still is a valid point. It shows that the people of the most populous state had little concern for the principles of legal equality that form the basis of our government.

The fact that they not only voted into law a decision that was declared unconstitutional, but thereafter sought (and were successful), to reinstate what was essentially the exact same law, but in a different form (Constitutional amendment, and therefore, more difficult to overturn), simply shows just how deep this issue runs.

The third and final point regarding gay marriage is a slippery-slope argument, in which they claim that somehow, granting homosexual individuals equality under the law would force them to not only tolerate them, but also to accept and even embrace their “lifestyle” (More on that later). However, there is not a single shred of evidence suggesting that granting marriage rights would somehow make disliking them illegal.

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, in this case, because it lacks legitimate precedent in its favor. It would not be a slippery slope argument, however, if they could show documented evidence that such a move had increased social tolerance of gays in that society, or perhaps an increase in the percentage of gays in the community (although the second point could also be argued against).

To argue such a case, that granting civil liberties to homosexuals leads to being forced to like them, is absurd in the extreme. Once again, this very closely mirrors the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, where many people of Caucasian decent in the United States were vehemently opposed to having anything to do with African Americans. However, granting them legal inequality did little to change how society at large viewed them, and racism is still very much alive in American society.

In the same sense, gays make up a relatively small portion of the population, approximately 10%, and therefore, given little say in how the country is governed (A country which was founded upon the will of the majority whilst protecting the rights of the minority). However, it is quite clear that their rights are not being provided adequate protection.

Many people also disagree with the so-called “in your face” attitude that has become so popularized by the media in America. However, it is important to remember that these outspoken individuals are not a fair representation of the entire group. To claim that it is would be similar to saying that all atheists are like Richard Dawkins, or all Christians are like Kent Hovind or the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. The people that you see are merely the most outspoken individuals, and are an unfair representation of all homosexuals.

Some other arguments are about marriage in particular. One popular point, for instance, is that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, whom are in love with one another. To which my response is: Who defined it as being between a man and a woman (Keep in mind, the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned as being unconstitutional)? Besides which, definitions of words are far from static, and are actually quite mutable.

The fact that divorce rates are at an all-time high suggests that the precondition of love is certainly not requisite for marriage, and to suggest that this precludes homosexuals from getting married is offensive on two fronts. It attempts to establish that not only is love a necessity for marriage, but also that gays are incapable of love. To anyone who says this, I ask you to attempt to justify that stance in the comments on this page, or write your own page about it.

Some people may also disagree with the perceived promiscuity and amorality of the gay community. As I have previously stated, it is immensely unfair to judge all homosexuals by what you can see. Homosexual relationships are remarkably similar to their heterosexual counterparts. As individuals age, they tend to seek long-lasting, monogamous relationships, with emphasis on mental and emotional aspects, over purely physical flings with multiple partners.

However, even assuming that all homosexuals are exactly how the media portrays them, it in fact lends itself to support of marriage rights. Marriage is a social contract that typically includes monogamy. Giving homosexuals a legal incentive to be monogamous (Marriage carries with it an incredible number of legal benefits that are not provided in civil unions) would help to combat the spread of STDs amongst the gay community.

Additionally, some opponents of gay marriage claim that government “support” of gays would be akin to encouraging homosexuality, as if they are somehow afraid that homosexuals want to make everyone gay. However, just as most heterosexuals find homosexual relationships unsettling, most homosexuals find male-female intercourse as being equally “gross”, and in fact the vast majority feel no attraction to heterosexuals with whom they share their gender.

While scientists are still not of one mind as to the nature versus nurture debate regarding homosexuality, a number of genetic markers (one of which causes increased fecundity when found in female relatives) that are prominent amongst homosexuals, as well several potential prenatal factors (chief amongst them being increased levels of testosterone).

This points to nature being the dominant factor in deciding sexual orientation, which means that “converting” people to homosexuality would not only be difficult, it may very well be impossible. These findings also lend support to the arguments that would allow adoption rights/in-vitro fertilization access to homosexual couples, as “raising” a child to be gay wouldn’t be something within the control of the parents.

Ultimately, though, the biggest opponent of gay marriage lies in religion. People often quote Leviticus as indisputable evidence that homosexuality is a sin, because the Bible was divinely inspired. However, the bible contains numerous inconsistencies and even direct contradictions, and therefore, everything written therein should be viewed with skepticism. In addition, the Greek word that translators have taken to mean “homosexual”, arsenokoitai, literally translates to man-bed-thing. There is no Greek word for homosexual, and those passages could quite easily be decrying male prostitution, which was quite common at that time. Translation issues aside, societal values change over time. The bible used to contain instructions about the proper treatment of slaves, which has sense been removed, as slavery is no longer considered acceptable.

Another argument borne of religion claims that allowing gay marriage would force churches to marry them, though in fact it would do no such thing. In reality, allowing gay marriage would actually increase religious freedom, because many churches have expressed the willingness to marry gay couples, and would thereafter be allowed to do so.

Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a purely social contract between two people, that was taken by religion in order to increase the control it had over the populace. As such, any religious argument to deny marriage rights to homosexuals is a clear example of religious entanglement, which has been unconstitutional since the founding of America.