Formal Debate-Peanut Gallery Thread-Formal Debate - Rock-N-Roll is Dangerous to Every Society

[durangodawood]

1. Of course, it all depends on "dangerous to what"? Certainly, pretty much every rebellious movement has some ideas about a better society. The idea of change doesn´t mean "danger for society" - at worst it means danger for society as it exists right now.
2. The fact that rock´n roll prides itself on it and strives for it doesn´t mean it´s successful. That´s where capitalism always wins, by making everything a matter of creating new demand.
3. Rock´n roll can be very conservative, very backward, very stabilizing to the system - especially when it has become nostalgia.
4. I´m playing rock music, and I don´t pride myself on nor strive for being dangerous to society.

These are good points.
But to make them, youre taking all the "rock n roll" out of my assertion.

I play rock n roll too. And lately, I wish my music was more dangerous to society... (but also good for it on balance.)

 

[quatona]

These are good points.
But to make them, youre taking all the "rock n roll" out of my assertion.

I play rock n roll too. And lately, I wish my music was more dangerous to society... (but also good for it on balance.)

In any case, I´m pretty sure I wish Rock was more dangerous to the sort of society TCMD favours.

 

[Chesterton]

1. Of course, it all depends on "dangerous to what"?

A: What do you got?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes. Although I don´t understand why he agreed to write the first post (which comes down to countering arguments that hadn´t even been made).

^This.

 

[Chesterton]

I play rock n roll too. And lately, I wish my music was more dangerous to society... (but also good for it on balance.)

A band of mine once got a college radio station shut down by the FCC.

BTW, don't know how old you are, ever see Thin Lizzy in the '70's? I did once.

 

[durangodawood]

A band of mine once got a college radio station shut down by the FCC.

BTW, don't know how old you are, ever see Thin Lizzy in the '70's? I did once.

Nice. No. Too young for that, but not by much.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. Although I don´t understand why he agreed to write the first post (which comes down to countering arguments that hadn´t even been made).

I remember why I did it once...I viewed my competition as so benign and impotent it didn't really matter if I went first, if he had twice as many posts, etc. I was more concerned about giving him the proper setting for revealing himself.

I can't say that Cadet's reasons are the same...but I can't hold it against him either. It just looks awkward...like the debate is starting without knowing what the debate is about.

 

[Locutus]

1. Of course, it all depends on "dangerous to what"? Certainly, pretty much every rebellious movement has some ideas about a better society. The idea of change doesn´t mean "danger for society" - at worst it means danger for society as it exists right now.
.

Dangerous to people over the age of 65, mostly. Or, people who find change particularly upsetting. Like toddlers, and folks on the autism spectrum.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another post is up: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...erous-to-every-society.7933183/#post-69304363

 

[keith99]

Dangerous to people over the age of 65, mostly. Or, people who find change particularly upsetting. Like toddlers, and folks on the autism spectrum.

Excuse me. rock-n-roll was the music of those over 65. Perhaps those over 85, but even there Rock no longer represents change.

 

[Locutus]

Excuse me. rock-n-roll was the music of those over 65. Perhaps those over 85, but even there Rock no longer represents change.

you're quite right, my apologies! I just happen to know a few in the 70ish age bracket who get twisted knickers over music. of course it's those who grew up before the 60's who are allergic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is a stronger argument, with better evidence, than TCMD's post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Another post is up: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...erous-to-every-society.7933183/#post-69304363

Well this is a shame...I don't see what the Cadet is supposed to argue against. Is he supposed to make an argument against Dave's opinion? He's going to have two empty posts and one post that's both his argument and closing statement. I'm not sure if Dave is merely concerned with getting the final post or wasting two of his opponent's posts.

Perhaps we can make it a rule that if you propose a subject for debate, you make the opening statement (with the exception being that the proposer is willing to argue either side of the debate). The fact is that Dave is taking the affirmative position...the position that rock and roll is a tool of Satan/evil. The Cadet is taking the negative position...that rock and roll isn't a tool of Satan. However, since the Cadet has gone first...this is nothing more than a one-sided debate because only Dave knows what argument he's going to make.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All we need is a society in which rock and roll would improve thinks, like "North Korea" or "Afghanistan" I have heard.

 

[Moral Orel]

Practially every one of the top 40 records being played on every radio station in the United States is a communication to the children to take a trip, to cop out, to groove. The psychedelic jackets on the record albums have their own hidden symbols and messages as well as the lyrics to all the top rock songs and they all sing the same refrain: It's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins.​

From the intro of a cover of the Black Sabbath song Supernaut. I think the name of the band that did the cover might fall under the "no profanity" rules though, so you'll have to look that up yourself.

 

[Arcangl86]

Is it bad that I had a snarky response in my head to the Cadet that Fire and Rain is satanic because James Taylor talks about seeing fire?

 

[keith99]

Is it bad that I had a snarky response in my head to the Cadet that Fire and Rain is satanic because James Taylor talks about seeing fire?

I want to know if my Stars and Stripes Forever Album is satanic. So many 5 pointed start, it must be!

 

[Freodin]

Ah, Mr. Crowley again.

I've had enough after Dave used Aleister Crowley as a example for a secular humanist in one of our debates.

 

[Arcangl86]

Ah, Mr. Crowley again.

I've had enough after Dave used Aleister Crowley as a example for a secular humanist in one of our debates.

He started his own religion. That kinda is as far as you can get from being a humanist.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We have another post up here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...erous-to-every-society.7933183/#post-69337403