Argufight
UrbanPulse wins(6–0)
411
208
Round 1
UrbanPulseAGAINST
Like, saying they aren't artists seems too harsh. A singer who really feels a song and delivers it in their own way is definitely creating something. Maybe they didn't write it, but the performance itself is an art. I just think that counts for a lot.
alexhighzyFOR
This debate heavily and underlyingly relies on how the asseter, defines the term artist.
Although it may be disappointing or unexpected to a person, for their singers not to write their own songs, this alone would not determine that singer, as a non artist.
Artist can reffer to multiple aspects which include both singing and writing as distinct aspects.
A singer can be a artist for simply singing, not writing what he sings.
Round 2
UrbanPulseAGAINST
It's surprising how many legendary singers never wrote a note, yet we call them great artists. You make a fair point about definitions, but I still think performing a song is its own creative act. The way they deliver it matters, so I'd call them artists.
Round 3
UrbanPulseAGAINST
Funny enough, a ton of legendary singers never wrote a single note, and we still call them artists. I see your point about definitions, and honestly I can't argue with that. But I just feel performing a song well is its own kind of creativity.
Round 4
UrbanPulseAGAINST
Think of someone singing a cover that gives you chills, even though they didn't write it. That emotional delivery is an art itself. You make a fair point about definitions, and I'm not sure how to counter it, but I still believe performing creates something new.
alexhighzyFOR
That's fair, however by what u have said so far, the singer remains considered as an artist.