Debate 

106 creative works found

• 

  Ninja Career Option T-Shirt
  by zee1

  This t-shirt was inspired by a friend who informed me about a huge debate on the internet that I had been oblivious to. Ninja’s versus Pirates (who would wn) This t-shirt is in his honour for lightening up my day and making me laugh. There is a 2nd shirt about Ninja career option also uploaded. I also hope to follow up with some pirate ones or ones about the debate itself.

• 

  Ninja Advantages
  by zee1

  This t-shirt was inspired by a friend who informed me about a huge debate on the internet that I had been oblivious to. Ninja’s versus Pirates (who would wn) This t-shirt is in his honour for lightening up my day and making me laugh. There is a 2nd shirt about Ninja career option also uploaded and versions on other colour t’s.

• 

  angels debating evil
  by Kelly Boyle

  fineliner illustration. This T-shrit is available in a unsex/men’s and women’s cut

• 

  The Face-Off
  by Mohammed Al Ibrahim

• 

  monks debate
  by Oliver Magee

  monks in red debate in a monestary

• 

  Debate over
  by Kate Adams

  Taken in Valencia Spain

• 

  Monks Debating
  by Michelle Thomson

  Taken in Tibet

• 

  The New Australian Flag
  by lightsmith

  The 21st Century has arrived. We have said ‘sorry’ to our indigenous population. There’s talk of a republic. So here’s my suggestion for a new flag. An INTERIM flag for using on the way to the great republic that shall unite all brothers – regardless of colour, origins or sexual preferences. It’s not the ultimate australian flag. It’s an interim one. Which means we could have it for the next 100 years. Assuming anyone anywhere liked it enough to even think of using it. I just thought it time to throw something in the mix…. Do not be shy. Break the rules and comment your opinions – good or bad. I invite honest comment and debate.

• 

  Cock debate
  by Lefever

• 

  Prayer beads
  by James Godber

  A young Buddhist monk clutches these beads during the daily debate at Drepung Monastery, Lhasa, Tibet

• 

  ITALIANO
  by Alvin-San [vcr]

  Alt Title: “Proud Hand” Northern California; Late Night. My Proud Italian Stallion Friend & Brother “Rodrigo”, during a heated (but non-hostile) debate with another party; Eye’m stoking questions/interviewing & Bearing Witness …

• 

  INNOCENCE
  by TRACY BAGNALL

  This has been inspired by the writing of Suzanne German About the use of Children as Art Objects entitled ‘A CHILD’S VOICE’ As I read I saw this image. I have managed to get it down in digital form. It was too important to let it go so at 2.45 am I have finished and am uploading now. All work on this site is being sold for the Phoenix appeal. / This will be for as long as is needed. / I live in Englad now but lived in Australia for ten years, / while growing up and have family out there. / They are safe.

• 

  Debate Room
  by Stephen Haning

  Bic round stic and Liquid Paper pen on sketchbook paper. This work was featured in the Finks of Ink group 10/21/08.

• 

  graphic design is not art
  by Emma sanderson

  As a graphic designer, I believe this statement to be true. Others may not agree – and that’s where this t-shirt can ‘kick off’ a healthy debate in the studio.

• 

  Evolution
  by Mundy Hackett

  Evolution

• Bubble Essay #1: The Irony Of The Democratization Of Art
  by transmute

  It’s been stated many times by the founders of Redbubble that they seek to democratize art by allowing everyone to have a gallery of thei…

  It’s been stated many times by the founders of Redbubble that they seek to democratize art by allowing everyone to have a gallery of their work on display for public view, with the ability for it to be purchased in various high quality media. An ongoing debate has been occurring since the nascent days of the site regarding quality, and the large amount of uploads that are perceived as lacking in artistic merit. I used to be concerned about this, but have slowly let go of the idea that this is a site that is about ‘meritorious’ art (despite the flourishing debates), and more to do with the idea of participatory community focused around creative activity. I’d like to address the idea of ‘online community’ and it’s contradictions in a future essay, but for now will acknowledge that this community is the ‘front end’ sustained by the ‘back end’ business of print-on-demand. Not an uncommon contemporary business model; one that links the participatory capabilities of ‘Web 2.0’ with a physical business. I’m not implying that there is a cynicism in doing this however, its just one manifestation of the positive (if problematic) use of capital in the social sphere. One idea that has occurred to me lately, and one that is only too evident as Redbubble grows and evolves, is the great irony of the democratization of art: that universal freedom of expression is important to increase the chances of great art occurring, but it also allows the unskilled, the inarticulate and the unimaginative free reign to express themselves. To some, creative expression is merely the documentation of their surroundings, to others it is as much as possible a subjective interpretation using whatever objective means they have mastered. To put it bluntly, democratization leads at one and the same time to greatness and mediocrity, and the thing that defines greatness is it’s rarity among mediocrity, forcing us to think harder about the nature of art itself. / / I don’t for one moment support the idea of an artistic elite, this is impossible to define, but more the idea that mediocrity is the sea on which greatness floats, and maybe we have to begrudgingly accept that cultural evolution involves a certain volume of mediocrity.

• 

  Debate
  by David Reid

  Monks debating, Sera Monastery, Tibet 2006

• 

  Who came first?
  by Tom Godfrey

  Is the egg smiling too soon, did the chicken get a toe over the line? The debate continues… This all happened in the days before photo records and even this image found in God’s archives, is inconclusive :) I thought I’d try a different style with this one as I hadn’t really tried the “comic book” approach before. I discovered it was a lot of fun, so I may try this again if you, my esteemed friends, deem it worthy. :) I did the concept sketch on the train into Sydney on my way to collect my pics from the “Dark Side” exhibition. Wanna Chicken or Egg tie? :) /

• 

  Chicken or the Egg?
  by Tom Godfrey

  Not too sure really. Are you are creationist of a follower of Darwin? Or maybe a new age person, in which case our advanced brothers created the chicken in the “Living Designs Section” and then added the reproductive plan. In which case the design of the chicken came first followed by its means of reproduction. QED the Chicken wins :) Ah well it is late on Sunday evening :) Cheers friends This creation started life as a pencil sketch, conceived and completed on a train journey.

• 

  The Great Debate
  by Myron Watamaniuk

• Men Talk
  by Anthea Slade

  A sand fly, large and black, landed on Dylan’s red nose and stung him. He slapped his nose. ‘Ouch!’ He shook his white hair, the colour…

  MEN TALK featured in Anger Management 18-8-09 / MEN TALK featured in CORE on the 13-8-09 Caution A short story. / A dialogue. / Written by a woman. / Through the eyes of two men. / About their two women. 12 years it has taken me to release this short story to the eyes of the public. I have had this short story sitting in private viewing for the past three weeks waiting for the courage to put this one out there. Ushna and her fabulous group has given my humble short story voice and recognition. This is one of my most valued features. / Thank you. Voice has been in my life a central theme. When I was at University studying Masters in Adult Education, I studied Voice and its implications in Women Studies and Autobiography and Life Long Learning. I was interested in giving voice to women in my first Autobiography Two Voices Two Women, a dialogue between my mother and I. And in my second autobiography, My life of love, loss and learning a voice to my love of all the important men in my life from father to teacher to lover to mentor to muse. With Men Talk I wanted to do something quite different and write a short story not only through the voice and eyes of one man but two men. And I wanted to write through their voice about their women. This was an exciting challenge and I have always held this little story close to me and now after all these years have brought it out to the public. I have read much and studied the men’s movement and men’s perspective as much as I have studied women’s movements and perspectives. So I just want to thank my friends on RedBubble and Ushna for allowing me this wonderful platform to bring forward not only my poems that I am writing now but for also allowing me to share those pieces of my writing history that no one has ever seen before. With Love, Anthea

• Unrequited verses Skin Debate
  by Anthea Slade

  Unrequited love is love supreme / Love that is always just out of reach / He knows he is beautiful but / is not sure yet what to do with tha…

  Unrequited Verses Skin Debate featured in CORE 20-7-09

• MY LIGHT ON THE SPECTRE THAT IS HAUNTING REDBUBBLE.
  by Jim Marshal

  I did not come on to RB much over the weekend, nor yesterday as I was doing non-PC stuff but for the few brief moments I did, I sensed so…

  I did not come on to RB much over the weekend, nor yesterday as I was doing non-PC stuff but for the few brief moments I did, I sensed something was amiss. Call me paranoid, or delusional, but even on an internet website, there are certain vibes that are as obvious as dogs’ balls. This place, energetically and psychically has felt, to me, like a graveyard these past few days but without the inherent peace. There has been a wave of chill, empty and uninhabited. I have always been one to avoid the dramas and bickering that can go on on these types of sites and will usually not even get myself up to speed on the latest debates. Admitting to myself however that I am, in some way, a part of this “community” I tried to educate myself about what’s happening with this issue about the closure of a bubbler’s account due to “inappropriateness”. I must say that I am unfamiliar with the work of both people involved and only have the “facts” to go by which I read in someone’s journal. Anything in life is potentially something to learn from, to perceive Power and how it plays out. There is, with all human dramas, a deeper cause, something that exists beyond appearances. All the time, we react to appearances, to what is on the surface. For instance; someone gets up at 6am and steps on a nail when they get out of bed. They then drive to the doctor to get a stitch and they get a speeding ticket. Then they go to work and find out they have been demoted. Dejected, they go downstairs to the cafeteria and someone bumps into them and they spill their coffee. Any other day, they would laugh it off. This day however, they launch a vitriolic no-holes-barred assault on this person and condemn them for every sin they have ever committed. To the person on the end of the assult, all they have is this isolated “Now” moment, it just appears, unsolicited, stark and direct. In that isolated “Now” moment, it is not apparent the history, the cause and effect that has led the other person to this moment. Here is where we enter a great paradoxical difficulty, for the person on the end of the barrage is receiving something out of proportion with the event, and with their own action. In other words, getting something that may be unwarranted in some way. Yet from the other person’s perspective, there day has become a whirlpool of circumstance, where the momentum gets progressively stronger to the point where things have become unstoppable. The words spoken, and the energy behind them, seem to have an existence of their own that extends beyond the speaker or the doer. In this way, how could we rightly say that something is unwarranted, since we are dealing now with something more like an Elemental force? Do we blame the sun for shining ot the wind for blowing? It is futile to try and punish the sun or the wind, yet that is exactly what we try to do with humans. It seems, in this situation, there must ultimately be a winner and a loser and in our current case we are assuming the winner is the one whose membership is intact. From what I have seen, the vast majority of reactions on here are in sympathy for the “loser”, an outrage at the injustice. RB is usually a very free place where people can use colourful language, express emotions even the dark ones and can interact with other souls on a conceptual, word-based level. Yet there is also a level we interact beyond words, we are connected in subtle ways also, energetically. The same magnetic attraction-repulsion laws apply here as they do in physical reality and we may be able to learn from them in a similar way. I do not have a solution, not even an opinion. This is not because I am a fence sitter, but because in this type of scenario it is futile to “take sides”. All I can say is, RB has highlighted a problem that exists across the board in human society and it is not only connected to authority (daddy scolding me for stepping out of line by taking away my membership) but it also is how we split “Now” into fragments, when actually Now is one long constant moment (which paradoxically is also quite short). When you were born, it was Now. When you die, it will be Now. And where you find yourself this very moment is not some different, exotic moment but rather it is the exact same moment as when you were born and when you will die. You will not die “over there” in some forgotten niche of consciousness that is “way off in the distance” and so can be forgotten about or pushed aside. This is the great Illusion that puts us in a trance and allows us to be so easily controlled. A divided house is easy prey. Only seeing beyond this illusion grants us freedom and soverignty, and it only comes about if you are sincerely prepared to unlearn what you have been taught, whatever the cost. In truth, the moment you die will be a moment very much the same as this one you are living right now. The fear of death is not a natural condition, it has been inseminated into humans since “civilisation” (slavery) was founded. Someone who is afraid of dying will split all his Now moments up into discrete categories; now I am eating chocolate cake, now I am fighting my brother, now I am voting for Labour, now I am watching telly, now I am studying for my biology exam, now I am hating Sylvia, now I am loving Max, now I am seeking pleasure, now I am avoiding pain…. and somewhere, way off, though I will pretend it is on a different plane… now I am dying. The result of this segmentation of ourself is extremely tragic, though not many see the full extent of its effects. For every time we identify with something different and say, for instance “I am a feminist” or “I like girls” or “I get sad when I watch the news”, we set up in ourselves a resistance to the rest of ourselves. But the shocking part is that each time we “identify” we do not just change our mood like changing gears in our car. Instead each “identity” is a complete being state, right down to the anatomical level. You look in the mirror when you are depressed and then on another day when you are happy, you will see in your body the way you hold tension and breath have produced two entirely different people Where is the constant “I” that we are told we are? It is not there! As circumstances change, so do we. So how could we honestly expect Red Bubble to see that this person, when she made a remark to someone that held an obvious connection to the situation to her but not to someone else, how could we expect the administrators to see the long version of Now playing out in her life? It was the short version that got her into trouble, and that is what society rewards and punishes with people, the short fragmented stunted expressions of Self, the tiny particles of human expression and not the vast mythic Mural of each individual life-form. How could Red Bubble, being a part of this conditioned way of perceiving Now, possibly see it any differently? All instituitions, even the “free” ones are still institutions and they reflect not the sanity of Heaven but the schizophrenia of society.

• Innuendo & Distinction
  by H M Bascom

  Internet forums are rife with logical fallacy. It can be frustrating to engage in debate with a person who asserts one logical fallacy a…

  Internet forums are rife with logical fallacy. It can be frustrating to engage in debate with a person who asserts one logical fallacy after another. You can fall prey to debating the fallacy rather than the issue unless you are familiar with some of the more common errors in logic. I have addressed only a few common fallacies. Argument from innuendo is a statement that directs the reader/listener to a (derogatory) conclusion, but does not explicitly make that (derogatory) assertion. Examples (1) His wife works late a lot these days. I wonder if her handsome boss works late too? / conclusion – she is sleeping with her boss (2) She writes such sad poetry. I wonder what her home life is like? / conclusion – she has an unhappy home life (3) You know, he was questioned by the FBI about that bank robbery. / conclusion – he must be a suspect When a person makes an implicit assertion, it is their intent to draw you to a specific conclusion. The person making the implicit assertion should be required to justify their unspoken statement as if they had stated the conclusion explicitly. Invariably the person making the argument by innuendo will deny that they intended the obvious conclusion. If the speaker/writer refuses to defend their implicit assertion, insist that they explicitly deny the implicit assertion. A distinction without a difference is the attempt to advance a point of view as distinct from another view. In reality, the two views are not at all different in substance. It is a manipulation of language, and a fallacy. Examples We must judge the writer by what the article actually says and not by what someone tells us it says. No writing can interpret itself. All readers are interpreters. Therefore, there is no intelligible distinction to be drawn between what the article says and the interpretation of the article. I’m not saying anything against interracial marriage, but I firmly believe that people of different races should not marry Let’s break this one down to it’s component assertions. PREMISE: I believe people of different races should not marry. / IMPLICIT PREMISE: Since there is no contradiction between miscegenation and the view that interracial marriage is acceptable. . . / CONCLUSION: Therefore I have no serious disagreement interracial marriage. The PREMISE and the CONCLUSION are contradictory. The arguer against interracial marriage asserts no contradiction in their statement by the IMPLICIT PREMISE. Do you think the following statements are distinctions without a difference? (1) I’m not saying anything bad about you, but I think your ideas are stupid. / (2) I’m not against equality for women, I just think women have traditional roles in society. / (3) I’m not saying that art and politics don’t mix, but I think politics does not belong on a commercial art site. / (4) I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with nude photography, I just happen to believe that women should not expose their bodies publicly. Attacking the straw man occurs frequently when the debate becomes heated. This fallacy consists of misrepresentation of the opponents position. Example Maria: There is no legal, moral, or ethical reason why women should be paid less than men for the same work. Yet, women are, on average, paid 20% less than men in our society. I think Congress should enact legislation that requires employers to pay equal wages for equal work. Joe: If you want big government in every aspect of our lives then that is your problem. I think you just want special treatment because you are a woman. That makes you a sexist! Joe has distorted Maria’s argument and drawn an unsupported inference. Joe asserts that Maria supports “big government” that will invade “every aspect” of an individual’s life. This inference is not supported by Maria’s statement. Also, Joe infers that Maria wants “special treatment” because she is a woman and therefore she is a “sexist.” All of these inferences are an oversimplification of the original argument to the point it is not even recognizable in his reply. The only way rational to respond to this fallacy is to restate your argument and ask if the responder has misunderstood. If the responder has intentionally misrepresented your argument, there is little else you can do but continue to assert your argument. Debate on your own terms, and never fall into the trap of defending the misrepresentation of your argument. It would be error to respond to Joe in the above example by asserting “I am NOT a sexist” or “I am not for big government.” You will have taken the bait of misrepresentation of your own argument and end up defending against the distortion of your own view rather than debating the issue. Guilt by association is often used as an attempt to discredit your source. It is a manipulation of the flow of the debate by shifting focus from the lack of support for their position to a negative impression of the character of the source you cite or the person whose views you support. Examples You know, his partner was convicted of perjury. / inference – he is a liar because his associate is a liar His political science professor in college is a Communist, how can we trust him to be a not to turn our country into a Communist state? / inference – his professor is a Communist therefore he must be a Communist too This fallacy is glaring in its illogical nature, however it is frequently used as an attempt to discredit the source. It is the old birds of a feather argument. How can you support Governor Sims views on drunk driving laws when he was arrested for drunk driving when he was in college? / inference – because he was once arrested for DUI, Governor Sims’ view must be disregarded If Governor Sims supports legislation providing for stricter penalties for drunk driving, would you not support such legislation because the Governor has a past DUI? That is not logical. The character of the person espousing a view is not relevant to the merit of the view itself. Try to keep the debate on the merits of the view, and away from the character of the person who holds the view. Here is a great book on the art of logical reasoning: Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments Other articles on logical fallacy Red Herrings