book monopoly discussion

hi. teams will post their formal statements here this includes the opening statement, formal rebuttal and the concluding statement so it doesnt get lost when moderators r judging to see who wins

↑↓ Details of this debate #1

♡ Flirty Felons (team 1) VS Procrastinating Insomniacs (team 4) ☾

──.✦·········────────────────────────────────────────────

╰› topic: Should we separate the art from the artist? (e.g., authors with problematic views)

Flirty Felons is against separating art from the artist and Procrastinating Insomniacs is for separating the art from the artist

layout
1. opening statements - deadline: 16th May IST
2. discussion period - starts at 17th May 9PM IST
3. rebuttals - 18th May 9PM IST
4. closing statements - 19th May IST

we may have a q & a from the other members(in team 2 and 3) & moderators @Jii and @sarah if time permits

──.✦·········────────────────────────────────────────────

☆彡 Procrastinating Insomniacs's opening statement

Stance: Art should be separated from the artist

(We may be sleep-deprived, but at least we're not pretending art is pure.)

Let’s get one thing clear: if you had to cancel every piece of media made by a problematic creator, you’d be left with... your class notes. And even those were probably copied from someone shady.

If we stopped engaging with every piece of art made by someone problematic, we’d have to toss out most of our books, music, and movies including a lot of the ones people on the other side probably still enjoy.

Let’s be real that these artists are humans which means they have flaws. They mess up, sometimes badly. But that doesn’t automatically erase the value or impact of their work. Harry Potter shaped an entire generation, no matter how hard J.K. Rowling tried to ruin it on Twitter. Matilda still made us love reading even though Roald Dahl had awful opinions. And Ender’s Game still made you think, even if Orson Scott Card wouldn’t approve of half the people in this room.

The point is: art doesn’t stay stuck to its creator forever. It grows, it gets reinterpreted, and sometimes, it even gets reclaimed by the people the artist would have excluded.

We’re not defending the creators, we're saying you can love the art, criticize the artist, and still love the story. Because if you tried to only consume art made by perfect people, good luck finding anything at all bc NO ONE IS PERFECT. Anyone who says so is very much conceited and thinks way too much of themselves.

You don’t have to agree with us but we encourage you to ask yourselves, is solving the "problem" worth erasing the art?

Flirty Felons' opening statement:

Stance: Art shouldn't be separated from the artist.

(We may also be sleep-deprived, but at least we're not pretending art exists in a vacuum.)

Welcome, everyone. Have you ever thought about whether we should separate the art from the artist—or books from their authors? Well, we believe you can’t really separate a piece of art from the person who made it. Art doesn’t come out of nowhere—it’s shaped by the artist’s life, beliefs, and intentions. It’s them expressing who they are, and ignoring that just flattens the meaning and power of the work.

If we pretend we can consume art without acknowledging its creator, we miss out on important context. Knowing who made something helps us understand what it’s really saying—and what it might be reinforcing without us even realizing it.

And let’s be honest: consuming the “art,” whether it’s a book, movie, album, or show, is literally financing that person. It puts them further in the spotlight, amplifies their platform, and gives their opinions more reach. You don’t get to enjoy the magic of Harry Potter without recognizing that J.K. Rowling’s transphobia rides on the back of that global success. Same with Kanye—his massive influence, which now includes praising Nazis, only exists because so many people kept listening, buying, streaming.

Yes, some of these works shaped our childhoods or inspired us. But we have to ask: at what cost? Is clinging to that nostalgia really worth enabling harmful ideologies? Because it was the popularity of their work that gave them a stage this big. Their art is part of the problem—it’s what gave them the microphone.

We're not saying cancel everything. We’re saying don’t pretend the art floats in some pure, moral bubble. When you support the work, you’re supporting the artist—whether you mean to or not. And in a world where platforms equal power, that support has real consequences.

You don’t have to agree with us, but we encourage you to ask yourselves: is preserving your favorite story worth elevating voices that harm others?

☆彡 Procrastinating Insomniacs's closing statement /conclusion

After everything that’s been said, one thing is clear, separating art from the artist isn’t about being careless, it’s about being conscious.

We’re not here to defend problematic people. We’re here to defend our ability to think critically, to see meaning, and to form our own interpretations. Sometimes, engaging with a work lets us unpack the very issues the creator didn't even realize they were putting in there.

We’ve all seen it happen where someone reads a book, not knowing anything about the author, and walks away feeling seen, challenged, or changed. That connection is real, even if the creator later turns out to disappoint us. I personally feel that if any of my fav books were written by authors that we never expected them to be that way, I'd still love the books no matter who has written them, they hold a place in my heart, and that is totally okay!

As we’ve said, people are allowed to engage, disagree, criticize and still find value in a piece of art. That’s how conversation starts. That’s how awareness spreads. And honestly, that’s how growth happens.

We’re not saying everyone has to separate the art from the artist. But we are saying it should be a choice , not a punishment. Because the moment we tell people what they can or can’t read, watch, or listen to, we stop trusting them to think for themselves. And that’s a bigger issue than any one book or creator.

If anything, we should be encouraging more critical engagement, not less. Let people read It Ends With Us and decide for themselves whether it romanticizes abuse because guess what? Many readers saw different versions of it. Different people take away different messages and that’s the whole point of art.

At the end of the day, art evolves. It grows beyond its creator. We’re allowed to love the magic and still call out the harm. We’re allowed to hold space for the impact something had , even when the artist failed us.

So no, separating the art from the artist isn’t forgetting what they did. It’s reclaiming what the art gave us, and that's something not many can do, but if you can, that's truly a quality to cherish!

Thank you for debating with us @flirtyfelons + tysm to the mods/judges!! may the best team winnn:)

Flirty Felon's closing statement.

To summarize, we firmly believe that art and the artist cannot—and should not—be separated. Every piece of art is a product of the artist’s lived experiences, beliefs, and intentions, and ignoring these elements diminishes the impact and meaning of the work. As consumers, when we engage with the art created by individuals with problematic views or actions, we inadvertently support and amplify those perspectives.

This is not about canceling all art or hiding away from work that has shaped our lives. It is about fostering an understanding that encourages accountability. We must recognize that our engagement with art has real consequences, especially in a world where platforms equal power.

By critically engaging with the works of controversial artists, we can raise awareness about their actions and challenge harmful ideologies while still appreciating the artistry involved. We encourage everyone to form their own opinions, understand the bigger picture, and participate in discussions that emphasize the importance of the values we stand for.

Criticism and awareness shouldn’t simply stop at the content of the art; they should extend to its creator. Conversations about art are essential, but they are incomplete without acknowledging who made it and the implications of their actions. We should encourage a discussion that holds both the art and the artist accountable for the impact they have on individuals and society as a whole.

When we assert that we can simply enjoy art regardless of its creator, we might inadvertently silence critical conversations. If we ignore the complexities, we risk perpetuating harmful narratives. Engaging critically with works like It Ends With Us means grappling with not only the themes presented but also the context of the author's beliefs and behavior.

At the end of the day, the value of art is intertwined with the values of its creator. Understanding that connection is part of what makes art meaningful. Acknowledging the artist doesn’t diminish the work; it enhances our appreciation and leads to deeper conversations about ethics, intention, and impact. So yes, choosing not to separate the art from the artist is not a limitation; it's a necessary step toward more honest engagement with both art and its consequences.

In this way, we honor the complexity of these discussions and acknowledge that while art can inspire, it can also perpetuate harm. We must advocate for artists whose work reflects positive values and we must confront the shortcomings of those who do not. Ultimately, supporting art means supporting the artist, and with that support comes the responsibility to ensure our voices uplift those we believe in, leading to a more conscious and compassionate creative community. Thank you.

I wish the debate had taken place during a more suitable time, but it was wonderful to debate against you, @Procrastinating Insomniacs. I want to thank you and the judges, of course and as you said, Annie. May the best team win!