args

Graffiti can be art.

You may not change the resolution. Because of such, the debate stands at "Graffiti can be art". Since you accepted the debate, you accepted going against the resolution, therefore you have no right to alter it to fit your standards. REBUTTALS "By definition, graffiti is unauthorized and therefore is a crime. If the drawing is authorized then it is called a mural, which is defined as "a large picture painted or affixed directly on a wall or ceiling."(3) To clarify my statement, I am saying that graffiti is by definition a crime. If the drawing is authorized it is classified as a mural, otherwise it is defacing someone else's property and cannot be considered art." The obvious answer as always. And as always, completly false. Graffiti is also a form of art, drawing letters into a specific shape in order to make it more appealing. Because of such, if someone were to draw graffiti on a piece of paper, not only is it art, but legal. Contention 1: Art is vague Though art has a definition, it is not good enough to support what art truly is. Art is so vague, and can mean many things. Because of such, the expression "anything can be art" is correct. Art isn't just drawing, painting, singing etc.. but it can also be robbing, assasinating, killing and vandalizing. Since art is so vague, everything can be art, and graffiti is not an exception. And by looking at the definitions, it is still art. Let us use the definitions you used for example. Art "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Graffiti "unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface" Even though your graffiti definition is completly false, it still matches the definition of art. Graffiti is quality, it is production, it is expression against the law, it is realm, has aesthetic principles, in many cases beautifull since it is subjective, can apeal people and has more than just a ordinary significance. Even though it is illegal, it still matches the definition of art. Where does it say "things that are illegal can't be art" in the dictionnary? Graffiti. [1] Contention 2: Graffiti is different from vandalism. Graffiti, if we were to use a proper definition, unlike my opponent would be: " A form of writing or drawing something specifically on a surface" Whereas vandalism would be: "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" [2] Though graffit can be used as vandalism, it isn't always. It is used to make posters, to draw for art class, to have fun with. Because of such, it can be art. Therefore I have already upheld my side of the resolution "graffiti can be art". CONCLUSION In conclusion, since anything can be art, graffiti can be art. Graffiti isn't always wrong, since it can be done legally. I have proved that graffiti can be art, whereas my opponent shared his personal opinion that if it's wrong it can't be art. Killing is wrong, robbing is wrong, but it is still an art. I have countered my opponent's arguments, and created 2 new firm ones, proving my side of the debate. The debate topic will stay at "Graffiti can be art" and will not be changed at all. Sources: 1.http://meganmidnight.wordpress.com... 2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...