args

Graffiti can be art.

Flaws in my opponent's arguments I wonder if my opponent noticed these. There are many flaws in his arguments. He is playing the semantics card, and either way it isn't working Definitions don't always need a source, sometimes they are created personally but are still acceptable Just because something is bad, doesn't make it not art My opponent proved absolutely nothing thus far, and won't be able to since next round he is not allowed to make any arguments whatsoever. So I would like to quickly point these out before I begin with my rebuttals. Rebuttals " have no idea what my opponent is saying in the first two sentences. However, for the rest of the statement, according to the definition of graffiti, it must be on a public surface to be considered graffiti. a piece of paper is not a public surface and therefore a drawing on a piece of paper is not, by definition, graffiti." This is comepletly irrelevant. Graffiti according to your definition is a public surface, however this is not true. You cannot use your definition to protect all your arguments, because it is false. Graffiti can be drawn on paper. It is a style of art, or writing, not just a form of vandalism. So because of such, it can be written on paper, and therefore an art. "This first paragraph has no basis behind it and should be considered solely an attempt by my opponent to increase the broadness of this debate more in his/her favor. Since there is a definition, this debate should follow by this definition. " Once again, my opponent fails to understand that he can't hide behind his definitions, this is playing by semantics, one of the lamest ways possible to debate, unless of course you are trolling. Art is subjective, so anything and everything can be art. You definition is just how someone percieves it, however it is completley subjective. Because of such, anything can be art, and graffiti is just one fo those things. "My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined." Actually, I can, considering art is subjective. You can't rely on 1 definition, considering there are thousands of definitions out there, so we are to go along with the fact that art is subjective, therefore anything can be art. Here is a simple explanation to prove it. War does not fit into your definition of art, however Sun Tzu wrote a book entitled "the art of war", implying there is art in war. So as you can see, the definition is not important, because art is seen in many ways. So if someone were to see graffiti as an art, which I do, it automatically proves my point that graffiti can be an art. "That picture provided is nice. However, my opponent has not proven that this picture is "graffiti". I went to the site provided and it doesn't mention it being unauthorized. This could be an authorized mural. The following website is a building in the Mission District of San Francisco that is a mural, not graffiti. These types of works can be found all over the bay area and are considered art.T" What my opponent fails to notice is that graffiti isn't only vandalism. Graffiti is actually a art style. [1] This style includes interresting fonts. Sometimes it is on streets, but sometimes it is on paper. Even if this were a mural, it is drawn in graffiti style, making it graffiti. "I accept this definition for vandalism because it was reliably sourced. This definition of vandalism is almost the exact same as graffiti. Because graffiti is unauthorized drawings, it is therefore malicious destruction of public property. Therefore, my opponent's contention is false because according to the definitions, graffiti is always vandalism even though vandalism might not always be graffiti." As shown above, I have already proven that graffiti isn't always vandalism, but actually a art style. "Once again, since this does not fit the definition of graffiti, this should be disregarded. Drawing on a poster for an art class is not an unauthorized drawing on public property." Once again, your definition is false, and should not be used. I have already proven graffiti is a style, so if drawn on paper, it is still graffiti, but not illegal. "It is unreasonable for me to explain every piece of graffiti ever made. Since it is more reasonable for my opponent to simply show one piece of graffiti that could be art to disprove me, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Because my opponent did not provide a single example of a piece of art that actually fit the definition of graffiti, my opponent has failed to prove that "graffiti can be art". I have already proven various graffiti painting are art. Also, even if illegal and wrong, it is still art, because everything is art. I have already proven that graffiti can possibly be art. Because of such, my point is proven. "I have proven that graffiti cannot be art, but is rather a selfish act of vandalism that will only have negative results on the community. It forces the community to clean up after others rather than spending the money on community centers, or other services that could improve the lives of its residents." Did you really now? You did not prove anything, you stated personal opinion. You dropped so many of my arguments, just because they didn't match the definitions that we did not agree upon. You have forgotten to rebuttal the fact that just because something is wrong does not render it no longer art. Even if something is wrong, it can still be art. Because of such, this points is irrelevant. CONCLUSION What did I prove? I proved everything can be art, regardless of the biased definitions my opponent presented. Anything can be art, since art is subjective. Regardless of the ethics behind it, it is still art. Furthermore, if someone were to draw graffiti on paper, it is acceptable, yet still graffiti. So in the end, this all proves that graffiti can be an art. What did my opponent try to prove? He tried to prove it is not art because it is wrong. I have already explained how even if it is right or wrong, it can still be art. Sun Tzu was my main example of such. He didn't prove anything, and he hid solely behind the definitions he presented, even though they were unfair. I did not agree with those definitions, and so I created mroe resonable ones, backed up by proof. In the end, I proved that graffiti is an art style. So it is already art. It can be illegal, but that does not shread away the fact that it is artisitic. Anything can be art, and so graffiti can be art, so the resolution is upheld. I would like to remind voters and my opponent that he is not permitted to rebuttal, or create any arguments any longer. He is only permitted to write "Thanks for the debate". If he does not do so, or even slightly creates a slight way to counter or make any new arguments, he must endure the full point forfeit. Source: 1.http://weburbanist.com......