Money wasted on art works is absurd

Now, I shall go over my opponents attacks, then I will review my own case and close. First of all, I would like to ask my opponent to refrain from swearing. Seriously dude, you don't need to curse to prove your point. My grandpa is an artist, and I don't think he has ever been wealthy. Well lets go back to the importance of value. An artist spent 20 or so years making a wonderful work of art. Many people see its value and want to buy it. This work of art is like the artists baby, you could say. It seems like the art and the artist are almost the same. They feel as one with another, or so the artist feels. Even though they need the money, it would still be kind of hard to part with your creation. That's why the price is so high. The value of the creation to the creator is almost too high to part with. The guy that dug up the old painting did not create the painting. Therefore, any intelligent person and good willed person would give it to a museum or the artists family. But selling it would just be stupid. That would be like if you gave your teacher homework that isn't yours and has a different name on it. If you are not a credible source you won't get an exchange of value. Also, why do you think that anyone who likes art is a filthy rich scum bag? I like art and I can see the symbolism in it and I can barley afford my own car. My opponent seems to have failed to defend his point on graffiti. Sure, you could find a way to bootleg sell it, but that just diminishes the value. Also, the only gang signs I see are offensive. Its not like a gang is going to be a happy group of people that does community service by drawing cool gang signs. In fact, they are quite the opposite. When you are in an all out war with the police and other gangs, I don't think you will be spray painting very nice things. Obviously, my opponent decided to remain in ignorance and not view the painting from a different perspective. My opponent is not looking at the true value, he is looking for some kind of amazing thing that you can see from a glance. For example, If my opponent were to look at a fork he would see a pointy metal thingy with no value at all. But, obviously, we all see a fork to be a tool of great value when we are enjoying a meal. So, what I'm trying to tell my opponent is that you can't come down to a conclusion on something just from seeing one point of view of it. You need to see all sides of the story to properly comprehend the value of something. A majority does not decide what is good or bad. Your conscience does that. And who said that most of the majority believes in your opinion? I don't need some rich dude to tell me what symbolism is in a painting because I can find it for myself. If a rich man told you the sky was yellow would you believe him? Of course not. When we talk about symbolism in a painting, we don't see it there because a rich man said it was there. We see symbolism because we have eyes of our own and consciences of our own to see it for ourselves. We aren't as idiotic as goldfish. When I gave the book example, I wasn't specifically talking about the grammar. I was talking about the value. If people see that your trashy book doesn't have value, they won't buy it. The same goes with your trashy painting. You can lie all you want, But any intelligent person could see that you have no value for your painting and that you are just trying to make a quick buck. People have done that too. Its called con selling and usually only easily led people fall for it. Yet again, my opponent has decided to remain in ignorance when it comes to the Mona Lisa. I'm not giving you random reasons, those are the actually descriptions and characteristics of the painting. I advise you to actually look at the painting instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion. Also, its not considered plagiarism when you are influenced by something. In fact, it has nothing to do with plagiarism. If I read an inspirational quote and was influenced to do something good, should I be charged with plagiarism. No. Plagiarism, is to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas. Artist can use some of the great techniques used in the Mona Lisa for their painting, but they can't copy Mona Lisa entirely and say that it is their own. And for some reason, I guess painting is all about women for some reason, according to my opponent. What I said was that the Mona Lisa uses mathematical and artistic advancements that were never used before. So that's why the Mona Lisa was such a great addition to culture and history. Many paintings have already been photocopied and mass produced. Including the Mona Lisa, which sells at $5.02 dollars now on amazon. It seems like my opponent has completely ignored the importance of value also. Sure, a book a unique, but anyone can write a decent book. But it takes more talent to create a work of art. Also art includes many emotions that can't be expressed through writing. They won't let you touch the paintings because they are very valuable and rubbing your grimy hands all over them shows that you have no respect for the value of the painting. If you went there just to touch the paintings and not to experience the true values of the works of art, then you truly are a victim of extreme ignorance. You can't really give money to dead people, sorry to tell you that. But before an artist dies he/she usually entrust all of his/her works of art to someone he/she knows will take care of it. Art is a time traveling device for all. The guardian isn't an opinion, it is just describing what the painting is symbolizes. It's not sarcastic at all, you're just viewing it in a sarcastic way. It doesn't imply in any way the the painting was a waste of money either. The caveman did give true prices, but it did give the opinion that they are "Ridiculous pieces of art". The caveman circus isn't as much of a credible source of information at the guardian is either. But anyways, I guess we aren't debating on whose source is better, so I will just leave it at that. I will now review my own case. Value: Importance of value. Value, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means relative worth, utility, or importance. Contention 1: Importance. Importance, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, means value or significance. Art is a very valuable thing because many artists have suffered for their art. Contention 2: Contention 2: History. Art is literally a definition of a culture. Our art will be a time traveling device for people of future times. It will show our history, culture, and families. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the the negative side of this debate. Art is a very important and valuable part of our culture that we should recognize and respect instead of ignoring and despising it. I would like to thank you for your time and for this debate. I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Sources: https://www.amazon.com... Here is my grandfather who was an artist. http://www.deseretnews.com...