Graffiti can be art.

I had the feeling you wouldn't accept the change. I did agree to the debate and it doesn't change my arguments. Re-Rebuttal: Graffiti definition My definition for graffiti came from Merriam-Webster and, since my opponent used this same dictionary to define vandalism, I would believe my opponent's arguments against my definition being "false" are unjust. Since my opponent didn't provide a source for his/her definition I feel that it should be disregarded and not only should my definition be set as the definition for this debate, but all my opponent's arguments used with the other definition should be considered opinion and disregarded. Rebuttal 1: "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." I 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. Rebuttal 2: "Art is vague" 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. My opponent does not have the right to change the resolution of the debate by trying to claim that art can't be defined. If my opponent wanted to use his/her personal made up definitions then they should have been stated in his/her opening statement. According to the definition of art, "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." The significance of graffiti comes from the cost to the tax payers. San Francisco spends $20 million dollars a year on graffiti removal.(1) This causes the city to have to tax its innocent residents for crimes they haven't committed and to remove drawings and writings that they don't want. It also lowers housing values in the neighborhoods. Therefore any significance from the drawing has to be greater than the significance of it simply being vandalism needing to be removed. 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. http://foundsf.org... However, Costing innocent residents $20 million dollars a year, plus the loss of value of their property, is not appealing, beautiful, productive, or any of the other parts of the definition of art. That $20 million a year, is just the city of San Francisco. That doesn't count the costs in Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, or any other cities just in the bay area or throughout the country. Rebuttal 3: "Graffiti is different from vandalism." "Whereas vandalism would be: "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" [2]" 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. "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"." 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. Conclusion: 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 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. I personally offer a math and science tutoring service for low income students here in Oakland and all expenses come from my pocket because the city is too busy cleaning up after these vandals. However, if they weren't spending that money, I could possibly do group sessions at the local community center and not have to pay for it all myself. (1) http://www.sfdpw.org... (2) http://foundsf.org...