The Instigator
Teemo
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
philly1
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Graffiti can be art.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Teemo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,553 times Debate No: 51693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Teemo

Pro

This is a basic obvious resolution. I will be in favour of graffiti can be art. You will be against such. First round you state your opening statements, and the last round you only type "thanks for the debate". Failure to follow this rule will result in a 7 point loss, no exceptions.
philly1

Con

I accept this debate. However, I am narrowing the debate topic to "whether Graffiti is art" because "can be" is too opinionated and leaning too much in favor of my opponent's side.

Since my opponent didn't define any words I would like to take the time now to define the words used in this discussion.

graffiti is defined as "unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface"(1)

art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."(2)

My Opening Statement:
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.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Teemo

Pro

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...;
philly1

Con

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...
Debate Round No. 2
Teemo

Pro

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......

philly1

Con

thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 2 years ago
Brendan_Liam
IT might be the purest form of art if you think about it< as it is not motivated by money> that stops it from ever "selling out". It's liikely the only art form that has typically no intentions of trading one's artistry for money or goods-rather it seems like the most personal, pure, and real art there is. It's in the moment-erased tomorrow, yet they do it anyway. The crime issue runs to its favor In this regard, again showing its purity-that it doesn't even consider the rules and if anything challenges them. And art with rules, is art without a heart. Now that might not be fancy with a dictionary nod and all, but both your arguments were quite dry and boring.... argue something you're passionate about, dont give us some organized,canned argument that sounds read off a monitor by Ferris Bueller's teacher-he was very unexciteable.... Just sayin.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
it wasn't a joke debate.
Posted by philly1 3 years ago
philly1
It was equal, you were supposed to have your opening statement first. where you were supposed to define your terms. You used mirriam-webster for vandalism but then claimed mirriam-webster isn't as good as your personal definition of graffiti that you never gave, costing me a round. Also, if art can't be defined, then graffiti can neither be art nor not be art.

If this was a joke debate you should have said so, so that I could have had more fun with it.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
This only applies to you. The reason people do this is so that there are an equal amount of debate rounds. Now both of us had 2 rounds to debate, making it fair. And I said "you" implying the obvious.
Posted by philly1 3 years ago
philly1
You said "the last round you only type "thanks for the debate". Failure to follow this rule will result in a 7 point loss, no exceptions."

Are you going to take a 7 point loss?
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
dude grafitti can consists of drawings, which is part of art. This is stupid.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Teemophilly1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro was more compelling.
Vote Placed by Zendayalover156 3 years ago
Zendayalover156
Teemophilly1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I would give most of the points to Pro because he made that graffiti is art more convincing than what Con had to say. Also I think that Pro had more reliable resources