Final answer:
While the financial burden of graffiti cleanup and its association with visual disorder support the claim for its condemnation and prohibition, the cultural significance, historical roots, and role of graffiti in social commentary provide a nuanced counterargument.
Step-by-step explanation:
The strongest evidence to support the claim that graffiti should be condemned and prohibited would likely focus on the negative impacts of graffiti, such as the financial costs for removal and the encouragement of further vandalism. Citing the example of the Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department spending around $130,000 in 2012 to remove graffiti could underscore the economic burden on communities. Moreover, the claim is further supported by the association of graffiti with visual disorder, which has been addressed by Zero-Tolerance Policing and the broken windows theory suggesting that addressing visual blights like graffiti can lead to positive reductions in crime rates without engendering community complaints. Additionally, the motivations behind graffiti, as outlined by programs like Graffiti Hurts, which include fame, rebellion, self-expression, and power, could alternatively be interpreted as graffiti acting as a form of artistic expression and political commentary, which complicates its outright condemnation.
On the other hand, the appreciation of graffiti as a form of street art and resistance, the insights it brings to social and political movements, as well as its historical roots and artistic value posit a counterargument to the claim by emphasizing its cultural significance and role in creating dialogue around important issues. The lucrative nature of graffiti in the art market in the past and the popularity of artists such as Banksy highlight the complexities in defining graffiti simply as vandalism. Street art has often been a medium that captures the public's attention and stirs conversations on societal values, making the argument for its prohibition more nuanced.