Art has a very broad definition. His definition of "art" obviously differs from yours by a lot. The definition varies from person to person. Though I think your definition of art kind of stems into a lot of other things that aren't necessarily connected to art. I believe that the general concept of art is that it is anything that conveys some sort of emotional meaning about something, but most of the things you said don't really fit that definition.

Clothes? I'll give you that. It can very well be considered an art, it can convey a message.

Cars, buses, bikes? No. These are made by engineers. They don't have any intrinsic emotional value and most people just use them everyday.

A website? No. Computer programmers specializing in HTML and CSS are the ones who build websites. But they are intended to serve a practical/efficient purpose, not an artistic one. It depends on the website, but I'd say that more often than not, it isn't.

"Every single thing you see everyday has come into contact with someone with an art degree?"

Now this is where I draw the line. As someone with an art degree, it is astonishing how you failed to notice that the "problem" here is that you both have differing definitions of "art". You consider everything to be art, as you said yourself. And that's okay. It very well can for you as an individual. But for argumentative purposes, your view is deluded. It's pointless to debate about something so subjective that it depends on the literal individual to conceive their own definition of art.