DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

First, the affirmative case: 1a. Underground mining would most likely be utilized because it can be done without harming the beauty of the Grand Canyon. The best of both worlds, it would be. My opponent has not proposed another way that mining would likely occur, and has essentially conceded this point. Further, the United States government regulates mining activity from causing surface subsidence . http://www.onemine.org..., and air and water pollution . http://www.idrc.ca.... My opponent's source regarding underground mining causing pollution was referring to the vastly unregulated South African mining industry . http://soer.deat.gov.za.... Assuming that the GC is privatized, more regulation would likely follow to further limit the effects of mining on the environment, because environmentalists don't want harm to come to the GC . http://arizona.sierraclub.org... . http://www.gp.org..., and would certainly begin advocating even stricter environmental regulations. So, there is little to no real environmental concern with privatizing the Grand Canyon. 1b. First, my opponent's source does not claim, as he says it does, that the cost is prohibitive . http://www.grandcanyontreks.org.... Second, the 20% estimate refers to the increase in tourism that my opponent has now both complained as too low and too high. Third, my opponent's claim of the Grand Canyon's especial vulnerability in water consumption is unwarranted. 1c. My opponent has conceded that marketing would likely increase the tourist population. My opponent's [unwarranted] simile is like comparing a dandelion to a scorpion. Using similes in rebuttals is like sweeping dust under the rug. 1d. Cato's article . http://www.cato.org... is indeed referring to the Grand Canyon. Also, my opponent's claim that environmentalists would lessen the access to the GC is unwarranted. 2a. All of the impacts of tourism listed are minor . http://www.rff.org..., and a slight increase would not be harmful. 2b. The source is likely referring to the Indian Reservations, which are off-limits to vacationers either way . http://www.papillon.com.... Also, even if there was an area that wasn't accessible, it would still be visible to the tourists, which would be enough to keep tourism companies from mining the area. 3a. It shows that it just isn't as good as it could be, like a 7-minute mile. 3b. My opponent's concern of sale price is also insignificant, as the government isn't some stock broker. The U. S government's purpose has been established . http://www.archives.gov..., and government's purpose is obviously not to make some investment or profit. 3c. Public demand is not being met as well as a company would. A good example would be the skywalk . http://www.grandcanyonskywalk.com..., which had to be privately built. 3d. I have done research concerning potential buyers of the Grand Canyon. The world's largest mining company . http://www.miningmx.com..., BHP Billiton, would most definitely buy up the Grand Canyon. BHP Billiton has said, "[We will] Respect national conservation strategies and work with host governments regarding the protection of areas of high conservation value. " . http://www.bhpbilliton.com... So, BHP Billiton is certainly a company that can be trusted with the Grand Canyon, as this phrase "areas of high conservation value" certainly refers to areas of lesser conservation value than the Grand Canyon. BHP works to reduce pollution in its economic activities . http://www.bhpbilliton.com.... BHP also has other high environmental standards when mining. It also has to comply with government regulations. For these reasons and the profitability of tourism, there is no true environmental concern. [4] My opponent has conceded that privatizing the Grand Canyon would bring more revenue into the United States. To the NEG case: 1. My opponent drops his argument here. 1a-b. The ecological arguments were acknowledged earlier. I had not dropped them. My opponent does not warrant his claim that scientific research would be hindered. My opponent acknowledges that companies are directed towards profit. This is not a concern that would cause the owner of the Grand Canyon to limit or restrain research. 1c. The source regarding subsidence does not say that the law ONLY applies to coal mines, but that it affects coal mines. The regulation applies to ALL underground mining . http://www.onemine.org.... My opponent's biodiversity argument defies its own premise. If destroying biodiversity has negative effects, especially on the environment . http://www.greenfacts.org..., then biodiversity will be preserved in private interest. My opponent has already conceded this. See PRO Contention 2. 2. My opponent's definition is unwarranted, so mine stands. Corporations have a chief executive officer that can bid on their behalf. . http://economics.about.com... Also, should a government decide to buy the Grand Canyon [through an individual, like a president], the land would still be part of the United States (my opponent has conceded this); therefore, there is no threat to national security, just as there is no threat to national security when foreign investors buy property. 3. My opponent has conceded this point: water rights will be respected with or without government ownership. Pollution concerns are already addressed elsewhere, as the federal government regulates water pollution . http://www.pollutionissues.com.... 4. I conceded no such thing. Further, my opponent's source does not warrant his claim. Also, my opponent has conceded that the United States has no need for the Grand Canyon as an asset. Another challenge to this point is that governments should not own assets and the means of production, a. k. a. capital . http://dictionary.reference.com.... Communism, when the government owns capital . http://www.businessdictionary.com..., is not warranted in the United States Constitution . http://www.archives.gov.... My opponent provides no justification for government owning capital, not even for a source of revenue, Which I have already argued against. BHP will buy up the Grand Canyon, mine from it with minimal environmental impact, and still ensure, if not increase the benefits of tourism to our nation. The economic benefits (increased revenue, increased accessible mineral quantity, increased employment) are significant, and the concerns, when examined, are insignificant, if not non-existent. Thank you, and I will now open the floor for my opponent.