Resolved: The National Endowment for the Arts should not be funded by the Government

-I was questioning because I was actually curious" and I looked at all your links"for whatever reason the google one didn"t open. I"m assuming that is where the pdf is. "The Constitution does not name every specific thing our government cannot do, rather it gives outlines." -Exactly. It gives outlines! My comment about the Constitution is totally founded: the 10"th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The national endowment of the arts is not legal under the Constitution. -Congress is authorized many things ex: military and the protection of our country/troops. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the federal government is to sponsor the arts. Yet, we now have the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) which does just that. -The most important point is that the NEA is unconstitutional. If someone wants to produce a work of art, then that person can either fund it or find private investors. "Right, so let's start with the WHAT IF. I would have to ask why you say that is a big what if. According to one of my opponent's own links, the NEA gives out 3,000 grants every year. At 3,000 per year, don't you think we're going to end up helping someone who will 'make it big'?" -Maybe"but like I said, it"s not our job. More importantly it"s not within the realm of the government"s privileges. Why should we support this one job"and not every other American job?? -the NEA doesn"t even promise "making it big"" -Besides, what they actually accomplish is typically sick. (remember the examples I gave you) "These are grants that, if you check their site, you will see anyone can apply for[1]. So you could be a poor kid with a dream to go to some kind of arts camp. Or you could be an arts camp looking to get money to give away as grants as they see fit. You apply for a grant, get some money, and suddenly, the fact that you were born into a poor family does not mean you have any less chance of happiness than a child born into a rich family, arts-wise (this is similar to school lunches, the government subsidizes the cost of lunch for poorer kids). Essentially, with this measure, we're ensuring people have a fair shot at pursuing happiness. " -Do you want to know what these art grants are doing? Here are some MORE examples: "Piss Christ," a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine, by Andres Serrano, who had received a $15,000 grant from the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art which in turn received funding from the NEA. Photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe titled "The Perfect Moment." This exhibit was arranged by the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania using $30,000 of an NEA grant. The exhibit included homoerotic photographs, images of sadomasochism and, child pornography. Karen Finley, a stage actress, used an NEA grant to produce a play in which she poured chocolate syrup over her own nude body. -Besides the fact that the NEA is "granting" this type of "art"there are many other ways to get money. Not just NEA. -Furthermore, the NEA isn"t the only way to happiness either. (There are many other ways to be happy"trust me) -And"We don"t have to do any of this"it"s not the government"s job to begin with. "On to the callous throwaway of a statement that 'art will be fine, it always has been'. First off, the statement that art has prevailed throughout history does not reveal the fact that art has always been supported by government in some form (what, never seen a painting of a King?)." -This is America. Do we have a King? Use examples that are applicable to the U.S. And"that honestly proved my point even further. Not only is art prevalent in the U.S. history"but ALL around the globe. -And yes, art has prevailed"continues to, IN AMERICA. Art doesn"t need someone"s money to keep it going. Art will prevail no matter if we take our funding away from the NEA"movies will still be produced, there will still be paintings and photographs. "But that is inconsequential. My opponent says that art will continue, or at least, she's 'pretty sure'." -You yourself agreed with this. I myself am positive. Art is a way of life"just like breathing, eating, and reading. Art will continue. "While it may be true that art would continue, we have to consider in what form it will continue." -Form? I have already said how pitiful and sick the "art" is that we are supporting. The art will be everywhere. The NEA is NOT the only supplier of "art." "Less grant money means less children of unfortunate circumstances getting to realize their true passions, less grant money means less smaller, local organizations being able to use grant money to get something of their own started." -I"m sorry but where did you get this? Do you have any proof that children will be more unfortunate? -Children were fine (if not better off) before NEA and they will be okay after the NEA doesn"t get support from American citizens. Kids can find happiness without people getting taxed for it. "If you look at the site again, specifically here[2], you will see that there will be less noteworthy artists who are able to continue their work. Basically, the NEA is supporting the joy of people." -Wonderful! I never said that the NEA needs to be abolished! Just we (government) don"t have to give it money"Plus it legally shouldn"t be allowed to. NEA isn"t gonna drop off the face of the earth. "My opponent is saying this in response to my statement that 'by supporting art, we support our culture and with that, we support our own happiness'. She completely ignores this. -YOU were the one that didn"t reply to the fact that the artwork that the "artists" are giving is horrific. It is offensive and gross. Many people aren"t given "happiness" when they look at it. -We don"t need to be forced to support anything that we don"t want to. It should be optional"if someone wants to support, by all means let them! "My opponent seems to have an image of the government giving money to failing painters so they can keep getting their crappy paintings put in art galleries." -You STILL HAVE NOT refuted that there are not "crappy paintings." I don"t think you honestly think that those examples should ever be labeled as art. -You can"t just do whatever you want and stamp it as "art." -I never said all the art was crap"but most of it is extremely controversial and very offensive. "That is not the case. As I have already outlined, the NEA does a lot of investment type donating. -So will they no longer be able to donate if we stop giving them money? Do you actually know what they are donating to? I hope you remember my examples"because I"m not going to say it another time and you dismiss it again. "They will give grants to growing organizations, they will give grants to children who will go on to discover a life passion, they may very well have a hand in inspiring the next big movie star or famous singer. So to say that 'they need to stand on their own or fail' shows a misunderstanding. A child cannot 'stand on his/her own or fail' in regards to going to an arts camp, how are they supposed to have the money for that? How is it their fault that they were born into a poor family?" -You are stretching it a lot"this emotion is"pathetic. This is kinda copied and pasted from a soap opera script. Kids have other (if not better) ways of learning art. Kids can receive happiness in other ways! "The fact is, the NEA provides opportunity to those who would never have had it otherwise." -You still haven"t given what their opportunity is, and haven"t refuted the examples that completely reject this. "We can too afford it. This program costs taxpayers 63 cents every year[3][4][5]. You are willing to pay 63 cents once every 365 days to ensure that people can live happily, and that our culture will receive new pieces of art to take joy in, aren't you?" -You didn"t look (OR REFUTE) at the fact that we are in deep debt. - 316.13 million people live in the US. All those people add up. So does the money"That money can definately go somewhere else. "If people are needing these grants, then clearly, they are down to their last discourse." -That isn"t true. There are some people that are categorized as LAZY. Just because you get a grant doesn"t mean you are in poverty. Who wouldn"t choose the easy way out? If you were going to receive thousands of dollars"who wouldn"t take it? "Next I'd like to briefly comment on the 5 examples my opponent has brought up of, at least in her eyes, questionable use of money. -I"m sorry five examples wasn"t enough for you. Yet"you haven"t given me one. I"ve already given you MORE examples of what the grants are going for. I already addressed the whole congress issue. It shouldn"t be allowed in the first place. "If my opponent has a problem with wasteful government spending, she should look elsewhere, as this is a very, very small arm of the government." -I already addressed this. The money adds up. There are about a thousand other things that the Government needs to be focused on that is more important than supporting something that is going to be fine on its own. Side Note: The NEA required all grant recipients to certify in advance that none of the funds would be used "to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which in the judgment of the NEA " may be considered obscene." To Summarize: The NEA shouldn"t be funded for 3 reasons: 1.Not the Government/Our job 2.The art is sick, graphic, and inappropriate (offensive) 3.The Government can use the money in some other way Thanks for the debate.