DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

Pro: 1a. The mining occurring in the Grand Canyon is minimal, and quite possibly non-existent. The article details instances of past mining, and indicates that only one mine is currently in operation, the 'Nelson Mine'. http://www.suite101.com... Though said mine was active 12 years ago (the publication date of the article is 1997), a Google search yields little evidence of its existence. http://www.google.de... mine. Uranium mining occurred in the past, but has been discontinued. http://www.grandcanyontreks.org... Further, the mining of uranium causes substantial contamination. Mining would increase exponentially, were the mine privatized. The underground point is unwarranted, as my opponents source is an elementary school lesson plan, utilizing iron filings and a plastic swimming pool. http://minerals.state.nv.us... Also, underground mining is a contributor to pollution. http://www.google.de...= (1st link) 1b. First, the institution of mass transit would be a expansion of infrastructure, which would have negative ecological implications. In fact, the furtherance of mass transit has been opposed partially due to this. http://www.grandcanyontreks.org... The source further states that the cost is prohibitive, suggesting that the endeavour is unprofitable. As for water consumption, the source refers to the industry as a whole. The Grand Canyon is likely to be afflicted by tourists to a greater extent. Further, my opponents 20% figure is unfounded. 1c. The source is fairly biased, as any marketing company would espouse the virtues of their product. Using this warrant is akin to using statements by McDonald's to support the claim that McDonald's food is 'high quality'. http://www.mcdonalds.com... 1d. Terribly sorry, I did indeed overlook the warrant. However, the warrant refers to purchases made by environmentalists. http://www.cato.org... Of course, environmentalists would lessen access to the Grand Canyon, negating my opponents advocacy. Further, it does not refer to the Grand Canyon. 2a. Tourist traffic certainly has a negative impact. http://www.rff.org... Also, any industrialization will be harmful to the local environment, as well as scientific and cultural resources. 2b. Not all of the park is accessible. "Much of the Canyons 1.2 million acres is inaccessible to vacationers..." http://www.papillon.com... 3a. How does your case show that government ownership is inherently negative? 3b. Alright. Sale price is significant, as it determines the Grand Canyon's value at sale, versus its long-term value. 3c. Public demand is currently being met. How is this not so? Again, my opponent assumes that increased tourism is inherently good (the harms are present in my case). He further assumes that the highest bidder would be a tourism company, as opposed to a mining company, or a foreign government. 1. Of course the government ought not acquire Disney World. Its cultural resources are being built rather than being put at risk. Further, it is private property. The Mississippi River is arguable. At any rate, the government owns the Grand Canyon as status quo. The burden of proof lies with my opponent. 1a. My opponent fails to address the ecological harms, and therefore concedes them. Research is unlikely to continue at its current level under a private company. While the purpose of a private university is education and research, a company is directed toward profit. 1b. Essentially, same argument, in regards to culture. 1c. Of course, species like the California Condor would be protected in the interests of tourism. http://www.nps.gov... However, other, less tourist-pleasing organisms would lack protection. A decline in biodiversity would result, with terrible consequences. http://www.greenfacts.org... My opponent's warrant on subsidence is invalid, as the legislation applies only to coal mines. http://www.ens-newswire.com... 2. I am referring to a direct bid by a government, not a forfeiture of property by an individual. My opponent's definition abusively narrows the scope of the resolution. A bidder is any entity that places a bid, as implied by the addition of the suffix -er to bid. My opponent's definition would further exclude corporations. 3. I never stated that land claims were violated. My opponent's warrant, once again, is not specific, or applicable to the Grand Canyon. http://www.rff.org... My claims of pollution are indeed valid. http://www.idrc.ca... 4. The Grand Canyon remains a net asset. http://www.idrc.ca... This is conceded. Ergo, this point still holds weight for Con. My opponent's case hinges on the assumption that a tourism company would purchase the Grand Canyon, as opposed to some other entity. He has not proven this assumption. Your turn to debate sir.