DDODCL Season 1 Debate: Team Sine Nomine VS Team Thrawn

Thanks, Con.Given that we have only 1 speech left, Con shouldn't be allowed to address dropped points or make new arguments. If Con did this, it'd give us precious little space to respond and it gives Con more rounds to defend his points than we'd have to rebut them. Plus, it is standard operating procedure in debate to treat drops as concessions.DEFINITIONS/BOPOughtCon's analysis here is contradictory. Con writes first that "[u]sing ought outside of it's moral realm in this case would be much more relevant." Then Con suggests in his final sentence that it is Pro's burden to demonstrate that the Government does have a moral burden to fund the arts, and it is Con's job to show that this is not the case. Con cannot advocate for ought meaning something other than moral obligation, but then suggest that Pro must defend a moral obligation to uphold the resolution. We accept Con's proffered definition of ought; this means we must show that public funding for art is "advisable."BOPCon suggests that "[i]n most normative debate resolutions" the BOP is shared. But, Con completely disregards our earlier analysis: "If 3 art projects are publicly funded by society, it is true to say that society publicly funds art. Similarly, if 3 art projects should be publicly funded by society, it is true to say that society ought to publicly fund art." In other words, if society ought to publicly fund even 1 art project, society ought to publicly fund art. Con did absolutely no work to try to rebut the logic we presented. Because Con drops this, they cannot argue for any public funding for art.Con claims this is unfair, as it restricts his ground. That's false. Con could've taken a libertarian/minarchist, or capitalist position. He could've argued that government influence on art was dangerous to free expression (or other gov disads). He could've argued art was too subjective a good for government to justifiable support. That we boxed Con out of one course of action doesn't mean we unfairly restricted his ground, esp. when all those options and more remained open to him. Also, the resolution lacks an "on balance" clause.Society/Public FundingThere are several distinct reasons why you should buy that the Pro team is defending government spending, and the Con team is arguing for the elimination of government spending.Firstly, "society" typically acts through the mechanism of government. A society, because it is a collective, must have a process through which it can make decisions and it must have a means of mobilizing its diverse resources to implement its decisions. It is the purpose of government to do exactly that. In the U.S. for instance, the democratic process (as administered by government)--whether by voting in referenda or electing representatives who then make laws--is the means through which our society makes decisions and implements those decisions. For instance, society administers programs like social security, subsidies for industries (like the art industry), and the military through the government. Furthermore, when we use the term "public funding" or refer to "public funds" in English, one is referring to government money/tax-dollars. This is the common understanding of the term. For example, "publicly funding of campaigns," means "that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections." [1] When we talk about public funding for planned parenthood or abortion services [2], public funding for education [3], or even public funding for sports stadiums [4], we are discussing government or tax money. In fact, "public" is defined as "of, relating to, paid for by, or working for a government" [5] and "public funds" more specifically is defined as "Money that is generated by the government to provide goods and services to the general public." [6] Clearly, the phrase "public funds" is most reasonably interpreted to mean government funds.Moreover, after scouring literature on public funding for the arts, I cannot find sources that support the claim that "public funding" means anything other than government/tax money. Open each of our sources from the last round, and you will see that--in the context of the arts--public funding is synonymous government funding.So, not only does Con's analysis not comport with (a) the common usage of the term "public funding," (b) the role of the government, and (c) the dictionary definition of "public funding," but it also (d) does not fit within the context of the scholarly debate on public funding of the arts.To also address where Con writes: "By society, Con take this to mean that public citizens should not be funding art." This is incoherent. First, the resolution talks about "public funding" not "public citizens." And, "public citizens" would still refer to elected officials, as opposed to "private citizens" [7] who are not elected officials. I don't think either team believes that "public funding" means "funding from the personal pocketbooks of elected officials." Second, public funding is a set phrase that denotes government spending. The resolution is thus more reasonably rephrased as "society, through the mechanism of government, ought to fund art." ARGUMENTSC1. Art/FS/DemSPA. More Speech = BetterCon drops/concedes our main point re: increasing speech. This is important because they are not just conceding that free speech matters, but that maximizing speech and opportunities for speech is desirable. The argument we advanced here is not just that free speech should be protected, but that it should be actively encouraged, because only by enabling counter-narratives to occur, can we challenge dominant (potentially false/oppressive) narratives. Thus, if we can show that a world with public funding for art creates more platforms, opportunities, or means of dissemination for art/speech, than a world without public funding, then we are already gaining an advantage over Con.SPB. Public Funding = More SpeechCon drops that public funding increases the platforms, opportunities, and means of dissemination for art and speech. By extending this in conjunction with C1, SPA, you already have your first reason to vote Pro: (P1) we should create more opportunities for speech, (P2) public funding creates more opportunities for speech, therefore (C) we should publicly fund art.Con suggests also that "'public funding' could also be limited to the more important works like the war veteran Memorial." Obviously, governments have limited caches of wealth to distribute, so some discrimination is necessary, but the more selective governments become, the more exclusive speech becomes; this is bad, because it prevents the clash of narratives discussed earlier. The more we prioritize "important" projects, the more we impose our own value systems onto what art should be allowed in the public domain. Vigorous debate suffers under more stringent vetting processes for what can be discussed.Also, if you buy our BOP analysis, then Con's support for funding the war memorial is cause to vote Pro.SPC. Democratizing ArtCon accuses us of lacking "real life substantive examples." It sounds like Con wants me to use anecdotal evidence to prove a generality (i.e. that elite money dominates/biases the art world). If we offered anecdotes, we'd invariably be accused of cherry-picking. Moreover, particular examples are not needed or useful in warranting a general claim about how groups of people act because such examples don't show trends. In other words, Con's request here is absolutely nonsensical. Our evidence, taken from a reliable source, indicated that "Different types of donors favour different things...'Taxpayers with incomes over $1m tend to favour higher education, health, and the arts.'" Con can access the academic research The Economist cited here. [8] This paper adds, "Owing mainly to these preference patterns and the sheer magnitude of donations made by high-income individuals...the totals given to education, health, and the arts depend almost exclusively on gifts from the affluent." [8] This empirical data proves that the elites are the primary funders of art. This creates massive potential for bias, because elites are likely going to pick art that appeals to narratives they approve of and because artists in search of funding are going to try to curry favor with elites in order to get money.Con asking me to provide an example of this type of art is equally vacuous; it should be obvious that any kind of speech can convey a biased message. However, one hypothetical example would be an artist who makes art highly critical of the wealthy suddenly finding all of his rich donors vanishing, leading him to lack the capital to continue to create and exhibit his artwork. Thus, relying on the private sector causes artists to be beholden unto the mega-rich, making it more difficult for counter-narratives that go against elite interests to be represented in the art community.Con never questions that the government can help solve this problem, only that the problem exists. Since the problem exists, and since Con dropped that public funding contributes to solvency, there's another reason to vote Pro.C2. and C3.Con puts all his cards on the definitional debate. If you buy our arguments on the definition, then these contentions flow through as reasons to vote Pro.Regarding C3, we don't need to show a "complete shutdown" of art; merely, we need to show that we are maximizing access to art (and thus the right to culture) in order to gain an advantage over Con. More access > less access.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, we affirm. Thanks!