DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

1a. Mining can occur in multiple ways, surface, and underground being two of the more common methods. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(soft_rock) Historically, the two most valuable, mined resources in the Grand Canyon are limestone and uranium. http://www.suite101.com... Limestone is mined via "open-pit", a surface method. This presents a number of hazards, including the introduction of toxic sulphides and acidic groundwater. http://en.wikipedia.org... Acid runoff degrades local geological features, along with harming the local ecology. In this circumstance, subsidence is inapplicable. My opponent's source contains no mention of sulphides, and only mentions acid runoff in order to imply that it is of secondary priority to the United States government, as quoted from a scholarly source. http://www.idrc.ca... With the problem of limestone surface mining unsolved, we move to that of uranium, mined typically from an open-pit. Thus, the above harms also apply to uranium mining. My opponent has further failed to address the specific harms of mining uranium, via open-pit, or underground methods. The contamination resultant from uranium mining has been cited as one of the greatest risks to Grand Canyon National Park, and that's simply within the local watershed, let alone mining within the park itself. http://www.ens-newswire.com... My opponent cannot prove increased regulation, nor can I disprove it, as the matter is one of speculation. However, the mining industry, being rather large, has a competing lobby. http://en.wikipedia.org... Ergo, current mining regulation is likely the ultimate compromise reached between the two groups. As for the Green Party no currently elected members of the Legislature. Mining would undoubtedly increase, given the potential profit, and the harms which I've demonstrated would be present to a significant extent. 1b. It indeed states that cost is prohibitive: "The legislators said the park may have overestimated the number of tourists expected over the next decade and noted that light rail might be too expensive." http://www.grandcanyontreks.org... My opponent still fails to warrant his 20% figure, and thus, it carries no weight in this round. In regards to water consumption, the Grand Canyon is a massive tourist attraction. Ergo, its concentration of tourists is relatively large in comparison to other areas of the United States, and has a proportional amount of water usage. 1c. My opponent's warrant is entirely illegitimate, as it is, simply, a marketing company stating that marketing has a positive impact. There is clear bias present. At any rate, the Grand Canyon is already marketed by the National Parks Service. http://www.grandcanyon.com... 1d. The specific statement that is under consideration does not refer directly to the Grand Canyon. http://www.cato.org... Obviously, environmentalists act in the interest of the environment, not that of profit. This negates my opponent's entire advocacy, though it is unlikely that environmentalists would be the high bidders. http://www.sierragrouponline.com... 2a. Neither air nor water pollution are 'minor' problems. http://www.rff.org... A slight increase would certainly be harmful. 2b. Much of the Grand Canyon is "inaccessible by foot", and only a single tour company provides visibility of the entire canyon. http://www.papillon.com... Thus, it is apparent that mining certain areas will yield more profit than failing to do so. 3a. Alright, this is more a impact of your case than a separate point, so I essentially address it by addressing your other points. 3b. The government's responsibility is to provide necessary services. Any policy which serves to bring the government revenue without further taxation is positive, as it helps to uphold these programs without burdening the citizens. 3c. If the government can meet public demand via private contractors, how is the status quo flawed? 3d. My opponent has conceded that a likely victor would be a mining company. BHP Billiton certainly seems like a probable candidate. As my opponent stated, BHP has taken steps to reduce environmental impact. However, they concede that substantial risk remains. http://www.bhpbilliton.com... They admit that challenges exist in reducing their environmental impact. Among those are the harms of mining which I've already mentioned. Note that my BHP can easily outbid any tourism company, and therefore, all 'positive' impacts relating to tourism are irrelevant. 4. I concede that purchase by a tourism company would lead to increased tourism (which is a negative impact), if only to a slight degree. However, BHP, which my opponent believes to be the likely victor, is a mining company. http://www.bhpbilliton.com... Mining companies are built to mine, and do not have the bureaucratic infrastructure to run the Grand Canyon as a tourist attraction. 1. The argument has not been dropped. My opponent posed hypothetical questions, and I answered them. "1" is merely a tagline, supported by the following subpoints. 1a-b. Okay, in that case, the arguments have already been addressed in attacking your own case. 1c. Actually, after searching "subsidence" on that article, I found that it fails to make note of any regulation regarding subsidence. http://www.onemine.org... I conceded that a tourism company might protect wildlife like the California Condor. However, the company in question focuses exclusively on mining. My opponent wishes to have his cake, and eat it too. However, he has already conceded that BHP would outbid a tourism company. http://www.greenfacts.org... 2. My opponent's definition is absurdly limiting and abusive. CEO's are not bidders who turn their winnings over to the company. CEO's never purchase the land, the company does so. Bidder: One who submits a response to an invitation for bid (IFB). Bid: An offer submitted by a prospective vendor in response to an invitation for bid (IFB) issued by a purchasing authority. A bid becomes a contract upon acceptance by the buyer. http://www.rfpmd.com... A vendor is a collaboration of persons, not a single person. Ergo, the definition of 'bidder' is not limited to a single person. Obviously, the definition does not consist entirely of vendors either. I'm merely showing that the correct definition is far broader. 3. Water rights will be violated in that heavier water use upstream will limit downstream water use. Further, water pollution is still present. The level which the government finds to be "acceptable" is, in fact, harmful. http://www.usnews.com... 4. Oops, here's the right link. http://www.nau.edu... My opponent has not refuted government ownership of capital. The ownership of capital has not been determined to be unconstitutional. Again, recall that my opponent must justify privatization, as the burden of proof is his. Note that my opponent's advocacy centers around a purchase by BHP, which negates any tourism points. There is no reason why a mining company would have, or develop, the necessary organizational infrastructure to support a tourism enterprise. The economic benefits in the BHP purchase scenario, are outweighed by the harms I've detailed.