DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

The final round will be reserved for the presentation of voting issues, as previously agreed. I will be providing an analysis of the arguments presented regarding each contention, and the impacts thereof. I will not post sources in this round, and will ask that my opponent do the same. 1a. I have demonstrated the vast environmental impacts of every applicable form of mining upon the Grand Canyon. Though my opponent has presented alternatives which "minimize" the environmental impact, the harms are still quite significant. As mining currently has negative environmental impacts wherever it takes place, it is clear that regulations may decrease, but certainly will not eliminate environmental damage. 1b. The addition of a light-rail remains an unprofitable, if not cost-prohibitive endeavour, as concluded by the U. S. government. Ergo, a company which acts in the most profitable manner will fail to institute such infrastructure. My opponent makes entirely unwarranted claims regarding a tourist increase in the Grand Canyon, and therefore, all his points relating to increased tourist activity are mere conjecture. The possible harms regarding water usage and tourist traffic still stand as reasons to negate. 1c. My opponent has failed to warrant his claim that the Grand Canyon would be marketed more effectively. Were that even the case, of course, the environmental harms of tourism would certainly apply. 1d. Conceded, this is irrelevant to the debate. This point carries no weight for the affirmation, as my opponent's advocacy has shifted away from it entirely. 2a. I have demonstrated that air and water (included in my source) pollution are consequences of tourist activity. Ergo, any increased tourist activity, which my opponent claims as a certainty, would increase said pollution. Thus, the environmental harms increase. 2b. I have clearly shown that the economic benefits of mining outweigh the value of exposing all areas of the park to tourism. There is little incentive against degrading the beauty and geological value of the Grand Canyon. 3a. This was not a subpoint, but a tagline, which is negated by addressing the following subpoints. 3b. My opponent states that I have made several concessions here. This is patently false. I have not stated that the Grand Canyon's revenue is insignificant, merely that the government does not "need" it, just as it does not "need" many other sources of revenue. It remains a positive asset. My claims cannot be used to justify communism, they simply state that the government ought to retain its current capital, rather than forfeiting it. I have further conceded no harms of communism. The government ought not sell the Grand Canyon simply because it profits from it. 3c. My opponent has not demonstrated how public demand is not being met. The status quo provides perfectly adequate access to the Grand Canyon. 3d. In earlier points, I have clearly outlined the inherent environmental harms of mining. 4. Added revenue would only be present if tourism were continued, which I do not concede will occur. There is simply no plausible logic, or precedent behind a mining company purchasing a tourist attraction. The construction of a tourist attraction by an entertainment company bears no resemblance to the proposed circumstance. 1a-b. Again, my opponent has failed to negate the harms which would apply to the extensive resources of the Grand Canyon. 1c. Obviously, some harms will be present to the local ecology. Further, my opponent's case here hinges upon the continuation of tourist activities, which is unlikely. 2. My opponent never negated this point, stating that my definition was "invalid". However, I have shown that a nation can indeed be a 'bidder'. The impacts of this are tremendous, as a nation can indeed construct a military base within another nation, and own the land as their own territory. The Louisiana Purchase and Guantanamo Bay demonstrate this. Obviously, the implications of such a sale are massive, and alone negates the resolution. 3. Water claims could easily be violated by an increase in tourists due to decreased flow downstream. Also, water pollution remains a problem that has been unaddressed. 4. My opponent has accepted the burden of proof, and must show that privatization ought to occur. The status quo is government ownership of the Grand Canyon. Ownership of capital is not a "power". Said ownership certainly does not violate the Constitution. Major points: A. Auctioning will result in sale to a foreign government. The funds and motive are clearly present. This point was not adequately refuted. B. Sale to a mining company (unlikely) would result in the degradation of geological, cultural, and ecological resources. C. Tourism would be discontinued, as neither a foreign government, nor a mining company would prolong it. Many thanks to my opponent for a well-sourced and entertaining debate. Thanks for reading.