This House would subsidise news media outlets

I'm a bit melon-choly for the end of this debate round. My opponent and I do make a great pear. So I thank him cherry much for his participationNow, onto his arguments. I've hand-picked the best of my rebuttals for these points that are just peachy, so let's waste no more time! Rebuttal XII: Killing the Free MarketMy opponent misunderstands. He isn't killing the free market in the sense that he's rewarding poor performance inside the print new industry, but he's doing so in he news industry as a whole! Now, assuming everything else about his plan goes right (which it won't, as I'll show later), then the newspapers will get paid by the government per reader! This is an unfair disadvantage to internet journalism! Yes, it's hard to determine who is exactly a journalist on the internet, but my opponent doesn't see the fact that any outlet that doesn't recieve subsidy is being harmed by this plan. The free market is trending towards internet journalism, as my opponent and I both agree. There is no harm in the current system to solve. We must just let print journalism die when the interest dies. .. however, if this plan is passed, we ruin the foundation of a strong economy. Rebuttall XIII: OvercirculationAh, my opponent doesn't quite understand. Why would I, as a print journalist company, care about making a profit in the market, if I get paid enough to stay afloat by the government depending on how many readers I have. I would just practically inundate the population in frew newspapers in an attempt to gain readers/money. There is no balance required. Again, it messes with free market, and internet journalism, which would still have to balance the cost of recahing people and advertisements, with the revenue from subscriptions or hits on their site. It's unfair. Rebuttal XIV: Print Journalism will be around with the NeedMy opponent misunderstands this. Yes. Most newspapers are starting to get into the more profitable, more convenient, and more cost-effective internet journalism. This does not mean that those print journalism companies that still turn a profit are going to abandon ship before the time is due. The way free market works is that if you're willing to pay me $5 for something it costs you $2 to make, it's profitable for you to do it. Likewise, these companies will wait until there is absolutely no profit in print journalism before converting completely. Whether or not people are still reading newspapers is irrelevant. In the status quo, these newspapers will remain, they just won't be paid to live past their usefulness. Rebuttal XV: The Plan fights Internet JournalismAgain, my opponent hasn't ever addressed the fact that he's paying companies not to be technologically progressive. Younger people only get internet news because it's cheaper, faster, more convenient etc. Print journalism is dying because it doesn't have the money to sustain it, because it isn't cheaper, faster, nor convenient. If it were distributed for free, while internet news required subscriptions, we'd see the trend return to print journalism, or at least a slowing of the trend to internet journalism. The harm here, though, is less that young people will abandon internet news, but more that those who use print journalism will not be encouraged to upgrade, and companies will not be encouraged to adapt. They will be paid to distribute something what is slowly becoming an undesired product, long after it is still wanted. Rebuttal XVI: No reason for planMy opponent seems to be trying to get you to beleive that print journalism will die the moment after you check the Con ballot box. This is simply not true. My opponent has essentially killed his own case from the start with the facts he brought up. He stated that print journalism is in slow decline, but that people still read it. The point here is, once again, if people still read print journalism, then there's still a market for it. So long as the people's needs/wants are the driving force of the market, they will be met. But as soon as we get the government offering extra money for producing certain items, the scales are tipped in unfair ways to other competitors in the market. By voting Con, you aren't killing print journalism, you're just not going to use the debrilator in the man who is dying of blood loss. You can't fix the fact that print journalism is out of date, we can just watch it die slowly and gracefully as people realize the wonders of internet journalism. Rebuttal XVII: My apologiesI believe this misunderstanding was my fault. I am unfamiliar with the "THW" format of debating. I thought, by the way my opponent worded his plan, he was using an international organization (such as the UN) to implement this, because he said there would be one established in each country, rather than this would be passed in ____ country. I apologize. Rebuttal XVIII: The PlanIf my opponent had a plan that didn't solve world issue, he shouldn't have attempted to implement it over the entire world. If a certain rate would've worked for the UK, he should've specified the rate and that he would enact this only in the UK. He attempts to solve what he thinks is a world-wide problem with a plan that is too vague and won't solve these problems. With the loopholes and vagueness of the plan, he allows for Congress, Parliament, or any such group to essentially legislate his plan out of existence by assigning no funds to this NAE, therefore he cannot assume he solves the harms (that don't really exist, but. .. you know). Rebuttal XIX: Cannot assume honestyAgain, vagueness was implemented so that no objections can be raised to exactly who these number crunchers are. However, that in itself is alarming. We have NO idea if these are partisan number crunchers, if they flunked math in middle school, or whatever. The plan must account for everything, and just stating that some people will be assigned to crunch some numbers and give some number back to the government which the government will have to pay to some people. .. . isn't necessarily an airtight plan. The least my opponent could've done is stated that some nonpartisan organization, or even the UN, would choose these mathematicians. He could even have said they must have a history of not being biased. But he didn't. Does this seem nitpicky? It might to you. But in debate, when one proposes a plan, they must account for everything. Intead of responding to the fact that these crunchers could be dishonest, and he can't force them to be honest, he's merely stated that they only crunch numbers. .. . but is the figure that comes out really the product of what went in? We'd never know because no one keeps them accountable. Rebuttal XX: No fundsMy opponent is a bit too late here. He's already stated that he's leaving the rates up to the countries, and defended that in an earlier rebuttal. It's hardly in the spirit of fairness to change his plan in the last argument, and is definitely against the rules of any actual form of debate. However, even with this clarification, who's to say these countries just don't assign 0.000000001% of funding, which still doesn't solve the "harms" of my opponent? No one. Too many loopholes. It's a shame, but it's just how debate (and politics) are. If there's a loophole, it will be exploited. I leave all of you with this. .. Print Journalism will survive as long as it's desired/needed. My opponent didn't refute this. (Significance)My opponent's plan ruins the free market economy, and will promote outdated technology. (Disadvantage)My opponent's plan, even if it could solve for the "harms" of the status quo, has too many loopholes to be effective. (Solvency)Therefore, this plan is NOT necessary, desirable, nor effective. In light of this, I'd urge you all to Vote Con. Thanks a melon!