Resolved: The National Endowment for the Arts should not be funded by the Government

I will not be quoting and refuting my opponent this round, as I think it would start to get to be very messy reading for voters.EXAMPLESIn the last round, my opponent challenged me to provide my own examples of what the NEA does, to show that not everyone is pissing in jars and calling it art with NEA money. If I'm counting correctly, my opponent has shown 8 examples of things that she does not consider art. The NEA splits their grant making into several categories/programs, so I will be presenting several categories of their grant making, and explain what they do.The first is simply called Art Works. What this does is support the continuation and preservation of cultural heritages. So they might help in the commissioning of an art, like making sure someone has adequate recording equipment for a song, or giving a grant to a museum that showcases art that is considered to be a part of an area's cultural heritage. Just look for yourself, here[1], or here[2].The next I'd like to present is their Challenge America Fast-Track. As you will see[1][2], this one is very much involved in supporting communities, often those that are underprivileged. One thing that I would like to bring to skeptics' attention is the fact that this category supports community tourism. Your 63 cents a year is going to assist a city somewhere tourism-wise.The next category is called Our Town. It runs along a similar vien to the above category, one difference being that the money is given to communities to do as they see fit. As you can see below, the grant partnership must invlolve local government and some kind of arts non-profit organization. You can see in that picture one example of what Our Town is doing (giving children opportunity that may not have been there, giving them opportunities to find their passions), and you can find another example where grant money was used to build a community park, with a sort of hand operated structure acting as the art for kids to play with[1]. For specifics[2].This next category, Literature Fellowships[1][2], should put the hearts of those who imagined lazy artists taking your 63 cents every year to rest. This grant is for artists of the writing type. The process of getting a grant here is competitive, as individual artists are vying for funds. So that does not mean we've got artists just sitting around, waiting for the money to show up. It means we've got artists who are working and proving their worth, asking for more to take their literary contributions to the next level. So, far from discouraging hard work, this encourages it.Next I'd like to present National Fellowships Heritage[1][2], which you could essentially call our preserver of past arts. They award grants to those are either performing/practicing our older cultural heritages, or those who preserve it, such as museums. Essentially, they're preserving the footprint the past generations have left behind.Right next to that, we have the National Medal of Arts[1][2], which is awarded to those who have shown exemplary artistic expertise. Essentially what this does is promote anything that is good. It did not necessarily have to be funded by the NEA, but the promotion is, ensuring that those who work hard and are good at their craft are recognized. I could go on and on, but there are 11 other programs[1], and I've only got 8,000 characters to work with here. I assure you, none of them focus on creating pictures of artists being anally penetrated by a bullwhip. I would of course encourage you to see for yourself. I hope that what I have shown so far, and what you are able to see by following the link(s), lets you know that the vast majority of what the NEA does is supporting honest causes, things that are supportive of communities, competitive art, and preservation of cultural heritage. And it will only cost a taxpayer 63 cents per year. The positive impact this group has requires an incredibly small amount of investment on our part. CONSTITUTIONALITYSo my opponent comes back to my statement with a little more specificity. She says: ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The national endowment of the arts is not legal under the Constitution."This seems fine, until you look at how our world functions. For instance, the President drives around in a car called The Beast (well, he's not the one driving it, but you get me). Now, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the Federal Government being able to utilize cars, nor does it say anything about the States not being allowed to do so. So under that logic, only State Governments would be able to utilize cars. I won't use up my characters naming further examples, I'm sure the voters are smart enough to find other ways this logic would be a severe pain in the a$$ if it were applied. If the people elect representatives, who support this program, then it is existing inside democratic principles. It is hardly a threat to our freedom loving society. IT'S NOT NECESSARYThe above is the general sentiment my opponent has expressed throughout the debate. She has made many claims about how 'there are other ways' or 'you can find happiness in lots of places'. Those types of things. But I would ask you, is this really a healthy attitude? That attitude is the exact opposite of the attitude that brings crowds out for a rally. What she is championing is the idea that since the NEA is only one cog in the machine of artistic support, we can do away with it.We can see where such an attitude would quickly lead. The cogs in the machine aren't important on their own, their strength is in numbers. But to tell them that they aren't individually important is to discourage them, and this would eventually have an effect on the strength in numbers concept. Imagine a crowd of people being discouraged to turn up for a rally. That aside, her statements that 'there will be another way' are wrong on their own. There's only so much money the private sector will provide, there is only so much grant money out there. As you can see in some links scattered throughout the debate, the NEA has tossed in over 4 billion dollars to that pile. Without them, that's $4B worth of groups of people who could not continue on with their art. Every little bit counts, because every little bit provides just a little more opportunity. Strength in numbers.MISCWell I'm almost done, I just wanted to address one thing my opponent said that I think would be unwise to let slide. She said that since the NEA is supporting artists, and not the common man, that is unfair. What makes them more worthy than us? Well, A) supporting the arts supports ourselves, and B) Just because you cannot have something does not mean nobody else should be able to have it, no? Points A and B together should be enough to negate this. Penultimately, a word on my opponent's conduct. In her last round she made some statements that were unnecessary to prove her point. The best example was when she called my statements 'pathetic' and 'cut out of a soap-opera'. Anyone who has spent time on DDO knows this is not acceptable conduct, and I would hope the voters recognize this. I don't mean to patronize the voters, but I often see people getting so focused on who won the arguments that they forget other cateogories. SUMMARYThis is extremely inexpensive, less than a tenth of a percent of our federal spending, and only costs taxpayers 63 cents a year. I have shown the worthy causes the NEA supports, while my opponent has found us a few specific examples of questionable taste. At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves this: are we willing to take away a person's happiness to save ourselves 63 cents?Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://arts.gov...[2] https://docs.google.com...