Professional sports stadiums should be privately funded and owned.

My opponent in his final round, instead of bolstering his arguments against my contention in Round 1 and 2, drops all arguments and brings up entirely new points. May I remind my opponent that the final round should be a round of summation and furthering of arguments from previous rounds. It is poor etiquette to bring up entirely new points in the final round. 1. Yes the US is in a recession, yes the unemployment rate exceeds 10%. Which is all the more reason not to eliminate nearly a thousand more jobs, and eliminate tourism which is a stimulant for the economy. Tax money does not come from those who are unemployed or are having a rought time, rather it comes from those businesses and people who are succeeding in these dark times. Furthermore if the entire economy is doing bad, then other locations will offer those stadiums less. 2. A budget deficit is not a sufficient reason to spend taxpayer money on something that benefits the taxpayers with more than they spend. 3. The Viking's personal situation as a football team does not exclude them from being a positive externality. I completely agree with you that the motive is to earn more profit and not because they are in dire straits financially. However this doesn't exclude them from being considered a positive externality. If they produce for example 500 dollars for taxpayers in terms of higher property values, business increase and jobs, etc. Then they have 500 dollars worth of bargaining power. The taxpayers of Minnesota can send 250 dollars to keep them there and earn 250 extra in economic benefits. For whatever motive of the sports team, it is economically beneficial to fund a sports stadium with public money. 4. Tourism. LA has plenty of it without the stadium and thus does not need it. However Minnesota has substantially less tourism and would benefit much more greatly than LA would. Furthermore California is much more highly populated than Minnesota. With questions and doubts about the possibility of the Vikings franchise (would like to thank my opponent for his citations), no wise investor would put forth his own money on the line. In LA, its a sure thing. 5. "The state endured. " The argument isn't about whether the state will survive, but rather will it profit. This debate is a question of what is best for the state, not whether the state would survive without it. I think you'll agree there's a very substantial difference from endure and thrive. 6. Public beaches although open to the public, are usually a private franchise. Beaches neither serve essential functions nor are publicly owned, yet they receive funding from the people. "In other words, Con has not articulated any limits on either public subsidies or public taxes. " My opponent himself in his R2 arguments affirmed the fact that the economic benefits can be measured. This is a point I agree upon. If they can be measured then we can determine a dollar amount of benefit. We should spend subsidize something to the point where it benefits the citizen. When it stops benefiting the citizen, you stop subsidizing. If it hurts the citizen you tax it. You stop taxing it when it stops hurting the citizen. These are the limits. My opponents entire argument has been from the standpoint that even if it is beneficial to subsidize something we shouldn't do it because the industry is private and makes a profit. I am of a different opinion. I believe anything that is beneficial should be subsidized. If business increases my property value, provides me a job, or makes my business more profitable, I am willing to spend money to keep that positive side effect in occurrence. Is it great if I can get that side effect for free. Absolutely. Do I believe the citizens of Minnesota should try to get it free (paid by private investors) absolutely I do. However if there is no alternative, no private investors step up to the plate, then I am in favor of having the taxpayers partially fund it (paying the lowest amount possible) to get a beneficial side affect that produces more dollars than it costs. My opponent see to have a fear of government, and with good reason, however if done properly, the citizens of Minesota can thrive instead of just endure.