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

First I'd like to start with a few miscellaneous rebuttals. Two things I'd like to comment on: First, my opponent questions where I got my statistics from. I would question as to whether or not she followed the link, because it clearly states the figures on a pdf file of the Nation Endowment for the Arts annual spending report. Secondly, your comments about the Constitution are completely unfounded. Does the Constitution say anything about riding horses? No, and yet they rode them back then regardless, and we do today. The Constitution does not name every specific thing our government cannot do, rather it gives outlines."First off, that is a very big "WHAT IF." The arts were doing fine before we started supporting them. If we stopped supporting them"I"m pretty sure they would still continue. Art has prevailed throughout history."Right, so let's start with the WHAT IF. I would have to ask why you say that is a big what if. According to one of my opponent's own links, the NEA gives out 3,000 grants every year. At 3,000 per year, don't you think we're going to end up helping someone who will 'make it big'? These are grants that, if you check their site, you will see anyone can apply for[1]. So you could be a poor kid with a dream to go to some kind of arts camp. Or you could be an arts camp looking to get money to give away as grants as they see fit. You apply for a grant, get some money, and suddenly, the fact that you were born into a poor family does not mean you have any less chance of happiness than a child born into a rich family, arts-wise (this is similar to school lunches, the government subsidizes the cost of lunch for poorer kids). Essentially, with this measure, we're ensuring people have a fair shot at pursuing happiness.On to the callous throwaway of a statement that 'art will be fine, it always has been'. First off, the statement that art has prevailed throughout history does not reveal the fact that art has always been supported by government in some form (what, never seen a painting of a King?).But that is inconsequential. My opponent says that art will continue, or at least, she's 'pretty sure'. While it may be true that art would continue, we have to consider in what form it will continue. Less grant money means less children of unfortunate circumstances getting to realize their true passions, less grant money means less smaller, local organizations being able to use grant money to get something of their own started. If you look at the site again, specifically here[2], you will see that there will be less noteworthy artists who are able to continue their work. Basically, the NEA is supporting the joy of people."-This is where I am going to disagree. We don"t HAVE to assist them. Just because I and a group of friends love playing with playdoh"doesn"t mean that people should pay us. I don"t agree with this analogy. Happy doesn"t = support"Well aside from the fact that playing with playdoh is an extremely inexpensive hobby, I believe my opponent has dodged the point in my 'analogy'. My opponent is saying this in response to my statement that 'by supporting art, we support our culture and with that, we support our own happiness'. She completely ignores this. Art is what entertains us everyday. Why shouldn't you support the thing that makes you happy? It's basically an investment in cultural happiness, and, as I have already shown, and will continue to, it is a very inexpensive investment."If the art itself isn't good enough to support itself, it's not good enough for us to give them our money. Although this seems harsh: they need to stand on their own"or fail."My opponent seems to have an image of the government giving money to failing painters so they can keep getting their crappy paintings put in art galleries. That is no the case. As I have already outlined, the NEA does a lot of investment type donating. They will give grants to growing organizations, they will give grants to children who will go on to discover a life passion, they may very well have a hand in inspiring the next big movie star or famous singer. So to say that 'they need to stand on their own or fail' shows a misunderstanding. A child cannot 'stand on his/her own or fail' in regards to going to an arts camp, how are they supposed to have the money for that? How is it their fault that they were born into a poor family? The fact is, the NEA provides opportunity to those who would never have had it otherwise. "There are so many more important things that need to be taken care of"Washington needs to get its priorities straight on this, because currently we cannot afford to do it!"We can too afford it. This program costs taxpayers 63 cents every year[3][4][5]. You are willing to pay 63 cents once every 365 days to ensure that people can live happily, and that our culture will receive new pieces of art to take joy in, aren't you? "There are plenty of ways that they can get money. Attending the shows"buying the art"exhibits"fundraisers"the list could go on." This statement is making it sound like they aren't utilizing these means to get money already. But if you're already doing all these things (and who wouldn't be? you can't rely on the NEA to be there for you always), then asking for a grant would be your last discourse. If people are needing these grants, then clearly, they are down to their last discourse. Next I'd like to briefly comment on the 5 examples my opponent has brought up of, at least in her eyes, questionable use of money. I would like to point out that she has brought up 5 examples, whereas the NEA gives out 3,000 grants yearly. This is yet another grain of sand of 'negative' on a beach of positives. It is also worth noting that NEA leadership is appointed by Congress, so any concerns about some mini art dictator controlling our money are unfounded. If NEA leadership is getting out of control, or perhaps seemingly too biased, that person can be replaced by our reps (this infor found in one of my opponent's links).So, to summarize, the NEA is of extremely minimal cost to taxpayers, is overseen by Congress, and the opportunities it provides to people will create many a fulfilled life, and, may bring our culture as a whole some art to enjoy. If my opponent has a problem with wasteful government spending, she should look elsewhere, as this is a very, very small arm of the government. I would ask voters of this debate, what else are you going to do with 63 cents? By some extremely cheap gum? That'll make you happy for like 10 minutes. That 63 cents could be going towards someone's lifetime of happiness. Thanks for reading. Sources: [1] http://arts.gov...[2] http://arts.gov...[3] this was link 1 in my first round[4] http://www.numberof.net...[5] https://www.google.com...