DDODCL Season 1 Debate: Team Sine Nomine VS Team Thrawn

Thanks to our opponents for this debate and to Airmax and DK for facilitating the DCL.CONTEXTThe resolution does not require us to argue that public funding should be the only method of funding for art. If 3 art projects are publicly funded by society, it is true to say that society publicly funds art. Similarly, if 3 art projects should be publicly funded by society, it is true to say that society ought to publicly fund art. In this way, the resolution sets up an interesting dynamic. Con is limited to the options of market funding and charity. Pro is not; if you are persuaded that public funding should be the only funding mechanism for art, or if you are persuaded that a mixture of public funding, charity, and market funding is best, your vote should go Pro. Consider, in the U.S., various levels of government spent $1.23 billion on the arts in FY2014. This is the funding Con wants to deprive the art sector of. [13]For Con to win this debate, they must defend that having fewer options for supporting art is better than having more options. If art is important--I'm sure we can agree it is--then having more tools in the toolbox to support art makes sense, and therefore you should presume Pro. Unless Con can show you that public funding will never have any upside, and that their options are better, than Con cannot show why we should endorse fewer tools in the toolbox.Also, "society" as a broad term for a collective of people could refer to any level of government, and is not specific to the federal level.ARGUMENTSC1. Art, Free Speech, and DemocracySPA. The More Speech, The Better"[T]he marketplace of ideas theory holds that unencumbered free speech is a public good because it enables members of society to evaluate and compare their ideas, beliefs and assumptions. In doing so, they are able to exchange incorrect or unsound notions for better ones...Justice Holmes encapsulated the concept thusly: '...the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.'" [1] In other words, false or oppressive narratives thrive by shutting out counter-narratives that might challenge and undermine the status quo. Enabling those counter-narratives to be promulgated and heard thus creates a foundation for effective dissent and eventually toppling of the false/oppressive narratives. Healthy democracies need this kind of vigorous debate.SPB. Public Funding = More SpeechArt is, very clearly, a form of speech, in that it communicates ideas and expresses emotion. Public funding thus increases speech--and the opportunities for various narratives to be heard--by promoting art. For example, the USFG's NEA initiative has been highly successful in this regard: "The Endowment"s simple affirmation of America"s commitment to excellence in culture has helped create works such as A Chorus Line and Driving Miss Daisy, as well as the Vietnam War Memorial. With the Endowment's support, professional orchestras in the United States have increased from 60 to 210, professional dance companies from 37 to 250, and non-profit theaters from 56 to 400." [2]SPC. Publicly funding democratizes artThe market forces that typically fund art will only fund certain kinds of popular art, because only those kinds of projects will turn a profit. Art that is outside the mainstream will struggle to fund market-based funding. Even art charity skews toward an elitist approach to art: "Different types of donors favour different things...'Taxpayers with incomes over $1m tend to favour higher education, health, and the arts.'" [3] This plutocratic bias in giving means that elite-approved art is more likely than not to be favored by charitable giving. Because governments lack a profit motive, and generally take steps to ensure neutrality in their giving, [2] they are better suited to supporting art projects that are outside the mainstream. Even if governments aren't better, their funding can supplement funding from these other two areas to open up as many opportunities for artists as possible. Furthermore, geographical isolation can make it hard for people to become involved with art. [9] The government actively combats this problem: "The NEA supports projects in all states, including isolated rural areas and inner cities; projects are spread across racial, geographic and socioeconomic lines." [10] Thus, government funding helps to democratize art, opening up civil discourse to counter-narratives, which is vital in challenging dominant narratives in the marketplace of ideas.C2. Art and JobsSPA. Art is an enormous industry"The arts support more than 245,000 jobs throughout the six states of New England, which is 3.5 percent of the region's total job base." [4] This massive industry contributes significantly to our export economy: "America's creative industries are our nation's leading export with over $60 billion annually in overseas sales, including the output of artists...in publishing, audiovisual, music and recording, and entertainment businesses." [4] And, it also contributes to our internal economy, through tourism: "As America's favorite tourist attractions, museums ranked third...in a tourism industry study...[C]ultural events ranked fourth, ahead of beaches and parks, sports, gambling, nightlife, and amusement parks. 92.7 million Americans traveling in the United States in 2000 included cultural activities in their trip...Thirty million U.S. travelers lengthened their trips because of cultural events and activities. Cultural tourists spend more money...than the average U.S. traveler...The arts industry in California provides state and local government with $77 million in revenue through cultural tourism alone...Cultural tourism in California translates into 4,200 jobs and $158 million in income to the state"s economy." [4]SPB. Government investment in the arts yields significant economic returnsA "study, carried out by the Center for Economics and Business Research, found that arts and culture make up 0.4 percent of Britain's GDP, a strong return on less than 0.1 percent of government spending. The cultural sector was also seen to have increased its contribution to the U.K.'s GDP since 2008, even as the wider economy contracted over this period. The report's findings also highlighted the important role of the arts sector in supporting the commercial creative industries, which make up 10 percent of Britain's GDP. Drawing on academic research, the report concluded that 'proximity to arts and culture can translate to higher wages and productivity' through innovation and diffusion of ideas." [5] This means that, "[f]or every pound invested in arts and culture, an additional "1.06 is generated in the economy." [6] Similarly, "According to the government's own calculations, every dollar given to the arts comes back immediately as $1.36 in general revenue, and that figure is actually much higher when you take into account spinoff industries that rely on the arts (tourism, IT, film etc.)--studies show it's anywhere from $6-$12 and sometimes higher...All other employment/industrial sectors in [British Columbia] receive public economic investment in one form or another--whether as grants, tax advantages, the building of roads for forestry, etc. Why single out the arts and culture sector--a particularly productive and efficient sector contributing over $5.2 billion to the provincial tax base every year--for exclusion from public investment?" [7, 8]We can distill all the information into several points. Societies should invest in art because it makes their communities more vibrant and attractive (both for tourism, residence, and business). Just look at places like Seattle or Austin, which have used their art scenes to make them more marketable. Societies get a direct and sizable return on their investment when they fund art; it is like a government subsidy of any other industry. Funding art promotes innovation and keeps people employed. And, government collects revenue from art.C3. Art and CultureOne of the chief ways in which a society or a generation shapes, expresses, and preserves its cultural identity and its heritage is through the mechanism of art. To be without access to art is to be denied an important cultural experience. Culture, in turn, has been recognized a human right unto itself. "In Charles Taylor's view, such a right is supposed to protect the necessary conditions for identity formation, the integrity or survival of the nation since 'each of us depends on our national membership to enable us to develop a sense of identity.'" Also, "in a recent UNESCO report, the right to culture is presented as a right to a way of life, and cultural freedom as a collective freedom, referring to the right of a group or people to follow a way of its choice." [11] Perhaps the importance of art in this regard is why people view art as essential to community quality of life. [12]If we agree that art is integral to culture, that denying people access to art severely handicaps their ability to exercise a right to culture, and that government funding helps to correct this handicap, then we ought to affirm.SOURCES1 - Robert G. Larson, "Forgetting the First Amendment: How Obscurity-Based Privacy and a Right to be Forgotten are Incompatible with Free Speech," Communication Law and Policy, 18 (1), 20132 - Rodney Smolla, "Free Speech in An Open Society," 19923 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...10 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, we affirm. Thank you!