DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

1a. I have shown that my opponent's environmental concerns were based on open-pit mining, which is not the most efficient method of mining Uranium. I have also shown why limestone mining would occur underground and how underground mining is regulated to the extent where no damage to the Grand Canyon can occur. 1b. A company is certainly the most effective organization for dealing with concerns of an increase in the tourist population. As I have shown, the cost of the light rail system was not "inhibitive", and my opponent's source only claimed a minor cost concern. I have also shown that water concerns occur under public or private ownership, and would be settled by the courts either way. My opponent has repeatedly contradicted himself in his claims regarding an increase in the tourist population resulting from marketing. There are no concerns here. 1c. I have shown that an increase in tourism due to marketing would not even have minor environmental concerns but would reap an economic boost. 1d. Both sides have agreed that this counterpoint to my case is irrelevant, and therefore carries no weight for negation. My opponent's concerns regarding my first contention were effectively defeated. 2a. My opponent's sources here did not verify his claims regarding pollution resulting from tourism. 2b. My opponent conceded this counterpoint in round 2. This point has also been affirmed. 3a. My opponent has conceded that his counterpoint carries no weight against my case. 3b. My opponent conceded this subpoint when he dropped my arguments against it in the 4th round. The "asset" argument has not been made and my opponent has conceded that the revenue obtained from the Grand Canyon is irrelevant in the big picture. 3c. I have shown how government is less capable of operating for-profit operations than private companies. 3d. As I've shown, the Grand Canyon could be privately owned and even mined with little to no environmental consequences. My opponent's points against my case have been defeated. My case stands. 4. My arguments have shown why a mining company would want to reap the benefits of tourism. My opponent's concerns are disproven by history and by science. My entire case stands. 1a-b. I have shown how no harm can come to the Grand Canyon because of modern mining practices and regulations. 1c. It is evident that a company could effectively mine the Grand Canyon without harming its beauty and without harming tourism. 2. As I have shown, the United States is the ultimate owner of all private property. Therefore, my opponent's concerns here are irrelevant to the debate. There is no motif for the purchase of the Grand Canyon by a foreign government, as there is no military benefit. 2 & 1/2. My opponent introduces a new argument here. This should be disregarded. Further, his new points are based on false premises for the reasons aforementioned. The Louisiana Purchase was an entirely different type of transaction and Guantanemo Bay is the result of a treaty between Cuba and The United States Government. 3. As I have shown, newer mining methods do not contribute to the water pollution my opponent argues. As I aforementioned, water claims could be violated under any ownership and would be settled by the courts. 4. My opponent asserts that I have burden of proof for all of his arguments. This is not true. My opponent must justify his claims just as I must justify mine. He has not justified the government ownership of capital and its constitutionality. The Constitutional argument seems to have gone something like this: "It's unconstitutional. " "No it's not. " "Yes it is. The tenth ammendment says the federal government can claim no such power. " "No it's not. And you have BoP. " I have justified why the public ownership of capital is unconstitutional, and my opponent has not justified any argument otherwise. Overall, my opponent's case carries no weight against mine. Regarding my opponent's Major points: A. My opponent dropped his argument that a motif for a foreign government to buy the Grand Canyon exists in the third round. B. New mining practices and regulations prevent harm from coming to the Grand Canyon. C. My opponent presented no argument as to why a mining company would not want to reap the benefits of tourism. PRO Major Points: 1. Minerals would be safely and cleanly extracted from the Grand Canyon. The result is an expanded clean mining industry, which would help the economy, create jobs, and add to standard of living. 2. The current government ownership of the Grand Canyon is unconstitutional. Governments should not violate their own contracts. 3. The Grand Canyon's tourism would increase because of marketing. More money would come into the United States as a result. I would like to extend a high five to anyone who read this debate in its entirity.