Detectableninjas Tournament: Free Museam Admittals

CP1)Attendance would likely spike on free admittance days. This is true, but this demonstrates the effectiveness of these days in bringing in new museum patrons.2) Many museums already offer specific days that are free to the public. These museums generally do not expereience most of the problems you described, such as crowding to the point of turning away guests. Your arguments are largely empirically disproven. I have been to the Chicago Art Institute on free days on multiple occassions and have always had an enjoyable experience.3) The difficulty of having one extra busy day a month is vastly overshadowed bythe difficulty a 33% budget cut would pose. This is the alternative offered by removing ALL fees.4)While generally museums arent subject to excessive crowding, even museums WITH sometimes admission face problems of overcrowding. When an exhibit of Titanic artifiacts passed through the Chicago museums tickets were sold out for days. Highly attractive exhibits will always face the issue of limited amount of space for patrons to see the exhibit- this is an issue independent of free/cost admissions. The argument is non-unique and so is irrelevant.5)As I said earlier, free days ARE generally more crowded, but this creates an incentive for people who can afford it to pay for tickets on non-free days, maintaining museum revenue.6) One free day a month offers plenty of opportunity for people to attend museums. Given that most cities have more than one museum and that each month offers a new opportunity to attend a free day, it is unlikely that individuals would have schedules that prohibit museum attendance over the course of a year. If their schedule is that demanding, they arent going to be able to attend no matter what the admittance policy is. Cost1) My AAM evidence last round states that governments already fund 25% of museum costs on average. To suggest that the governement would increase their support by nearly 150% (going from funding 25% to 25+33=58%) in today's political climate of Tea Partiers, OWS, and demands for balanced budgets is absurd. Looking at the AAM evidence: There are roughly 850 million museum patrons each year and the average ticket costs 7 dollars. That means the government would be responsible for making up the cost of roughly 6 BILLION dollars in lost revenue.2) The Smithsonian budget increase represents a 4.5% budget increase on a small scale. This 36 million dollar budget increase to the smithsonian is about 0.6% of what would be required to cover lost revenue from admissions. Also note that in the wikipedia article it is stated that the Deficit Comission has RECOMMENDED ADMISSION FEES TO THE SMITHSONIAN. This clearly demonstrates that political will is looking to decrease museum reliance on govt funding, not increase it.3) Pro provides no evidence that at the door donations would be able to even come close to offsetting the billions in lost revenue. Keep in mind almost all museums are already funded significantly by private donations (35% per my AAM evidence). In order to maintain revenue, museums would have to double their private donation income. If they could do this, Im sure they already would be. OVERVIEWI have demonstrated that museums are heavily dependent on admittance fees for revenue. I have also shown that in today's political climate, these costs cannot be offset by government funding or by private donations. Given these facts, the removal of museum admittance fees would be a critical blow to our museum's ability to operate and maintain quality exhibits. As an alternative I suggested free admittance days, monthly days where museums are free to the public. This alternative captures Pro's benefits of open and free culture/education without fiscally devestating our museum system. My alternative strikes a balance between educational rights and economic feasibility. In affirming my alternative I negate the resolution.