Melbourne should be the capital of Australia

I must firstly address the negative speaker's repeated misconception and false information given in round 1 and 2. He has firstly instructed the audience that the imediete change of the capital city will not be worth the "effort expensed", i must remind the negative speaker of his guidelines for the debate, he stated that both "Melbourne and Canberra seem like the only cities with enough space to accomadate the these facilities..." This comment in itself dictates that the facilities needed in Melbourne are already avalibe, therefore no aditional costs to the city wil be required. If this, however isn't the case, then i ask the negative speaker, what additional facilities does a capital city require? He next addressed my comment about multiculturalism and safety, this remark implied the negative speaker's futher lack of concern towards the subject. I once again question the negative speaker's reasoning for creating a debate about the possible movement of a capital city, if he doen't care for the safety or culture of a counrty. In my definition, i described a capital city of having both these features that are being overlooked by the negative speaker. So YES, negative speaker, I believe these are reasons enough. Another term used in this sentance was "capital focus", this appears to suggest that the cost of taking the "focus" away from Canberra would be difficult for Australians and tourists to comprahend. I justafiably addressed this in my first arguement, by desplaying the common misconceptions by both tourists and Australians , that Melbourne, or even Sydney is infact the capital city. Therefore i feel if Canberra remained capital city, it would have to work on increased publicity, apposed to Melbourne. Once again we see the negative speaker unclear in his rebuttle due to a lack of knowledge or obvious concern for the issues of this debate. Another statement by the negative speaker regarded the safety levels in Melbourne compared to Canberra. This suggested that because of statistics, that once again the negative speaker has failed to list or source, Melbourne will become less safe. I ask the negative speaker, what areas of safety is he referring to? Terrorism safety? Public wellbeing? If the former, I must remind the negative speaker that the terrorist threat in Australia refers to the entire country, therefore no additional threat will be directed at Melbourne if it does become capital city. If however, he was referring to public wellbeing, one must question how the movement of a capital city will effect this in any way. We cannot be sure of how either of these examples will change the safety levels in Melbourne as the negative team has failed to provide any evidence, therefore we must follow the obvious answer that no major change will effect the safety in Melbourne. In the negative speaker's next paragraph, I noticed that he one again failed to explain why or how any of his statements are valid. I have repeatedly found much difficulty in seeing how, many of the negative speaker's arguements are accurate and therefore relevant in this debate when he has lacked in providing evidence for his case. I can't believe how the negative speaker can, for example, understand how a terrorist feels "big cities are ideal for places to attack." When he has provided zero proof towards this statement. How can we even believe the size of a city is anyway related to terrorist attacks when there has been no evidence put forward. Another example of when this has occured in the negative speakers most recent arguements was in his next statement, when he described Canberra as a less focused city in Australia, the speaker told us that was a good thing, once again failing to mention how this was the case in his argument. Later in round 2 he gave us a link to a website of which he described to be information enough, which I think is quite the opposite. The listing of a website should not count towards an argument in itself as material used in this source is under copyright, and should only be used as a point of reference, instead of the argument that the negative speaker has used. The website link the negative speaker has suggested a point of reason for his case is a government site with a brief history of the area of Canberra including links to agriculture and indigenous, history as well as a very limited paragraph on the reasoning for the appointment of Canberra as capital city. During my filter through this source there were only three listed reasons for the construction of the 'purpose built parliamentary sector' on top of the two subheadings I have already mentioned. These were instructed to the surveyor for Canberra; "picturesque, distinctive, and with views." Along with the culture of the indigenous people and the agricultural past we should recognise that these features are common in most parts of Australia, therefore I believe that not only has the negative speaker claimed Canberra is special, but he has used common features to back up his arguments which clearly has failed to make any grounds to the subject. Another comment made by the negative speaker asked "why isn't the capital located at Uluru, on the Great Barrier Reef, Cairns or Sydney?" And linked this directly to my remark towards Melbourne's tourism. This comment makes us see the obvious misconception the negative speaker has towards not only the themes and ideas behind the topic of this debate, but what makes a good capital city! I ask the negative team, would a great capital city not be a major hotspot that puts the culture and lifestyles into one city put on show to the world? Instead, would a great capital be jammed into a small, 'parliamentary hotspot' where Australia can be represented by a housing estate with a few tourists and some politicians? I think not! Melbourne uses traditionally built buildings and fresh new designs to create a beautiful city that would represent Australia with dignity and pride. The culture of the city and the great history of booming agriculture and factories as well as a celebrated indigenous culture expresses the greatness of Australia in a place for the world to see. As the negative speaker has told us, Canberra is full of plentiful features that shows our brief parliamentary history, as well as modern touches of great importance to Australia. I do not believe that Canberra is not a great city, but so are the many other amazing places to visit and see as a tourist in our country, I believe that if we could, Australia would make a great capital city for itself, what I also believe this means is that our new capital city should do the same, put the entire country on spotlight to show off to the world in the form of one city. I also feel that although we are narrowed down to only two candidates for such a position in this debate, Australia is full of amazing places, although, I firmly believe that however purpose built Canberra may be, or how it's lack of tourism gives it a 'good name', Melbourne has the extensive character of our culture and the great reputation we, as a country, can pride ourselves on. Melbourne should be capital of Australia! I sincerely hope that the negative speaker understands the importance of such a capital city in our country and will not continue to rebut Melbourne because of its beautiful characteristics, as this only proves my point more. Thank you.