The Instigator
Lickdafoot
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Detectableninjas Tournament: Free Museam Admittals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 949 times Debate No: 19127
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Lickdafoot

Pro

Full Resolution: Museum admittance should be provided at no charge

I will be arguing that museum admittance should be free of charge, Raisor will be arguing that Museum admittance should not be free.

Round 1: Definitions, clarifitcations, accpetance
Round 2: pening statements, rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rettals, final statements


Definitions from dictionary.com

Museum: a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed.

Should: must; ought

Due to the word should in the resolution, it is implied that museums in general must be free of charge, so BOP is shared but should Con give a sufficient example of a case where a museum should charge a fee, he shall be the winner.
Raisor

Con

Alright, sounds good. Do it to it.
Debate Round No. 1
Lickdafoot

Pro

In this post I intentend to show you that museums should have free admittance. The cultural, creative, and educational value that can be gained from visiting museums should be allowed to everyone in our society.

The Importance of Museums

There are many different types of museums including art, science, history, etc. The main purpose behind museums is to give a sense of knowledge and culture to the person visiting. People should not be denied the right to be more knowledgable about the society of the world around them.


The Importance of Culture in Society


Cultural awareness creates shared ideals and behavioral patterns among a group of people. A sense of culture instills values into a person and into a society at large. What this creates is people who share common goals and work together to strengthen their community for the good of everyone at large. Everyone should have access to museums because they keep people educated about the history of the country and the current goals of a nation; and where they fit into that system.

There are six main driving factors in a quality culture. Two of those factors are open communication and everyone having access to all information. [1] Charging a fee for museums rejects people from having these two values. An invaluable culture will create opposite mentalities, such as a need to do things for self- interest rather than helping those around you. What this leaves is a society full of people who are working against each other which tears the economy and country apart.

Who Gets Shafted?

Who gets the brunt end of the stick? Museums that charge fees will deflect poor people from entering the museum. Poor people are generally less educated than rich people, and these are the ones that are in the most need of a museum. Cutting people off from free education about their culture just encourages negative and self destructive behaviors. Every child has a right to free education, but we know that schools are limited in what they can teach.

Schools teach from textbooks and follow strict guidelines. Interaction and a sense of interest becomes lost. Libraries are full of books with words and at most a couple of pictures. The internet can have tons of misguided information. Television watching is passive and is dependant on what the producer decides to put out there. Museums are the only form of education that is interactive with a person. A person can become physically engaged in what strikes them as interesting. Museums present information in a way that is more interactive for the person wishing to learn. They can choose which areas are of most interest to them, and spend their time engaging accordingly. A child has the right to this sort of education because it is more fulfilling to them.

When a child is neglected of education, they go on to produce a subpar standard of living and working. They go on to commit cirms and have a lack of understanding about their role in society. This hinders society at large.


1. http://my.execpc.com...
Raisor

Con

Raisor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lickdafoot

Pro

Arguments Extended
Raisor

Con


First, I apologize for not submitting an opening argument. Sometimes life gets in the way of your plans and I really do regret those big red letters in my R2


Counterproposal: Museums should charge an admittance fee except on the third Sunday of every month.


Competitiveness: My counterproposal contradicts the Resolution “Museum admittance should be provided at no charge.” The Resolution implies that ALL museum admittance should be without charge. If this were not the case the resolution would read “Some museum admittance should be provided at no charge.” The resolution is clearly about universally free museums, which my counterproposal contradicts.


MORE IMPORTANTLY, my counterproposal meets the Burden of Proof set forth by my opponent: “should Con give a sufficient example of a case where a museum should charge a fee, he shall be the winner.” I am doing more than providing a single case where a museum should charge a fee, I am claiming that in 29/30 cases, museums should provide admittance.


MY CP SOLVES THE PROS ADVANTAGES:


Culture in Society:


One day a month free admittance offers the opportunity to attend a museum to everyone. All people have the option to attend a museum for free once a month, and so all people in society have access to open information and communication.


Shafting the Poor:


One free day a week grants museum access to people of all incomes, preserving the right of every individual to a free education and ensuring all have access to the unique benefits of museums.


MY CP UNIQUELY SOLVES THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES


Cost of upkeep:


According to the American Association of Museums, 33% of museum upkeep comes from admittance fees. Depriving museums of fees would cause the following:


a) The museum must make up the cost through other venues. If museums could get an additional 33% funding from private donors or investments they would be doing it now, so the only source left is the government. If government subsidies pick up the slap, our museums would receive over 50% of their funding through the government. Given the current economic and political climate, government is more likely to CUT funding than increase it.


b) Museums must cut costs to accommodate loss of income. Cutting 33% of operating costs would result in a drastic drop in quality of service, diminishing the quality of education Pro describes in her opening round. This kills all the educational benefit museums are currently providing, meaning Pro’s position results in a net decrease in Culture/education in society.


My CP maintains the current quality of museums while offering access to those who cannot afford it.



My CP would result in some loss of revenue, but far less than Pro’s plan. Additionally, free museum days are typically more crowded, providing incentive for patrons who can afford it to pay admittance on non-free days. Also, people will pay for the convenience of attending a museum at their leisure rather than planning for a free day.



FINALLY: Even if you don’t accept my CP, my Cost of Upkeep argument still applies. Dropping admittance fees will ultimately hurt the quality of museums and therefore the culture and educational services they provide. A 33% budget cut is a LOT of money.



Additionally, museum admittance fees are already very low. The average cost of attending a museum is $7 (AAM source again), less than your average movie theater ticket. I would argue that this affordable for most families as a special outing. If a family cannot afford a 7 dollar museum ticket, chances are that other economic barriers such as transportation cost will prevent museum attendance as well. The removal of museum fees will then have minimal impact on accessibility.



http://www.aam-us.org...


Debate Round No. 3
Lickdafoot

Pro

Counter Proposal

The plan that my opponent brought up might seem convenient at first glance, but would fail upon application. Would you rather go to a museum on a day that it was free or on a day that it costs money? Most people would pick the first option, causing that one day to be more hectic than the rest. Most buildings have maximum capacity due to fire regulations, meaning a lot of people who opted to go on this day would be left out. Furthermore, people would not enjoy a museum that is jam-packed full of people. People would be rushed through and crowded, so that they could not get the full knowledge that the museum has to offer. This would also create problems with the staff, who would have to accomodate for one extremely busy day out of the month.

Proposing to have a one-day-only free admittance to a museum would still be negating the right for citizens to have free knowledge. Only a limited amount of people would have the chance to get into these museums. People who came too late, and people who happen to be busy on that certain day, would still be restricted from their culture. The idea is that EVERY citizen should have the right to free knowledge about their culture, not some citizens who can comply to a strict schedule.


Cost detterence

My opponent says that 33% of a museum's profit is through admittance fees. While this is a decent chunk of cash, museums are already mainly funded by the government. We also know that the government is willing to increase these funds for museums. We can use the National Smithsonian as an example. Their budget funding was raised from $761.4 million in 2010 to $797.6 in 2011. [1] It is not illogical to assume that the government would be willing to fund museums in full.

Another way that the museums could maintain their budget is by having at-the-door donations. This would mean that instead of someone being forced to pay a set fee, any willing person could give the museum a donation. Surely, some of the more wealthy museum goers would offer up some of their money to support the museum. This could work in the museums favor, as people would be more willing to give higher amounts of cash.

Everyone should have a right to knowledge and a right to culture. Because museums are unique in the way that they transfer that knowledge, denying full free Museum acceptance is denying that right.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Raisor

Con

CP

1)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.

Cost

1) 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.

OVERVIEW

I 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.

I must therefore urge the judges:

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Man, this turned into a two round debate. Bummer I couldnt make that opening round.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Sorry again for the round forfeit. I just typed this argument up in like 20 min, I didnt even read over it lol.
Posted by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
meant to say "..or i could let the time ride out a bit so that you can get something in the next round."
Posted by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
I understand. Mine was rather short for a similar reason. Will you be less busy at any particular point? You could post your round in the comments so i have something to respond to, or let the time ride out a bit so that you can get something in next round.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Sorry I forfeited my round. I have been really busy this week and just didnt have time to write up a round. I hate flaking on the tournament like this but I just did not have the time.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
LickdafootRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct => forfeit; convincing args => Con proves that museums would lose 33 of revenue, could not make up this shortfall (given current political environ), and proves his C/P is effective (using examples from personal experience); sources => Con provides specific evidence and numbers on costs to specific museums and how much pro's plan would cost nationally
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
LickdafootRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the FF, and I voted Con because LDF's offense was captured by the free day counterplan. Raisors argument of how the effects would be net engative (33 budget cuts) was also compelling in my mind. I know its a short RFD, so if any of you have questions feel free to PM me.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
LickdafootRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF (am reading this as of now, but in case I get lazy, someone wins before the voting deadline.)