The "For" case starts from the premise that the basic concept of the Direct Democracy Forum should appeal to anyone who (a) wants ordinary people to be more involved in political conversations or (b) would like to elevate the sophistication of political discourse in Australia. Anyone who has these views should support the success of the forum, and the surest route to success is to ensure that it has sufficient funding for maintenance and improvement as it scales.
The budgetary requirements of the forum are quite modest. $2 million a year would probably be sufficient to support most of the future objectives of the site: not only the maintenance and improvement of the existing forum as it scales, but also the creation of a similar project for each of the states and territories.[1] We submit that this is a small investment with a massive potential benefit to the public at large.
The primary value of the Direct Democracy Forum is in its promotion of an informed and engaged democratic discourse [Judgment]. As long as it is able to attract and keep a strong pool of engaged users, this forum should be able to provide a unique service in producing up-to-date information and analysis on what is actually going on in parliament. The feature of displaying links to other media on each forum should also allow this site to serve as a news distributor and aggregator, thus likely strengthening the broader ecosystem of political discourse. In general, encouraging citizens to engage with politics in terms of concrete policy issues should promote a more intelligent and civil political culture [Judgment].
Among many other secondary benefits we might imagine, one is that this site could become a powerful gauge of public opinion that goes beyond the usual vague polling questions to actually build a map of what people think on a range of concrete policy issues.
My estimate based on an assumption that I leave my day job and hire a small team. Obviously more would be required to promote the site.
Let's grant that the Direct Democracy Forum is a good idea. Even if so, the forum is better off getting grassroots funding from its users. The forum does not need government funding. It should be able to get by on approximately 0 funding and can prosper with modest funding beyond that. [1] If the forum gains sufficient popularity, one would expect donations to start trickling in. If the forum never reaches this stage, it probably never deserved government outlay either [Judgment].
The other reason is this: while government funding doesn't necessarily imply direct government influence or a corrosion of independence, it inevitably creates some vectors of influence. There will always be the worry that if the forum upsets the current government because of, say, the harsh reception of some of its recent policies, funding may be curtailed [Judgment].
Based on my estimate of ongoing maintenance requiring only a few hours of work per work, and costing a modest amount.
When composing an argument, it is sometimes necessary to fall back on claims or contentions that loosely fall under the rubric of "Common Sense". These are not assumptions, derivations or direct empirical claims, but simply plausible judgments. Think the sort of assertion you would usually cloak in language like "I would claim" or "It is plausible to believe that" - something that rings true to you but which you would be hard-pressed to back up with a specific link or citation. As you can see in the Worked Example arguments above, in such cases you should avoid the usual hedging phrases and just make your assertion, plus an extra appendage like so: "[Judgment]". If you do not do this, then an admin will probably come by later and add a "Citation Needed" footnote to this same sentence, which will look worse!
It is also worth considering that you may not need to use a Judgment at all. The more judgments you make, the weaker your argument will be, relative to one that relies on more verifiable claims. So if you can substitute a judgment for a more directly verifiable claim, it is usually a good idea to do so.