Argufight
Draw
397
437
Round 1
You remember when Bruce Springsteen tickets hit $4,000 with dynamic pricing? That's a system that's broken. When tickets are that high, you're not getting real fans in the room—you're getting people who can afford a status symbol. A $100 cap forces artists and venues to actually think about how to make money sustainably: better merch, reasonable VIP packages, or even livestream options. It stops the vicious cycle where scalpers and bots vacuum up tickets the second they drop, then flip them for five times the price. That's not free market; it's a rigged game. A cap would bring back the show as a shared cultural moment, not a luxury good. The real issue isn't artist revenue—it's that middlemen and speculation have hijacked the experience.
05:38 AM
beatriceemigAGAINST
No as artist need to make a income and company such as Spotify does not provide them with a income that is able to live on. Sources from ditto streams state that "Spotify pays artists between $0.003 - $0.005 (£0.002–£0.004) per stream on average". This would mean an artist would need to have over 20,000 streams just to earn $100 dollars meaning they need more income such as concert pricing, artist such as Noah Kahan also donate some profits to organisations meaning they need to be more expensive to provide him with an income as well as the organisation.
05:43 AM
Round 2
Actually, you're right that streaming pays peanuts—but here's a stat that flips the script: in 2022, Live Nation made over $2 billion just in service fees and add-ons. That money doesn't go to artists either. So the system's already broken for musicians, just in a different way.
A $100 cap doesn't mean artists earn less; it means the middlemen can't gouge fans. Plenty of successful acts like Phoebe Bridgers or Tyler Childers hold tickets under $100 and still tour profitably through merch, vinyl, and smart VIP packages. The real enemy isn't a price ceiling—it's the parasitic secondary market and promoters taking 40% cuts.
If we capped tickets, artists would still get their base guarantee, and scalpers couldn't hoard supply. That $4,000 Springsteen ticket? The band barely saw a fraction of it. Let's cut out the leeches instead of pretending high
05:44 AM
beatriceemigAGAINST
yes there should be a cap but $100 is way to low for artist to survive on their music it should be around $400. Society also see concerts as a given if you like the artist but it is a luxury experience and should be treated like one, individual will not die if they do not see their favorite artist but the artist will die if they are not able to pay for food. Ticket companies need to but more money into finding and removing bot rather than putting a blanket rule which will hinder artist leading to less talent being around as people don't want to show it as they won't even be able to live on the income of their dream career. If we only charge $100 per ticket artist will not be able to live off their job leading to people not wanting to start this career leading to the music industry slowly die which will be bad for society as music has been proven to help with people mental health over many years.
05:49 AM
Round 3
Did you know the average artist makes more profit from a $50 t-shirt than a $400 ticket after venues, promoters, and ticket platforms take their cuts? That's the dirty secret nobody talks about. A $100 cap doesn't starve artists—it forces the whole system to stop treating fans like ATMs.
You say concerts are a luxury, but music is culture, not just a commodity. When Robert Smith from The Cure fought Ticketmaster and refunded fans for excessive fees last year, he proved that artists can survive just fine without gouging. The real issue is that we've accepted a broken model where scalpers and middlemen siphon off 40-60% of the price.
I agree bots need to be stopped. But a cap plus better tech enforcement? That's
05:50 AM
beatriceemigAGAINST
First off your claim that Phoebe Bridgers charges no more than $100 per ticket is completely false most of her tickets are about $180-$300. Live nation shouldn't be taking that from the artist but companies want to make money so as much as we try they will find ways to make an income as there's no reason to have a business which isn't a NGO to continue if they have no profit. Who would provide the base guarantees because if all the money a business can get it $100 they will take it there is no law that if a business is providing a service they cannot charge as much as they want. A concert isn't expected it is something that is a luxury to society and business won't stop trying to get a profit because is morally wrong we live in a society that relys on money and if people don't have enough they will find ways to get it so $100 cap won't stop the business from making 2 billion dollars rather just make artist poorer and therefore make people mental health decline.
05:57 AM
Round 4
beatriceemigAGAINST
That's what finish your sentence. The cure is a highly famous band what about new coming artists they do not have the fees to be able to spend money getting lawyers to fight for their fans. But is it any better for a artist to be pricing a shirt at $100 when it only cost them $20 to make because they used cheap materials and used labour to create it, there are so many issues with the music industry taking to much from fans but cutting the cost of tickets will not fix the proplem rather just hinder new artist trying to make a living. We need to target fixing models such as ticketmaster who are taking the earning from artist than just cutting the protention income of artist this will just been hindering new artists leading to no one joining the industry and a slow decline of music as we will only have those with money rather than new people rising to fame
06:04 AM