The Instigator
karshin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
noprisu
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should we open the public protected area for eco-tourism activity/development?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
noprisu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 33197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

karshin

Pro

Even development the protected area but you still can maintain those places that you want to protect, as an example u wanna protect a forest ,yet u can develop it as like resort but still remain the forest and the nature. Beside that, we can hire professional to protect and take care the forest as well take it as tourist spot.
noprisu

Con

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate

I am assuming the round structure goes like this:
1.Acceptance/ Opening statements
2. Rebuttals
3. Final Rebuttals- No new arguments

In that case, I will begin:

I.Eco- Tourism Destroys the Environment and Drains Valuable Resources
a.Ecotourists draw on state resources, both artifactual and natural. More people using the interstates and connecting roads mean more wear and tear. More people mean a greater drain on resources. And more people mean increased amounts of waste that must be dealt with.
b.Of course, ecotourists will be interested in seeing the natural objects that attract them here. This means that there will be more ecotourism providers, and with an increase in providers, there will be an increase in the number of sites that will be explored. Not only will the number of sites increase, but also as competition between ecotourism providers mounts"especially as the supply of tourists levels off or drops, as we have seen recently in Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana "it may be expected that these providers will look for natural objects of greater attraction. Who wants to see a red-tailed hawk when they could see a bald eagle? Who wants to see a bald eagle when they could see a bald eagle and her nest, complete with eggs or better, baby eaglets? An increase in people will mean greater intrusion into the area"s natural world, both in terms of the quantity of sites explored and in terms of the quality of the objects that are focal in those sites. It is common sense to think that the more rare the object of attraction, the more it will attract. It is also common sense to think that it is exactly the most rare natural objects that require the most protection from incursion. Couple these concerns with the possibility of ecologically insensitive ecotourism providers, and you have a recipe for ecological disaster. One boat-tour captain or trail guide who feels the need to invade a rookery"for the sake of offering his clients a quality experience of nature"could effectively destroy the exact thing that attracts his clients in the first place. If this provider goes looking for other rookeries to showcase, there is no telling how much damage could be done.

II.Development Destroys Pristine Areas
a.The development of a building like a resort requires much more than the land that the building sits on. It requires space for construction and requires plumbing that needs to be put in for this building. All this development would surely invade into the pristine forest or other treasure that the resort would be built for. If you factor in the space needed for parking and utilities and the roads that would need to exist plus the waste that would come of this, added the numerous vehicles that would emit carbon gases into the atmosphere, then for you to build the site and preserve nature would mean building far off site or not building at all.
III.Development Changes the Wildlife
a.Human interaction in wildlife areas is proven to change animal behavior. Humans feeding, touching, or even being near an animal will cause the animal to change its course away from the human or worse, eliminate the threat before it destroys its home. This would cause the animals to not behave naturally, therefore defying the entire reason for building the development in the first place. If the animals act in a tainted way because of the development, then what person would want to see those animals in there non-natural environment. If they wanted that, they would just go to a zoo instead.
Debate Round No. 1
karshin

Pro

karshin forfeited this round.
noprisu

Con

My opponent forfeits, so all arguments carry over.
Debate Round No. 2
karshin

Pro

karshin forfeited this round.
noprisu

Con

This is disappointing. I am, in practice, the "winner", but I feel like it was not a win I wanted.

Please do not vote on this debate. I would not like a forfeit to count as my win due to his account not being active anymore.

Tis' a Shame.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skrone 4 years ago
Skrone
karshinnoprisuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, pro forfeited two rounds. Votebomb con