Should we open the public protected area for eco-tourism activity/development?
Debate Rounds (3)
I am assuming the round structure goes like this:
1.Acceptance/ Opening statements
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.
karshin forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeits, so all arguments carry over.
karshin forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skrone 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, pro forfeited two rounds. Votebomb con
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.