That travellers should be forced to settle
Debate Rounds (3)
This is my first time debating,
I would therefore like it if my oponent took the first shot.
Now, it would certainly help if you would define "travelers" to what person exactly is a "traveler". If you mean all travelers in general (that is, people who move from one place to another for either a short or long period of time), this strikes me as foolish. So I'll write an argument for travelers in general and travelers as in migrant worker-type people.
If you mean travelers in general, how would this human world, with all of its complexities and the global market that has developed today, sustain itself? America and its economy, for example, would come to a screeching halt. How would businessmen negotiate deals to acquire oil from the Middle East or negotiate deals to purchase finished goods from China without travelling? Americans would have no finished goods to purchase (for the most part) because so many are foreign-made and the businessmen would be unable to make deals to purchase them.
Now, travelers (general travelers) cause a great deal of waste and mess because they have to stay at a place such as a hotel during their travels, but the hotel service industry is a huge money maker for many countries (either for business or tourism). Jamaica, for example, "is heavily dependent on services, which now account for more than 60% of GDP" (https://www.cia.gov...). Many countries would suffer great economic hardship from a lack of travel.
You also state that travelers are "not good for the environment," and I greatly disagree. It is not the travelers themselves that are the cause of the damage but rather the people who provide the services that cause the environmental damage (a tourist staying at a Hilton Hotel has no control over whether the hotel uses environmentally friendly air conditioning units or all-natural detergents and so).
Now, if you meant travelers as in people such as migrant workers or immigrants, I must also greatly disagree. Both migrant workers and immigrants have played pivotal roles in the world's history and still have great importance in the world today.
Immigrants have quite recently played a pivotal role in the development of the Industrial Revolution, most notably in America. The Industrial Revolution began around the end of the 18th century when Samuel Slater brought the new machines of Britain's textile industry to America and Eli Whitney developed the Cotton Gin and Interchangeable parts; however, it was very weak until the boycott of English and French finished goods before and during the War of 1812. This allowed the industries in America to gain some ground, but they were still lagging behind when the boycotts were removed. The scales tipped into America's favor in the 1840s and 1850s, when there was massive immigration of Irish people (due to the Irish Potato Famine) and Germans (due to a failed revolution in Germany in 1848). Hundreds of thousands of immigrants rushed into America, and, while the explosion in population caused hygiene to drop to a disgusting level, the boost to America's industry was enormous. It laid the foundation for what would be about another century of an industrial boom, and, after a few decades, the grime and lack of hygiene slowly was cured.
Another example of how mass travelers and immigration changed the course of history is after the Catholic Crusades into the Holy Land. The thousands of knights were amazed by the great splendor in which the Muslims lived due to the revival of their study of the Ancient Greeks and Romans and also the technologies that came from the Far East. They took the ideas, technologies, and thirst for a better lifestyle back home to Europe, and it caused The Renaissance. The massive movement of the pilgrims and knights, although certainly a strain on much of the agricultural and fiscal abilities of the area, allowed Europe to step out of the Dark Age.
In modern times, migrant workers are very important to the agriculture and thus, the economy of America. They travel the country picking fresh fruits and vegetables and doing odd-jobs that the general populace do not wish to do. Sure, their travel may lead to sudden booms in the areas in which they stay and then a sharp decline after they leave, but how else would the crops be collected? How would the odd-jobs be done? It would crush the economy.
I admit that travelers do create waste, but normal people living for a sustained period of time in one place do as well (why else do we have the massive pollution that we do?). It would be foolish to halt the movement of people and subsequently destroy the world economy because travelers seem to produce waste. I first ask that you specify who the travelers are, and then, I would ask that you show just how they create the waste you claim to do (and show how it is worse than that of people who remain settled in one place).
You seem to have misunderstood my argument. By travellers, I was referring to the Irish/English traveller communities. I probably should have been more clear in my opening argument, but I shall carry on...
Those who live, not for work but live, in Caravans, have no settled homes and move from place to place when one starts to become inconvenient.
"I would ask that you show just how they create the waste you claim to do (and show how it is worse than that of people who remain settled in one place)."
Obviously, if someone is living in a caravan, without running water, without bins, without toilets, their waste is going to be thrown outside in the area that they reside in.
"How would the odd-jobs be done?"
I find your attitude towards the travellers here to be almost vulgar. As if you are saying it's work that should be done by the "little people". I do not think it's fair to associate travellers with such jobs, due to the work their ancestors did in the past. I think travellers should have the opportunity to work the better jobs, to be the lawyers, the doctors, or any other job that seems impossible for them now to reach. To give them the right to education, to settle them, to let them raise the money for college without worrying about all the money that goes into their mobile homes. We all know that next to no travellers go to college and I trust that I do not have to go into the importance of college in the majority of peoples lives. I think that settling them is the best way to get them to complete their second level education, influencing them to at least try and go one step further to third level.
Most of these people actually want to settle. They are worried about the hardship their kids go through when going to school. The kids are not given the chance to "settle in" properly because they are constantly moving. Their education too, suffers deeply in this case.
If the people were to be settled, this would give them a better chance to be accepted in their community, to prove that the misconceptions about travellers, are merely misconceptions. One can not argue that these misconceptions do not exist, we see them everyday in the slang terms for travellers, "tinker", "knacker", "gypsy". I believe the only way to get rid of these bitterness, to destroy the feud between travellers and settled folk, is to let them get to know each other.
It is obviously better to settle these people on the grounds that it is better for their health and their education. It is also better for them because it will be much easier for them to get a job. We have to admit that because of the misconceptions, it will be easier for a settled person to get a job then a traveller. Therefore, by giving them a home, they are in better chances to get the job, the car and the life that they deserve.
The government needs to put more of an effort and more money into the council home system so these people can fix their lives and live in the way that they dream of..
"Obviously, if someone is living in a caravan, without running water, without bins, without toilets, their waste is going to be thrown outside in the area that they reside in."
I detest your assumptions and use or words such as "obviously" (I will point how you consistently declare many points as "obvious" later on). How is this obvious? Are you certain that they have no other means for disposing of their waste? I have researched many sites and none of them have mentioned how travellers are unhygienic and throw their waste "outside in the area that they reside in." I ask that you find me hard evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, I deem that this statement to be just a matter of opinion, and so, it really proves nothing about travellers.
" 'How would the odd-jobs be done?' "
"I find your attitude towards the travellers here to be almost vulgar. As if you are saying it's work that should be done by the 'little people'. "
First off, I did not know that we were discussing the social/ethnic group known as "travellers" that dwell mainly in Ireland and the UK. It did not mean to belittle travellers (both because I did not know we were debating about them and that I was describing what MIGRANT WORKERS do. Please read what I write so that you understand my entire argument). I was describing how migrant workers (in the United States) sometimes do different odd-jobs (defined by dictionary.com as "to work at a series of unrelated or unspecialized jobs, often of a low-paying or menial nature" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Again, I was not referring to travellers but migrant workers (whom I thought you may have been referring to before you cleared up what the subject of the debate was).
Again, you declare another point to be obvious by stating "We all know that next to no travellers go to college and I trust that I do not have to go into the importance of college in the majority of peoples lives." Where is your proof that next to no travellers go to college, and, if this is in fact true, just because college is important to one person does not make it important to another. Why would the travellers want to go to college (they might even desire not to--see further down). So, again, I ask you to prove your statement.
I believe to have found some information to the contrary. In an essay written by Dr. Leon Litvack, Litvack states that "very few [travellers] desire to assimilate" (http://www.qub.ac.uk...). Travellers are their own ethnic group (in the UK) and social group (in Ireland) that the majority of which do not wish to join society because it would take them from their way of life.
You state that "Most of these people actually want to settle." Where is your proof? Dr. Litvack describes how many travellers refuse to settle because they wish to keep with their ethnic traditions, such as their language which has "never been broadcast on Irish television, and is not taught even at all-Traveller schools". Litvack states that "rejection of language (and consequently, culture) is the price Travellers pay for admission to full participation in Irish life." I see no reason to force an ethnic group to give up their culture.
Again, you use that distasteful word of obviously when you say, "It is obviously better to settle these people on the grounds that it is better for their health and their education". Where is your proof? You continue..."is also better for them because it will be much easier for them to get a job." Where is your proof? Do they really want a job in the standard society? It seems from Dr. Litvack's essay that many travellers are content with their lifestyle and ethic heritage.
You continue to state that many points are "obvious" while I must say I strongly disagree and/or desire proof of your statement. You conclude your argument by stating that "The government needs to put more of an effort and more money into the council home system so these people can fix their lives and live in the way that they dream of..". I say for a final time, where is your proof that these people want to "fix" their lives and dream of living a different way than they do right now? If the travellers really dreamed of joining society, could they not have done so? Even with possible prejudices and discrimination, is it not possible?
Your argument seems to have a common theme that is both better for and "obvious" that travellers desire to join society, yet I see no proof of this. In fact, I have provided proof to the contrary. Unless you can prove that they desire to be integrated into society and have trouble doing so, I see them as an ethnic group content with their lifestyle and culture. Although there are accusations that their ethnic/social group is detrimental to society (usually through cons), there is no solid proof that I could find that the majority of travellers do so. You even defended their jobs when you declared my attitude towards travellers as "vulgar" and stated that the jobs of their ancestors were meaningful (and I agree with you, many of their jobs certainly are meaningful)! The only reason I could ever see for forcing an ethnic group to integrate itself into society would be if they were either rebellious to the government or all a bunch of criminals. Your view of these people is almost like that of one who believes in the philosophy of a Utopian society where all people wish to be well-educated (well-educated by the general society's standards), live in a nice, quaint community where everyone likes everyone. I do not feel like proving how all Utopian societies have failed (I will do so if you wish), but they fail and it is because sometimes people like the lifestyle they have now.
So, I challenge you to prove your statements. Otherwise, I see this ethnic group as just another ethnic group, neither being detrimental to society (which would mean they should be forced to join it, as the topic statement declares) nor wishing to joining it.
Sahar09 forfeited this round.
Since she was not able to respond, I will not make another argument because it would not be fair.
Please vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by A_Rootless_Oak 7 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|
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.