The Instigator
debatemasterpro
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points

Tourism benefits the world.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,270 times Debate No: 7622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (11)

 

debatemasterpro

Con

Hello, I believe that tourism does not benefit the world for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, many racial attacks and conflicts have occurred as a direct result of tourism, for example when Western tourists visited Iraq in 1998 and several were kidnapped.

Second, pollution is a huge problem in rural areas visited by tourists. For example in the Snowdonia National Park in Wales, many paths are destroyed which costs the government a lot of money to repair. Also, in places such as Marbaya in Spain, drugs, sex trafficking and litter are overwhelming the local police force, with statistics such as that 3 in 5 local women are prostitutes on the BBC's website.

Therefore, although some good comes about from tourism, such as that it helps local economies, on the whole it cannot be said that tourism benefits the world.
Logical-Master

Pro

CON's 1st point: This cited incident occurred due to poor relations between the west and Iraq as well as the fact that the security in Iraq is poor. Since the removal of both of these factors in no way compromises the concept of tourism itself, we cannot conclude that "tourism" was the problem.

CON's 2nd point: He is correct to cite pollution as being a problem which is directly associated with tourism and that repairs cost money, however, in exchanging for managing the costs of repair, like many sites which masses of individuals pay to visit, the government in turn receives a heaping portion of tourism revenue. Essentially, it's equivalent exchange.

The criminal activities he cites can be dismissed due to have no relevance to tourism (though PRO is free to elaborate).

Conclusion: Tourism may cause pollution, but this is merely a small price to pay in exchange for high amounts of profit and the opportunity to increase relations with other countries, thus making it beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
debatemasterpro

Con

I would like to reinforce my previous points.

First, PRO said that the cited incident tourist kidnap was due to "poor relations" between the West and Iraq. Although this is undoubtedly true, can it not be that these poor relations were actually caused by tourism in the first place? The definition of tourism is "the activity or practice of touring, esp. for pleasure". (Dictionary.com) Could what has sparked these conflicts and what has led to their escalation not be the practice of countries leaving their borders and "touring" around the world, invading countries here and there, for example Europe and its 'crusades' in the Middle Ages. http://www.international.ucla.edu... - This page supports my argument about ancient 'tourism' causing the East/West conflicts.

This image seems to conclude nicely:
http://img105.imageshack.us...
(You are welcome to do the same.)
Logical-Master

Pro

CON's first point: He argues that tourism caused the poor relations which caused the kidnappings cited in round one. He rationalizes this by citing the crusades and insisting that they were an example of "the activity or practice of touring, esp. for pleasure." In response, let us first take a gander at the definition of "tour": http://www.askoxford.com... As you can clearly see in the definition, it implies visiting another place for the purpose of pleasure or inspection. The crusades were not acts of pleasure or inspection upon other countries, but rather acts of war and mass conversion. The mere act of individuals touring alone had nothing to do with the countries actually invading.

As for CON's citation, that page speaks nothing of tourism causing conflicts. Rather, it distinctly points out that both nations did not wish to accept each others' differences.

IMPORTANT: http://img149.imageshack.us...
Debate Round No. 2
debatemasterpro

Con

Hello. thanks for the reply.
After taking a gander, as instructed, I can see that a tour is something with a purpose of pleasure and/or inspection. Whilst these crusades had a primary purpose of war, these travelling men also undoubtedly enjoyed the brothels and looked at the old historical sites (this was there acclaimed "holy land"). Therefore we can gather that their secondary purposes did render them tourists, and thus all the negative aspects of the crusades can be attributed to them.
Second, even if not every country goes to war with every other country, a lot do, and it is devastating (I concede that on rare occasions it will be beneficial if the country is in atrocious conditions beforehand).
Third, the lack of ability to coexist that PRO cites as causing conflicts was caused in the first place by the tourism that I have spoken of already - with out this touring the cultures would never have clashed and come to disagreement.
http://img23.imageshack.us...
Logical-Master

Pro

CON claims that these crusades were indeed examples of toursim due to these men enjoying brothels as well as looked at the old historical sites, however, it was not these acts which were deemed a problem (assuming they occured), but rather all of the fighting and the murder. If the crusades were merely restricted to a bunch of men going to historical sites and enjoying brothels, there'd be no negative consequences. Hence, CON's argument fails.

Second, the fact that every country does not go to war is what the problem with CON's argument is. The only way it can work is if he can prove that tourism causes war. There being countries that do not go to war yet prosper from tourism disproves his assertion.

IMPORTANT INFO HERE:http://img2.imageshack.us...

In the end, we must keep in mind that tourism is a force that serves to encourage global unity and it is also an excellent means of boosting an economy in all parts of the world.

Thanks for the debate. VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
lol @ theLwerd
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
No, L-M, you're right - You won this debate :)
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
L-M has a very clever way of posting long arguments in limited characters.
Posted by Lazy 5 years ago
Lazy
Tourism is a sign of good relationships. It a sign that people will deal with a foreigner even from an enemy country for economic good. Tourism is a sign that progress can be made in a foreign relationship.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
LM, Sure, he has the burden of proof. I'm not sure you needed to say anything in this case.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
F/A/O - Debatemasterpro.

There's nothing you can do about the authentication process - all European members, myself included, have the same problem, which means none of us can vote - so much for universal suffrage, eh?

But hey, look on the bright side, if I had been able to vote I would have voted against you!

Reason - although I thought it was a good debating topic and your point about the environment was legitimate, overall I think Pro gave the more convincing argument.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
I was initially going to use statistics as well as a few other arguments, herr latham. It's just that I didn't bother checking the character limit until the last minute. :(

Then I figured that "Hey, if my opponent isn't using empirical information, I can probably get away with not using any as well."
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
"Tourism" is a broad generality. In the US, for example, the most popular tourist destination is Disneyworld. To support a broad contention, it is far better to argue with statistics rather than anecdotes. That would be something like a statistic on the dollars spent cleaning up after tourists versus the dollars obtained from them. In lieu of statistics, Con might provide his own estimates based upon some limited data. The average family visiting Disneyworld spends $2600, but <whatever>. Lacking those sort of quantitative arguments, Con did not meet the burden of proof. Since it is easy for localities to discourage tourism, but in fact tourism is braodly encourage, it seems unlikely that there are and convincing numbers. Pro could have also cited educational and cultural benefits of tourism.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll remove my vote then to even the odds.

I don't know enough about the system for you to get your accoun authenticated.
Posted by debatemasterpro 5 years ago
debatemasterpro
Hi, have you voted for yourself?
I can't vote because I can't do the phone thing-
my mobile number is 11 digits, but it only takes 10 in the boxes,
Any advice?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 4 years ago
tribefan011
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 4 years ago
JBlake
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by falafel 5 years ago
falafel
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
debatemasterproLogical-MasterTied
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:70