Instigator / Con
7
1649
rating
57
debates
66.67%
won
Topic

Slum Tourism: benefits vs harms, net balance Policy Debate

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Undefeatable
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
4
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 1,062 / 5,000

Slum Tourism: Slum tourism, also sometimes referred to as "ghetto tourism," involves tourism to impoverished areas, particularly in India, Brazil, Kenya, and Indonesia. The purpose of slum tourism is to provide tourists the opportunity to see the “non-touristy” areas of a country or city.

Harm/Good: Threatening or violating something. We may discuss personal harm, economy harms, societal harms, so on and so forth. Pro will argue that the harms outweigh the good, while Con argues otherwise. (See more below)

Round 1:

Con will list the ways the harms outweigh the good.

Pro will list the ways the good outweighs the harm. He will then try to list potential policies that he thinks will be accepted, that allow the good to even further outweigh the harms.

Round 2 and 3:

Con will then refute and try to knock down implementation as well as listed benefits, then uphold the idea that the detriments still outweigh the plausible fixes of Pro's policy.

Pro will refute and defend.

Round 4 for final refutations and conclusion

Burden of proof is shared.

Round 1
Con
Thanks con.

I. Ignorance of poor

As we know, slums innately have diseases and are riddled with the inability to access health care. [2] Even critical access to water is incredibly difficult for the urban poor. [5] The problems are also expounded due to illiteracy, crime, and unemployment. [3] The thousands of deaths continue despite the tourism seemingly to bring knowledge to the public.

The fact of the matter is that slum tourism depends on the existence of poor people. Ironically, the tourism companies are less encouraged to support the poor, since there would be fewer slums to tour. As a result, the endless cycle presents a fake "brave face" in front of the rich tourists. The problem is then the neglect of the poor, which is always immoral, as one must help others when one has the opportunity to do so, and with extra resources to spare. One research article introduces, " Local tour operators emphasize the productivity of the slum, with its annual turnover of $665 million generated from its hutment industries. Its poor sanitation, lack of clean water, squalid conditions and overcrowding are ignored and replaced by a vision of resourcefulness, hard work, and diligence". [1] Already, we are presented with the obvious problem. We exploit the poor and do nothing in return to help them. Not only do we violate the inherent dignity of humans, but we also prevent the ideas of economic equality and altruism. 

As we dig deeper, it's clear that tourism does not present the slums as a place that needs help. Greater than 75% of tourists say that they would not pay to see the homeless back home. [4] The fact that a quarter of people paid for the "novelty" of slum tourism highlights the dehumanization of those living their regular lives. The portrayal of the slums was framed unfairly in a way that mostly invoked positive emotions and made it look better than it is. This is no different from abusing a child and covering up her scars to look proper at schools. You fail to address the core issues. How are they different from animals in a zoo, mere entertainment for the public's view? Their continual suffering, the intrusion of privacy, and disrespect of rights is immoral and must not be continued. 

II. Encouragement of Poor

Connecting to the tourism marketing methods, it is evident that tourism boosts the image of the slums. Yet the diseases formed, the malnutrition of citizens, and the income inequality all are counterproductive to society as a whole. By the very torn down nature and lack of meeting standards, the often illegal slums attract illegal citizens and those with minimum wage [6]. If this wasn't enough, all of them experience discrimination with significant proportion [7]. Con may say that some deserved it, but criminals hold an advantage in the landscape. One author notes, "the local authorities working on the development of the local infrastructure had to have the implicit support of the drug cartel." [10] As such, when you support slum tourism, you unfortunately also support the crime lords living in the area. The lack of information of where the money truly goes is appalling and a definite problem for slums.

In a way, we then condemn the poor to continue being poor and even glorify the experience. The white and rich people are empowered, rather than the poor. The imagery and narrative of the slum as a "wonderful" and "mind-blowing" experience is difficult to shake off, as even tour guides rarely interact with serious topics such as health, safety, and ethnic concerns. [8] In the end, we legitimize and bring power to inequality, which is a severe issue in the world. Even though the tourists claim to be enlightened, they rarely demonstrate actual actions to stop poverty and suffering. [9] An entire book devotes its talk to refute the idea of a trickle-down economy. [10] If one needs a passage to put the nail in the coffin, page 53 notes "government money is often invested in establishing infrastructure for tourism while the basic infrastructural needs of citizen for utility, water, and electricity are pushed aside". The investment of money into tourism takes away resources that could've been used to help the citizens. Hence, I bolster the idea that slum tourism is only able to increase the disparity of inequality. 

Even though my case is shorter than usual, I believe my dozen sources combined with clear negative impacts on the poor result in a horrible reality. Our slum tourism only continues to increase inequality and thus is problematic. As such, the slum tourism harms outweigh the benefits.

Pro
Thanks Con for the opening. As structured, Pro will list the benefits of slum tourism in this round-

Opening Argument

Inspiration. Although the origin of the trend started with the practice of telling off the poor [1], the current industry while criticized for its nature was built on the idea of focusing on the matter of inequality [2]. The surge of curiosity is intrinsically baked into human psychology. And from that curiosity originates the sense of seeking more knowledge about a particular aspect to achieve the pint of self-actualization in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Now, does one become self actualized by developing selfishness in himself and undermining the humans of lower class in terms of socio-economic balance? No, he has to show empathy, sympathy, compassion and the tendency of charity to actually become the most of himself. Although it's not implied that his self interests don't count- that is to mean that he has to maintain the balance of taking in and giving back to the world. However, all of this ties into the ultimate inspiration of slum tourism- a very compatible method with the modern world to acknowledge and build a balanced society.  How? Let's see-  

Improvement of Life Standard. The motivation behind the aspect of slum tourism has been to improve the life standard of people in multiple ways connected within [2]. Ignoring the benefits coming out of slum tourism would be to choose to be in denial. But the debate focuses on the degree of benefits or harms surrounding this blooming business. Pro is entitled to make his case with the strength of the benefits and that he will make-
  • Slum tourism, first hand, promotes  a new perspective among the tourists about the inequality and imbalance in the society they live in. The depth of this understanding is massively underrated among the critics of slum tourism. To experience the concept of a golden spoon turning into burnt properties on spot is enough to ignite humanity back in any form of the tourists. Con may argue about the age of social media already making it available for us; but to have a direct contact with the poverty line is what alters the perception on poverty itself.
  • All the other mode of actions originate from the abovementioned inspiration. Tourists are motivated to acknowledge such inequality and differences and thus the industry came into being in the first place. Con's argument will focus on how much the visited slum is earning compared to the tourism companies feeding off the practice- which is a valid one. Because, not much of the expense into the company is being transferred to the slum people- but still, that is relatively sufficient especially considering the hardship they go through on a daily basis. They'd be considering the influx of money as a profit for sure.
  • Besides, it's not granted that the slum has to benefit from the company only. In fact, many such operators are already cycling a portion of their profits into the local charity foundations and such. With the crowd of tourists getting inflated, many independent charity organisations should and are already coming forward to aid the system. The tourists themselves are funding for new charity firms, networking individual donors for their own project. 
  • Not to mention about plenty of slum dwellers employed by the tourism business to mediate the entire process. As a matter of fact, without such employment, no such slum-like territory would ever play host to a bunch of foreigners trying to make bucks off just watching them live their day-to-day life. That's a definite silver lining within the so called "all-engulfing' industry.    
  • When Pro mentioned 'compatible with modern world', Pro indicated towards the technology sectors obviously. Modern technology allows us to stay only a click away from making a major impact across the globe. Even for a venture, tourists promoting a never-mentioned area of a certain locality on social media circuits definitely opens up a lot of possibilities and opportunities. This power of connectivity is what makes slum tourism so beautiful. Fabian Frenzel of University of Leicester reflected on this major impact of the slum tourism when he mentioned in his book: Slumming It: The tourist Valorization of Urban Property 
"I think when you look at the details you can tell some of these stories of how the tourists entering these spaces kind of creates connectivity and maybe new opportunities for setting up little businesses or maybe a whole new level of connectivity"
  • The more the tourism, the more the profit for the businesses- true- which based on my earlier arguments means more cumulative donation for the poor as well. But one more aspect of increasing tourism in impoverished regions that outperforms the other is drawing attraction of local authorities and even better- government. Over-exposure of poverty-stricken areas by the tourists and affiliated bodies are bound to trigger the government of the countries under pressure to take actions in favor of the slum dwellers [3]. 
Policies

Con commanded for stating some of the policies from Pro to further solidify Pro's position on the subject.

Scoring Attention. Pro adds the last beneficial argument as one of the suggestions- to notify the government and other non-government structures with emphasis. For convenience, Pro is rephrasing that here-

Over-exposure of poverty-stricken areas by the tourists and affiliated bodies are bound to trigger the government of the countries under pressure to take actions in favor of the slum dwellers. 
Eliminating Exploitation and Voyeurism. The two most criticised issues regarding opposition of slum tourism are exploitation and voyeurism- that Con has pointed out quite boldly. However, suggesting the eradication of both these issues to a significant extent not only provides the Pro side a huge credibility but leaves the Con side defenseless especially when it's actually possible. Because researches have concluded that the slum tourism industry is actually becoming an integral part of the solution and so it isn't going to vanish anytime soon [4]. Therefore, other researches like the cited one next have proposed to weigh on both ends and make the business actually work for the poor people- leading to the idea that the good has to outweigh the bad for the business to survive itself [5]. Therefore, to defeat the paradox, the companies are to get rid of such tendency themselves.

Conclusion

My opening arguments sum up the benefits of slum tourism with potential policies in hand to turn the system into a more effective one. Also, it may be realized from the entire discussion that although having a more benevolent approach from the practice requires a number of subjective measures, the circle is to complete itself once those measures are properly ensured. However, the benefits above limit the shortcomings argued by Con because the harms from slum tourism are subjectively caused upon themselves as well.

References


Round 2
Con
Firstly, Con offers a two-sided source that provides both pros and cons. But even ignoring arguments that support my ideas, you will notice that his gains are too vague to compare to lives lost and ignorance of the majority. 

Con's argument is laid out as such:
1 Visiting slums in person offers a unique perspective
2 Tourists are motivated to acknowledge the differences between them and the poor
3 Charities are donating to the slums
4 Slum dwellers are likely to be employed by the industry
5 The promotion of slums creates connectivity and sets up businesses
6 Over-exposure of poverty is likely to make the government act

Firstly, claims 1 and 2 have not been backed by any studies on Con's side, and been countered by me in round 1. Recall: 

 The imagery and narrative of the slum as a "wonderful" and "mind-blowing" experience is difficult to shake off, as even tour guides rarely interact with serious topics such as health, safety, and ethnic concerns. [8]

In the end, we legitimize and bring power to inequality, which is a severe issue in the world. Even though the tourists claim to be enlightened, they rarely demonstrate actual actions to stop poverty and suffering. [9]
If one needs support from my source (8 above), the full article notes, "At each, the guides’ narratives were echoes of each other; the residents’ propensity forhard work, their enterprise and productivity, and more generally how Mumbai could not operatewithout Dharavi." The excuses made were absurd and only encouraged less donations rather than more: "The lack of health and safety standards, for example, was explained away by oneguide who suggested that workers did not like wearing protective clothing as it hampered theirwork". The idea that unsafe, unhealthy, and poor was the norm made it difficult for tourists to truly change their mind. As such, I've knocked down Con's first two arguments. 

Unfortunately, Con's argument 3 is not supported by actual sources. And there are some consequences with organizations trying to donate to the poor. As Guardian realizes with a "Donor tourism" attempt, "while emergency relief agencies can count on surges in compassion when disaster strikes, development agencies realize that to build lasting connections between donors and their beneficiaries, increasingly the donor needs to get something back." [1]. As you can see, the innate altruism is stunted by the inherent fact that the person is going there to have fun. They expect something in it for them, and as such the charity donations would also be low to none. Unless Con is able to provide sufficient reasoning for the sudden change of reason, this combines with my source 8+9 (Round 1) to completely destroy Con's ideals.

Argument 4+5 is interesting on the economical basis. However, a few locals becoming tour guides and establishing small businesses does not outweigh the lack of significant change overall. Indeed, even looking at 2020's news, sources worry about the billions of people living in slums and question if they can take on the virus. [2] The overall problem has only stagnated, and perpetuated the standard of poor, sick, and needy people. Con must do more than this to prove that slum tourism is more beneficial than detrimental. 

Finally, argument 6 is perhaps the strongest argument -- only the government could potentially truly have the power to overcome the poverty of the local region. However, the source is a "travel blogging couple sharing our adventures from all over the world", which unfortunately holds very little water. By contrast, Regina is "Professor & Co-Director - Pacific Research and Policy Centre", and has even won an award on tourism. So who do you trust more-- a regular traveler, or a professor who understand tourism? Yes, both agree that government builds infrastructure. But how does the couple know that the government will invest for mutually benefitting resources? While certainly, some people can get rich, the result is merely creating "islands of affluence" -- and hence Maldives cannot even lift merely 400,000 people out of poverty. [Page 54 of the Book, source 11 above]. And while the locals in the blogger's cited study *feel* as if they may benefit from the tourism and the infrastructure, it is incredibly difficult to say if anything was actually accomplished. Can Con tell me precisely what the government did for the population? Of course he can't. There's still very little action overall, despite the positive feelings of the locals. 

Con tells us that since tourism cannot be stopped, the problems will of voyeurism will generally be resolved by themselves. But this is of course inconclusive. What actions does he propose to take? This is a policy related debate, not a research debate. You can tell us what to research all you want. But in the end it's action that will solve the problems. So you must tell us what the research actually accomplishes, otherwise we are just spending time on an unresolvable problem. And the unstoppable evil of slum tourism will continue. 

Conclusion

Con tries his best to limit the harms, but he must outweigh them to win this debate. He cannot merely accept that slum tourism is a necessary evil and allow it to continue existing merely because the industry says it cannot be stopped. This is a net benefits debate combine with potential policies to help Con out, since the evidence is largely against him. I wished to make this more interesting and argue practically for any solutions that could even further overturn my harms. But I have yet to see anything of true value.

Pro
I'm sorry, Undefeatable. I was a bit taken off by my research project at my university; so I couldn't find enough time to dig deep for the refutation portion of the debate. However, since the 'refutation and defense' section is entertained between both Round 2 and Round 3, hopefully I'll do my bit in round 3.

Thank you.
Round 3
Con
Very well then. This will now be a 3 round debate instead.
Pro
Thanks to Con for keeping the respect of things. Pro will now, directly go into the refutations of Con's claims and defense of his own-

Refutation & Defense

Round 1 Rebuttals

All of Con's claims in this round can be summed up by the following statements and Pro's job is to refute them. 

The thousands of deaths continue despite the tourism seemingly to bring knowledge to the public.
Con attributes the problems and deaths afflicted within the slum communities to the failure of existing slum tourism processes as if slum tourism is the only effective way to counter these issues which is absurd.
The fact of the matter is that slum tourism depends on the existence of poor people. Ironically, the tourism companies are less encouraged to support the poor, since there would be fewer slums to tour.
This is a generalized claim. It is noted that not all the poor areas are subject to ghetto tourism; in fact very few areas meet the specific conditions under which slum tourism originates [1]. South Africa, Kenya, Brazil are the three most popular targets for the tourism only due to the exposure of global justice movement [2]. India is hosting a broadened influx now as well due to the anti-political pressure [3]. But the point is that, to blatantly refer to slum tourism as a product of selfish agenda is quite horrendous on Con's part.
Connecting to the tourism marketing methods, it is evident that tourism boosts the image of the slums. Yet the diseases formed, the malnutrition of citizens, and the income inequality all are counterproductive to society as a whole.
Same as before, Con is attempting to portray slum tourism as the supposed sole solution to the prospect of poverty. But the fact that poverty is a political construct begs for a even bigger problem to deal with than what Con is proposing to solve as of now [4].

Round 2 Rebuttals  and Pro Defense
Firstly, claims 1 and 2 have not been backed by any studies on Con's side, and been countered by me in round 1.
Now that Con's R1 has been countered as well, he may have been reset to zero position to start off. However, asking for empirical evidence on obvious claims, supported in the 2nd source- an article written by one of the slum tourism researchers is also not smart. Besides, number of objective studies on slum tourism is evidently pretty low. However, since Con asked for a wide-range study on the project, lets take one of the most prominent slum tourism venues- Nairobi, Kenya. A huge study there concludes that the Kenyan slums are actually benefitting economically from the slum tourism sectors [5] which is consistent with the idea of Pro-Poor Tourism or PPT enhancing the life-standard of slum dwellers. The article also explicitly mentions the perception altering aspect of slum tourism [5]. Criminal activities in the slums are being considered in a new light [5]. Raised awareness on poverty has also been recognized as one of the major plus points of slum tourism- which eventually is assisting in the income of the underprivileged inhabitants of a slum [6]. Another study notes that not only do the poor develop acceptance to slum tourism observing their own benefits in the program, they are actively pursuing different avenues to improve on their own under the influence of the tourists [7].
They expect something in it for them, and as such the charity donations would also be low to none. Unless Con is able to provide sufficient reasoning for the sudden change of reason, this combines with my source 8+9 (Round 1) to completely destroy Con's ideals.
Con's framework at this point looks forced. While its true that the charity is quite insignificant but as I mentioned in R1 that it's still relatively sufficient for them to evolve into a better state. Take example of the business proliferation of the slum dwellers made possible by the tourists [8]. Also, it's been seen that the tourism into these slums has helped take children off the streets for proper education [9]. Con has chosen to leave off all these events to forcibly prove his supposed point that the charity is meant to nullify the altruistic aspect of the business- not true.
  Indeed, even looking at 2020's news, sources worry about the billions of people living in slums and question if they can take on the virus. [2] The overall problem has only stagnated, and perpetuated the standard of poor, sick, and needy people.
Con again resorted to his R1 arguments making no sense. Con needs to understand that uprooting poverty has little to do with some non-governmental agencies trying to explore through the problem. How are we not blaming the government and global factions for the spread but are holding a company based off the solution responsible for the poverty line?  Also, to prove slum tourism detrimental, Con can't hold poverty to be a factor. He has to prove the direct contribution of slum tourism to poverty to further his point.
And while the locals in the blogger's cited study *feel* as if they may benefit from the tourism and the infrastructure, it is incredibly difficult to say if anything was actually accomplished. Can Con tell me precisely what the government did for the population? Of course he can't. There's still very little action overall, despite the positive feelings of the locals.  
Con asked for proposing policies and while Pro did, Con is then asking of him to reevaluate the results instead of looking into the process by which it is being done. If government has failed to take action, why does tourism business is to be asked for justification? The job of tourism is to draw attentions, governments have to be more prolific on their own. If Con demands that slum tourism has to do more to force governments to act, then once again, that's an immature development. 
Con tells us that since tourism cannot be stopped, the problems will of voyeurism will generally be resolved by themselves. But this is of course inconclusive. What actions does he propose to take?
Pro mentioned a paradox of voyeurism that is to solve itself in the process for the business to survive. However, Con is right to point out that Pro should've expanded on the policy. It is fortunate that even the tourism companies are already taking actions to stop it [10]. The tendency of making the tour look like a vacation has to be stopped. Show-off culture has to be deleted. Interestingly, all these subjective measures completely destroy Con's premise. Because once the awareness is ensured, all the issues of exploitation and voyeurism will be resolved.

Conclusion

Con has attempted to make it look like that all his claims are objective and evident on their own. But the fact that the entire interaction between the tourists and the slum dwellers is actually based on subjectivity has nearly nullified his position. To cite some studies of his convenience leaving off the counterparts is not a smart strategy after all which Pro proved in this round by providing the counters. On a subjective ground therefore, the benefits of slum tourism, based on Pro's assertion definitely trump its harms.

References


Round 4
Con
Pro has made many mistakes over the course of the debate, which I will summarize.

I. Inequality argument bolstered by Pro

He has failed to read his own source, which further bolsters my argument that helping out the poor will be detrimental to the tourism industry. As his own paper notes on page 6, "Companies like Exotic Tours, one of the major providers of favela tourism in Rio de Janeiro, claim on their website that “Your visit will help our sustainable project as well as create work oppor­tunities within the community” (Exotictours 2013). Across the major global slum tourism destinations similar claims can be found in most promotional ma­terial. Slum tourists often repeat these claims, partly to justify their trips and partly because tour operators make them believe that their visits, donations and res­taurant meals do make a difference (Freire-Medeiros 2009). ... The first problem seems to be that places most frequently visited by slum tour­ists are not places that qualify as struck by absolute poverty in terms of World Bank definitions. This is true for the countries visited by slum tourists which tend to belong to the category of DCs rather than LDCs. Indeed slum tourism is most frequently pursued in countries that have made strong economic advances in the last two decades, i.e. Brazil, South Africa and India."

Hence, his own argument about volunteering to travel to India is defeated. Either you visit a locally poor place with a framing of normalcy and do not care, or you visit a half decent place framed as somewhat poor and you still do not help it. Regardless, the impacts are nigh to none and prove that tourism industries are filled with greed and inability to help out the poor in the area.

In addition, his source further helps me out by pointing out precisely why the locals are abused by the tourism industry. Remember that he has yet to shown significant impact from the supposed employment or distribution of money. By contradiction, "The general limitation seems to be that business­es belong to non­local operators who take most of the generated revenue. Rogerson (2004b) identifies a lack of education and resources that prevent the poor from a successful participation in the burgeoning business. Overall, his study establishes that there are very lim­ited positive effects of township tourism on the urban poor in Soweto. Ramchander (2007) reports similar results. He finds that locals often overestimate posi­tive impacts of township tourism development that is fueled by promises from development organizations and local government. Rather than bringing new wealth to the community, township tourism seems to leave little to the majority of the local residents as organizers and entrepreneurs keep the profits from the tours. As a general problem of South African tourism, township tourism also seems to display a racial ine­quality (Rogerson 2004a). Township tours are mostly offered by businesses in ‘white’ ownership, which also retain most of the profits." 

Recall this synergizes with round 1 arguments dropped that assist my point about enhancement of inequality and ruining the very basis of helping out the poor. " the often illegal slums attract illegal citizens and those with minimum wage [6]. If this wasn't enough, all of them experience discrimination with significant proportion [7]". The more and more evidence he tries to throw, the more clear it is that con has no clear case to make. All his experts are forced to agree that the tourism innately increases the inequality and the ignorance of the poor. And this will be severely detrimental to them as we continue to let the truly poor continue to die while we are able to assist. 

And Pro's voluntarily tourism counters the slum tourism movement, proving my point. The industry is so terrible that people are encouraged to fight back and use an alternative form compared to mainstream tourism. Only by fighting for justice can prove the injustices in the world. Voters should also ignore Pro's claim "India is hosting a broadened influx now as well due to the anti-political pressure". What does this mean? I don't know. Especially since he cited *my own source*, which says nothing about much positive effects on this influx. Remember that my article's core point was empowerment of those who are already rich, which Pro has failed to overturn. Pro claims that my attempt to negate his policies are trying to solve the entire problem of poverty. But remember that I, the negator, am not the policy generator. I merely have to point out everything wrong with Pro's beneficial claims and his policies. So I can safety admit that poverty is an unresolvable problem and thoroughly defeat Pro.

II. Actual Benefits

Pro brings an interesting study, but fails to summarize precisely what benefits there are. Though the study is very big, even the abstract only claims arbitrary perceived improvement. "There was a strong liking for slum tourismacross all categories as majority, 396 (83.9%), view it as beneficial to the slum residents in improving theirliving conditions." But of course, *perceived* benefit is nothing compared to true benefits. It's very easy for the government to trick locals into thinking the new roads and systems are making their lives better, but this still does not overcome the status quo of poverty. Not only so, his article does not mention "criminal activity" at all, so I think we can safely drop this (http://prntscr.com/z98gzv). He further adds the income potentially gained, but potential for income does not equate to actual benefits. Indeed, as his own book notes on page 19, currently "there is little casual income earned from supplying food and other inputs to the operations". Hence, even this argument is negated.

His source 7 is not a study at all and mentions nothing about tourists pursuing different activities. Negated.

His source 8 is broken and I cannot access it. His source 9 is completely irrelevant to giving tourists education. Negate these claims since they are not backed.

Pro claims: . Con needs to understand that uprooting poverty has little to do with some non-governmental agencies trying to explore through the problem. How are we not blaming the government and global factions for the spread but are holding a company based off the solution responsible for the poverty line?  Also, to prove slum tourism detrimental, Con can't hold poverty to be a factor. He has to prove the direct contribution of slum tourism to poverty to further his point.
It seems that pro has completely failed to read my case. Recall that:
- Government money invested in tourism infrastructure drains resources away from poverty assistance
- As a result of this, "the result is merely creating "islands of affluence" -- and hence Maldives cannot even lift merely 400,000 people out of poverty."

So long as these actual results stand, it reasons to see that slum tourism has done little to no good on the locals living there.

Pro claims to resolve my problem with exploitation: It is fortunate that even the tourism companies are already taking actions to stop it [10]. The tendency of making the tour look like a vacation has to be stopped. Show-off culture has to be deleted. Interestingly, all these subjective measures completely destroy Con's premise. Because once the awareness is ensured, all the issues of exploitation and voyeurism will be resolved.
However, his link is broken yet again. In addition, he thinks that exploitation is the only problem, but misses my bigger framework that we inherently show the slums as a great area, or normal area, regardless, we discourage the tourists from actually resolving the problem. Hence, the positive contribution is still near next to none, and the detriments still outweigh the benefits.

Conclusion

On the big picture, regardless of where slum tourism takes place, it rarely addresses the true issues at hand. Either they visit areas that need help and do nothing about it, or they divert attention away by bringing people to a middle class area where they are fooled into thinking it the "slums". Remember my round 1 claim, that the tourism industry is actively causing disinformation, preventing people from knowing enough to assist. And remember my round 2 study, that displayed the tour guides were actively encouraged to toss away the serious issues, and merely turn the slums into a commodity. Rather than allowing for the altruism and significantly helping out the poor, we would rather give more to the rich.

And it makes sense. Investing in the poor is incredibly difficult. We don't know if it'll make a profit. While the rich men have the ability to give back to the tourism industry. So we use the poor as a lure and forget to actually assist them, all the while providing more inequality and unable or unwilling to stop the poverty in the areas. Slum tourism actively harms the poor because they are turned into objects. Objects that we say deserve their poor treatment and poor conditions. Objects that do not need extra help. And this objectification causes severe problems. We are practically killing the poor people and making them suffer, which is never acceptable. The government is supposed to actively help out the citizens. It is both necessary and beneficial to do so. But the government does not realize this, and instead focuses on giving to customers. It is clear that the detriments outweigh the benefits, and that pro's policies do not solve this problem. 

Vote for con.
Pro
Thanks Con. Firstly, I apologize for a couple of links being broken in my reference list. I still don't get why that happened. But to get the clear picture and that I didn't obviously make them up for my arguments, you can check out the reference #5 for the respective citations. 

Final Refutation & Defense

He has failed to read his own source, which further bolsters my argument that helping out the poor will be detrimental to the tourism industry.
The source Con pointed to is the source Pro used to demonstrate the reality behind slum tourism; not the effects of slum tourism. Con is resorting to a desperate attempt to offer objectivity again. The reason behind citing the source was to show that regardless of how tourists feel and act about the process, slum tourism originated around a completely different background. The modern conception of the tourism business is not consistent with how it began. Therefore, to challenge slum tourism for it's so called "selfish, bloodthirsty" nature is quite pointless. Without subjective evaluation of the individuals involved in the business, Con condemning slum tourism over this particular issue drives him nowhere near a conclusion.
Hence, his own argument about volunteering to travel to India is defeated. Either you visit a locally poor place with a framing of normalcy and do not care, or you visit a half decent place framed as somewhat poor and you still do not help it. Regardless, the impacts are nigh to none and prove that tourism industries are filled with greed and inability to help out the poor in the area.
Con is again using a subjective tool in the name of objectivity. Let's take an example of Con's irrational propounding.

Case Study. This example requires of a simple reasoning. Suppose, India or any other "economically strong" country for that matter has a highly impoverished region not known to the mainstream national and global bodies for reliefs to be sent over. Now according to Con, the sudden blooming of slum tourism around that area would be highly self-centered on the tourists and operators' part because it's India or any other "economically strong" country that the tourism business is targeting; not the area. This is an illogical development from Con's side again. So, any slum according to Con that belongs to those "economically strong" countries and territories doesn't deserve the recognition it receives from the slum tourism companies. That's basically an unrealistic opinion.
In addition, his source further helps me out by pointing out precisely why the locals are abused by the tourism industry. Remember that he has yet to shown significant impact from the supposed employment or distribution of money.
Con uses the same source again that was not meant to lead to any of the refutations he accounted against it in his R4. In fact, Pro didn't cite anything of that source Con is so actively pursuing. In case of significant impact records, from #5 onwards all the sources speak of nothing but plus points of slum tourism in terms of employment and economy. The study #5 explicitly states the large economic aspect in Kenya involving the slums there that revolve around the slum tourism territories.
All his experts are forced to agree that the tourism innately increases the inequality and the ignorance of the poor.
Instead, all the experts Pro "cited" and indicated to elevated the status of tourism in slums and even encouraged it. Maybe the experts Con found agreeing with "him" only while going through an unintentional source are the exceptional cases here.
Pro claims that my attempt to negate his policies are trying to solve the entire problem of poverty. But remember that I, the negator, am not the policy generator. I merely have to point out everything wrong with Pro's beneficial claims and his policies. So I can safety admit that poverty is an unresolvable problem and thoroughly defeat Pro.
Yet, Con is the one trying to imply that governments are not doing enough and that's because slum tourism is not doing enough- which is way far-fetched. He even dropped my R3 refutation about this issue. If that's how Con proposes to challenge policies, then Pro "the policy-maker" still remains unchallenged as the policy of attracting governments to take action on poverty line is well defended. 
His source 7 is not a study at all and mentions nothing about tourists pursuing different activities. Negated.

His source 8 is broken and I cannot access it. His source 9 is completely irrelevant to giving tourists education. Negate these claims since they are not backed.
If any of the judges has ever contributed in writing research and review articles/papers, they'd definitely understand how to cite original references into the main manuscript. The cited lines are reinterpreted in a new way from a single article with the original references. That's the strategy Pro followed to cite the references in this debate. But it seems Con has thoroughly stumbled upon understanding the method and so confused himself as to how he should approach the citations. All the citations I have cited are taken from those relevant lines- to check further, please go through reference #5. As for-   
He further adds the income potentially gained, but potential for income does not equate to actual benefits. Indeed, as his own book notes on page 19, currently "there is little casual income earned from supplying food and other inputs to the operations". Hence, even this argument is negated.
From the very first round, Pro has been claiming that the incomes are indeed casual for the slum dwellers but that's still significant in terms of how they had been dealing regularly. Slum tourism may be a major industry but still with all it's negativity is not 100% efficient for it's own cause- something Pro had long accepted. But even with all it's shortcomings, the earning is still better than nothing according to both my previous rounds and sources.
  It seems that pro has completely failed to read my case. Recall that:
- Government money invested in tourism infrastructure drains resources away from poverty assistance
- As a result of this, "the result is merely creating "islands of affluence" -- and hence Maldives cannot even lift merely 400,000 people out of poverty."

So long as these actual results stand, it reasons to see that slum tourism has done little to no good on the locals living there.
It seems that Con has failed to realize my points so far as well. Pro hadn't meant that the governments had to invest in tourism businesses. The motivation of slum tourism properties and tourists is to draw a significant attention. Recall Pro's R1 argument:

"The more the tourism, the more the profit for the businesses- true- which based on my earlier arguments means more cumulative donation for the poor as well. But one more aspect of increasing tourism in impoverished regions that outperforms the other is drawing attraction of local authorities and even better- government. Over-exposure of poverty-stricken areas by the tourists and affiliated bodies are bound to trigger the government of the countries under pressure to take actions in favor of the slum dwellers [3]."

Pro had reassured that point in R3:

"If government has failed to take action, why does tourism business is to be asked for justification? The job of tourism is to draw attentions, governments have to be more prolific on their own. If Con demands that slum tourism has to do more to force governments to act, then once again, that's an immature development."

Therefore, Con has completely misunderstood Pro's point and has gone on to an unsure conclusion himself.

In addition, he thinks that exploitation is the only problem, but misses my bigger framework that we inherently show the slums as a great area, or normal area, regardless, we discourage the tourists from actually resolving the problem. Hence, the positive contribution is still near next to none, and the detriments still outweigh the benefits.
Once again, Con relies on subjective experiences and records to impose his opinions by stating "we inherently show".

Conclusion

Overall, with all the refutations in place, it is evident that-

- Con rather resorted to some subjective explanations himself under the pretense of objectivity. While some of the studies support his point, they are still not sufficient to prove it. With the counters from Pro in order, it is conceivable that the debate surrounding slum tourism is quite variant across the globe depending on all the factors involved. Also, the reaction of slum dwellers matters to a large extent that Con had not acknowledged. Pro's articulation in contrast has shown the live reactions of them in favor of the tourists.

- Pro has refuted all the irrational arguments from Con with authority and evidence. However, Pro acknowledges all the rational criticisms of Con as a part of the policy making aspect of the debate. All in all, Pro asserts that a net accomplishment of all the refutations and acceptances is that the benefits of slum tourism actually outweigh the harms claimed by Con.

Vote for PRO