Slum Tourism: benefits vs harms, net balance Policy Debate
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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)
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.
As we know, slums innately have diseases and are riddled with the inability to access health care.  Even critical access to water is incredibly difficult for the urban poor.  The problems are also expounded due to illiteracy, crime, and unemployment.  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".  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.  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 . If this wasn't enough, all of them experience discrimination with significant proportion . 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."  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.  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.  An entire book devotes its talk to refute the idea of a trickle-down economy.  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.
- 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 .
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.
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. 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. 
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.
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.
Firstly, claims 1 and 2 have not been backed by any studies on Con's side, and been countered by me in round 1.
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.
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.  The overall problem has only stagnated, and perpetuated the standard of poor, sick, and needy people.
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?
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.
Pro claims to resolve my problem with exploitation: It is fortunate that even the tourism companies are already taking actions to stop it . 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.
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.
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.
All his experts are forced to agree that the tourism innately increases the inequality and the ignorance of the poor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.