Instigator / Con
1
1482
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

The government should subsidise tourism in regional areas.

Status
Finished

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

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

With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1540
Contender / Pro
7
1650
rating
63
debates
73.81%
won
Description
~ 44 / 5,000

I will waive the first round. BoP is shared.

Round 1
Con
As per the description, I will waive the first round. Good luck. 
Pro
As this is a debate with the burden of proof intended to be shared among the competitors, putting an entire round solely for concession could be considered a wastage. Due to that this is a field of competition and the advantage is brought upon the Pro side of the issue, the Pro side would use the first round to open up with new points. Since the present duel contains little to no rules, any exploits used, as long as that not being covered by the descriptions or the titles(except that being directly covered by the Code of Conduct), would be deemed legal, even if traces of malevolence can be interpreted from those acts of exploitation and seeking of advantage.

Definitions

The Con side has yet to post any definitions for any terms presented that may be useful to interpreting the resolution, as a result, it would be an opportunity---not a loophole---for the Pro side to quickly post the definitions and gain a considerable advantage. It is advised that definitions posted by any side should generally help the discussion/movement of the debate, instead of it being a semantic mess where nothing can practically be put in-context for the definition given.

Authentic sources, which have been used across the internet in the entire English-speaking community, such as Merriam-Webster, would be used as sources for the definition for this debate. The definition of key terms is to be put below.

[1]Government: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: such as the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency
[2]Subsidise: to furnish with a subsidy: such as to aid or promote (someone or something, such as a private enterprise) with public money
[3]Regional: affecting a particular region; of, relating to, characteristic of, or serving a region
[4]Public: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state

If Con is dissatisfied with the definition, then logical critique must be accompanied with such opinion, or otherwise it would be regarded as irrelevant and of little value.

Using explicit the resolution provided, one can comprehend that "The government" is mentioned, but it is not specified which government. As a result, any government being suited to subsidize tourism, federal or regional would be passable for the Pro side of the resolution.

Unless an entire tourism area exceeds a single region, basically EVERY single tour would be in a regional area. That would mean popular tours at national parks, sightseeing points, national monuments, etc, all counts as regional tours. 

Argument

Interpreting one of the provided definition, the resolution would become "The government should aid or promote tourism with money from the people of the area affected by said argument". Of that, the term "People" is to be considered literally. By the definition, "Public money" comes from "all of the people", but we obviously can't take money from the beggars on the streets reliably. As a result, as long as the money comes from anyone within the population, it is "public" since it is coming from someone from "all the people".

Before it turns into a malevolent critique, let's use Taxes as the primary source of "public money". At this point, the resolution becomes "The government should aid tourism with taxes", which is still a valid point to argue since taxes aren't being excluded from "public money" as taxes are collected from the public, common sense.

General

[5] Government Subsidies could help an industry by improving supply. That's a good thing, right?
[6] According to the news within one month of today, demand for tourism just rose up. Government subsidies could increase supply for the industry, and as well, if it cannot make organizations to make more supply, make the price of the tours cheaper. That is also a good thing, right?

In short, government subsidies could make more people buy products, and it could make organizations easier to make more money. 

In the perspective of the tourists as well as the organizations, government subsidies is a good thing. For tourists, there are more choices or tours are cheaper; For organizations, it is either budget for more tours or cheaper tours, which would bring more tourists to the industry, and overall, better for the public.

[7] Tourism is important. Benefits could include:
  • Increase reputation of the region/nation
  • Bring money
  • Bring jobs
  • Ease the strain of suffering industries
  • Employment
  • Offers the nation a stable income
We know that tourism is a golden industry and government subsidies can make both the industry and the consumer more satisfied economically. Essentially, the problem comes down to taxes. However, a huge amount of people are okay with the idea of paying taxes[8], and unlike that those people would think those things they spend upon taxes are utter nut-jobs, Tourism is an industry that can do...all of those above. Want to go to Hollywood with a cheaper price? That is what your taxes did, supposedly government subsidized tourism.

In conclusion, Government subsidized tourism could:
  • Help the nation, by offering the nation a stable income
  • Help the industry, by providing them with more money
  • Help the consumers, in which they can get cheaper tours or more tours, or both.

Examples

To remind again, Con did not ever specify *which* government.

[9] Government subsidies could bring a lot of customers into these nations, which is a good thing for the nation, and for the nature of governmental subsidies, it is good for the industry and the tourists. Passed. What's more, these nations would even provide benefits for the citizens of their own nation as well. Win-win.

In conclusion, the governments of these nations fit the criteria and are overall, governments. Pro has fulfilled his BoP.

Round 2
Con
My opponent seems to conflate the terms government and people. The government has authority over the creation of Laws and have an obligation to their job while being a person comes with no such responsibility. 


[5] Government Subsidies could help an industry by improving supply. That's a good thing, right?
That can be said about all industries. If the government were to help the tourism industry, why not help all the others?  What makes tourism more important than the others? Why can't the government instead pit their money into healthcare, which is one of the top 5 industries driving the USA economy.

According to the news within one month of today, demand for tourism just rose up. Government subsidies could increase supply for the industry, and as well, if it cannot make organizations to make more supply, make the price of the tours cheaper. That is also a good thing, right?
Again why the tourism industry? Why not fund something much more valuable to the economy (healthcare). Tourism is when people travel to a country. Tourists want to see what the country is like. Why do you need to spend extra money, when all the tourists want are to stay at a hotel (hotels are private businesses) go to Disney land (private business) and buy food from the pop up kebab store (private business). What part of tourism is going so poorly that the government needs to help it. 

 Tourism is important. Benefits could include:
  • Increase reputation of the region/nation
  • Bring money
  • Bring jobs
  • Ease the strain of suffering industries
  • Employment
  • Offers the nation a stable income
So does healthcare, so why not invest money into that instead. If a country has good healthcare it will increase its' reputation (the country which gives all the others the vaccine will have a great reputation), bring in money (docter's earn a lot so why not give out more scholarships to students who wish to study medicine, bring jobs such as nursing and doctor, help the economy and save lives!

Help the nation, by offering the nation a stable income
  • Help the industry, by providing them with more money
  • Help the consumers, in which they can get cheaper tours or more tours, or both. 
Help consumers in which they can get cheaper tours?? If you have money to fund posh people coming to visit (travellers are usually well off already and can afford their own trip) why not help dying people with better healthcare?
Pro
Rebuttals

My opponent seems to conflate the terms government and people. The government has authority over the creation of Laws and have an obligation to their job while being a person comes with no such responsibility. 
Considering a government, using the sub-definition of the definition given, is literally an organization of people, these sentences therefore carry no practical value specifically to this debate.

That can be said about all industries. If the government were to help the tourism industry, why not help all the others?  What makes tourism more important than the others? Why can't the government instead pit their money into healthcare, which is one of the top 5 industries driving the USA economy.
Pro has put at least four benefits of why Tourism is important, and Con rebutted none of them in this argument. His argument? There are more important industries. Considering the Burden of Proof is shared, and I have proven that government-subsidized tourism is better for the industry, the tourists, or in some cases perfectly legal to the resolution, the government and the citizens as well; the fact that there are "more important" industries does not undermine the benefits tourism has. Considering the government has basically no limit of what they can fund other than that they probably shouldn't drain all their money in one industry, the fact the USA probably should subsidize these industries doesn't mean they shouldn't subsidize tourism.

What's more, subsidizing tourism for the US government is already the status quo[1]. It would make zero sense if the government suddenly pulled out of it.

What's even more, is that Con has never even picked up the fact that no one specific government is given in the parameters, making so that any government can do the job. The argument about Italy, Mexico and Japan have remained standing.

For the sake of this, I will use the US government as the main example because it is irrefutable that, for example, the Japanese and Mexican government could benefit from subsidize tourism, while having universal healthcare[2].

Again why the tourism industry? Why not fund something much more valuable to the economy (healthcare). Tourism is when people travel to a country. Tourists want to see what the country is like. Why do you need to spend extra money, when all the tourists want are to stay at a hotel (hotels are private businesses) go to Disney land (private business) and buy food from the pop up kebab store (private business). What part of tourism is going so poorly that the government needs to help it. 
My opponent clearly doesn't understand what he(please correct me if I used the incorrect pronoun) is talking about. Subsidising the industry, by definition, is not seizing the means of production, but rather just AIDING it with, perhaps, taxpayer money or any other form of public money. The government giving Disneyland a bunch of money is already subsidizing it, by definition(In fact, govt. straight-up buying Disneyland and making it a federal asset is hardly subsidization at all). I have sourced that Government subsidies, can give tourists cheaper tours or more things to see, and there is not yet an authentic sources, even saying subsidization has a more crucial flaw, than paying taxes, which a considerable amount of US citizens probably consents to.

Both side agree on that subsidizing an industry is good, but it takes a lot of money. My opponent thinks that tourism is not important enough to be subsidized, and by that logic, neither should farmers nor ranchers be aided by the government, despite providing millions with food. The criteria of "not appearing on the top five list" is worthless as they are just the few of the "Must-do's" of the government, and there is yet to be a source provided that Tourism isn't important.

So does healthcare, so why not invest money into that instead. If a country has good healthcare it will increase its' reputation (the country which gives all the others the vaccine will have a great reputation), bring in money (docter's earn a lot so why not give out more scholarships to students who wish to study medicine, bring jobs such as nursing and doctor, help the economy and save lives!
I forgot to source this, but Tourism isn't just traveling people from one place to another, the industry provides income and benefits to many other industries as well[3]. Ultimately, tourism is a industry that not only can make people happy, but also can help saving other industries. Can healthcare do that?
  • If yes, then Tourism should be funded, due to that it has the benefits[3].
  • If no, then Tourism should be funded, due to that it is better at saving the economy than other subsidized industries
Help consumers in which they can get cheaper tours?? If you have money to fund posh people coming to visit (travellers are usually well off already and can afford their own trip) why not help dying people with better healthcare?
Because tourism can provide income to many other industries, providing jobs for the masses, as well as creating new branches off of the already-existing economy. That is a good thing, right?

It is a false-dichotomy of that "When healthcare, no tourism". Inputting all the money into healthcare is the definitive example of being unbalanced. I probably agree that Healthcare should be subsidized, even more than tourism, but the benefits tourism itself bring, and the benefits subsidizing tourism bring, it just cannot be ignored. I rest my case.

Conclusions
  1. We agree on that subsidizing industries are overall of more benefits than losses
    1. This boils the argument down to whether Tourism is worth a fund from the government
  2. Tourism is worth being subsidized in the US
    1. It is the status quo of the US
    2. It can provide many benefits, such as providing jobs, increasing cashflow, etc
  3. Other nations, such as Japan, with free and universal healthcares, are fit to subsidize tourism
  4. Overall, Pro has fulfilled his BoP. Please vote Pro.
Sources


Round 3
Con
Forfeited
Pro
Due to that none of the points made in R2 by CON is touched, CON extends his argument.

Conclusions
  • Pro dropped that subsidizing tourism is beneficial.
  • There is no specified "Government", meaning the Japanese and Mexican governments also count.
    • Fact, subsidizing tourism for them is also beneficial.
  • I have provided reasons why Tourism is an important field of industry. Con has not touched on those, merely that "Healthcare is more important".
    • This calls for only that Healthcare should also be subsidized, but it is no reason why tourism shouldn't, especially Tourism is an important field, that can provide jobs, money, reputation, etc.
  • Overall, I have fulfilled my BoP since I have proved why subsidizing tourism is good and tourism is worth the subsidization. Vote Con, guys.