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
- We agree on that subsidizing industries are overall of more benefits than losses
- This boils the argument down to whether Tourism is worth a fund from the government
- Tourism is worth being subsidized in the US
- It is the status quo of the US
- It can provide many benefits, such as providing jobs, increasing cashflow, etc
- Other nations, such as Japan, with free and universal healthcares, are fit to subsidize tourism
- Overall, Pro has fulfilled his BoP. Please vote Pro.
Sources
I've just noticed that the time limit is rather short. If you need, I can allow you to waive the next time to prepare a more substantial argument.
Please define terms to prevent anyone from exploiting them.