BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tour operators obstruct development.

The tourism industry sells experiences. Travel agents and tour operators all but guarantee that holidaymakers will encounter particular cultural activities and particular festivals; will see certain sights and interact with a certain type of people. Tourism, at its most commercial, changes diverse and dynamic environments and societies into commodities, sold to travellers on the strength of stereotypes and characterisations. The image of Hawaii projected by travel agents will always comprise ukuleles, flower garlands, grass skirts and sunshine. Central Australia will always be associated with romanticised images of a timeless (and largely fictional) aboriginal culture, which only serve to mask the extent of prejudice and marginalisation within Australian aboriginal communities. In order to guarantee that the Seychelles will always remain associated with crisp, uncluttered beeches and palm groves, tour companies have spent increasing amounts of money buying up and privatising stretches of seashore. In short, the tour industry demands that popular tour destinations conform to a certain, caricatured image of themselves. In order to maintain this illusion, to maintain the idea of destination-as-commodity, tour operators obstruct development and modernisation. Further, the demands of local tour industries often require the full-time inhabitants of tour destinations to conform to stereotypes of their own culture. “Encounters” with local inhabitants and fourth world communities within tourist areas indicate apparent cooperation between hoteliers and locals, but this could not be further from the truth. In Tanzania, following the development of luxury Safari lodges on the Ngorongoro crater, the Thomson and Serena hotel groups have begun to employ members of the Masai community to sell beads or meet with groups of tourists. Concurrently, however, security guards and local police officers on the pay rolls of these companies have begun to turn away Masai cattle herds from pasture land contained within grounds of the resorts. For the Masai, work on hotel premises pays at a subsistence rate, while cattle and grazing rights constitute the most valuable forms of asset held by their community. Loss of grazing land has led to a decline in incomes that has left 70% of the Tanzanian Masai population living below the poverty line.[i] As a result of images propagated by their own marketing departments and populist, orientalist myths about “unspoilt”, “uninhabited” tropical locations and timeless, “traditional” peoples living “simpler” lives, tour operators are incentivised to restrict economic growth and expansion in developing nations. [i] Planetsafari, ‘Pastoralism versus tourism in Tanzania’, 5 September 2010, http://www.planetsafaris.com/index.php/highlights/pastoralism_versus_tourism_in_tanzania/
Tourism does not reduce corruption or promote good governance in developing states.

The resolution supposes that the developing states currently trading with tour operators have functioning polities, systems of financial accountability and state institutions that are capable of upholding the rule of law. This assumption is misguided. Highly integrated, long term development strategies of the sort set out by side proposition can only be implemented by an accountable, effective government; without a strong administrative state, development will be, at best, uncoordinated and at worst non-existent. Corruption is likely to reduce the amount of tourist revenue accessible to ordinary people. Rent-seeking and bribery have led to the subversion and manipulation of land deals between local authorities and tour companies in Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa and India. It is rare for local populations in developing countries to be consulted on the terms of land deals, with state authorities taking a paternalist approach to the terms of any settlement. This then comes full circle as corruption discourages tourists from visiting a country that they would otherwise be interested in visiting as they know that there is likely to be a lot of extra charges that they have not budgeted for.[i] [i] Tolentino, Francis N., ‘Tourism and corruption index’, Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation, 11 March 2009, http://www.mb.com.ph/node/198488
Tourism undermines the privacy and autonomy of fourth world communities.

Tourists, by their very nature, are temporary and fleeting inhabitant of the areas that they visit. Consequently, they have little time to familiarise themselves with the norms and values of local inhabitants. In developed nations this may lead to little more than mild inconvenience and demands that influxes of leisure travellers be limited and managed by taxation and segregation into tourist districts (as in Venice). Within developing communities, however, tourists can cause significant disruption and damage to the patterns of ordinary life. Religious, artistic, medical and agricultural knowledge is considered to be an important resource by a wide range of aboriginal and forth world communities. What tourists may assume to be innocent queries can constitute an attempt to acquire carefully taught skills and practices, bound closely to a group’s identity and history. More prosaically, tour companies’ tendency to present communities as part of a managed experience, rather than functioning social spaces in which people work and make their homes, can lead to invasions of privacy. As a correspondent for the Guardian noted in 2011, residents of the remote Columbian town of “that some tourists can’t distinguish between the wildlife and the Amazon’s residents, snapping photos of indigenous families as if they were another animal.”[i] [i] Muse, Toby, ‘Amazon town bans tourists’, guardian.co.uk, 25 March 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/25/indigenous-peoples-amazon-tourism-pressures
Tourism accelerates development.

Even if the tourist trade is used as a launch pad for an economy seeking diversity and stability, it must still consent to spending an extended period of time completely dependent on the funds of tourists and tour operators. This constitutes a significant risk. There is no guarantee that a particular state or region will remain a popular tourist destination. Further, tourist-led economies are highly vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters, political and humanitarian disasters (such as wars and pandemics) and financial fluctuations. Weather events and earthquakes can rapidly destroy large portions of the infrastructure of a tourist economy. Hotels collapse, beaches are ruined; air and sea ports become unusable. Even if infrastructural damage is minimal, aesthetic damage and the humanitarian cost of a natural disaster can depress tourist numbers in a region for years afterwards. Pandemic diseases have had an even more marked effect on the industry. Such events, by definition, affect wide areas, disrupting multiple economies. The bird-flu and swine-flue outbreaks caused a severe downturn in the tourist trades in China and South America respectively. News reports and alarmist press coverage contributed to a general concern that the disease was running rampant throughout these regions. In Mexico the second quarter of 2009 saw tourist arrivals down by 19.2% year on year.[i] This slump also happened in other South American states despite negligible infection rates.[ii] Comparable reductions in tourist numbers have happened in south and east Asia following the 2004 tsunami, the 2002 terrorist bombings in Bali and the 1997 terrorist attacks in Luxor. In each case, the total number of visitors to a large geographical region dropped as a result of violence or calamity in one, small area of that region. Both direct and indirect damage hampers the ability of tourism dependent economies to begin the process of expansion and diversification. Commercial reconstruction in disaster affected areas tends to focus on rebuilding hospitality facilities, ensuring that insurance payments or capital saved for an emergency is invested, once again, in the tourist trade. [i] ‘Mexico's arrival numbers continue to decline’, eTN Global Travel Industry News, 2 February 2010, http://www.eturbonews.com/14176/mexicos-arrival-numbers-continue-decline [ii] Smink, Veronica, ‘Swine flu infects Argentine economy’, BBC Mundo, 10 July 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8141996.stm
Tourism is easier to regulate than manufacturing or resource extraction.

While the resolution may suggest that income from tourism will serve to adjust the inequality in bargaining power between the poor residence of tourist destinations and wealthy tour firms, an area’s identity as a tourist destination often inhibits development. The purchase of land by tour companies may expropriate existing occupants who hold land subject to poorly defined rights or customary principles that are not recognised in courts of law. The repurposing of land to serve the tourist trade often excludes the possibility of economic diversification – land occupied by a hotel cannot also be used as farmland. The construction of ports inhibits the development of marine life across a wide area of surrounding coast line. Governments may be reluctant to intervene to address economic inequalities of this type, for fear that seizing a firm’s assets might prompt capital flight or costly legal challenges. Local hostility in many locations is already giving rise to litigation and disruptive or illegal direct action. An increasing number of disputes are emerging between locals and tour operators over access to private beeches, diving areas, water resources and grazing land. Although tourism may enhance growth and productivity within a country, tourism inevitably requires the use of land and infrastructure – both finite resources. Economic diversification and independence come at the cost of purchasing land and building new forms of infrastructure. Neither of these strategies is possible if hotel facilities have already laid claim to sizeable portions of a state. A prosperous tourist industry comes at the cost creating other forms of productivity activity that may provide better development prospects in the long term.
Tourism aids conservation programmes.

The damage that tourists cause is not limited to archaeological sites and local ecosystems. The presence of tourists can also destabilise and perturb the routines and traditions of an area’s communities. Within developing states, tourists can cause significant disruption and damage to the patterns of ordinary life. Religious, artistic, medical and agricultural knowledge is considered to be an important resource by a wide range of aboriginal and forth world communities. What tourists may assume to be innocent queries can constitute an attempt to acquire carefully taught skills and practices, bound closely to a group’s identity and history. Further, the construction of tourist accommodation- even in wealthy, developed states- is often driven by concerns over cost and a desire to maximise profit margins. Attempts to remain true to local architectural vernaculars and to create building that are unobtrusive and aesthetically pleasing are often talked about by hoteliers, but rarely implemented.
Tour operators obstruct development.

There is a strong didactic tradition within western tourism, which emphasises the role of travellers in fostering cultural contact and exchange. It can be argued that positive, open and value neutral attitudes to travel still exist, albeit in different forms. Volunteer schemes operated by organisations such as the VSO are increasingly being promoted as travel experiences, as well as charitable endeavours. Such schemes forcibly confront young travellers with the underdeveloped conditions of the communities that they offer their services to. They allow unmediated contact with the inhabitants of developing states. As noted below, western tourists should not be portrayed as barely educated dupes, in thrall to the promises made in tour companies’ brochures. While some companies do offer tourists “packaged” experiences, many more simply facilitate travel to and between places that their customers find interesting. Travel of this type confers all of the advantages of trade with tourists on host economies, while minimising potential disputes over land ownership and infrastructure. The dispute surrounding land rights within the Ngorongoro crater has been driven largely by purchases of land an entertainment facilities by senior members of various Arabian royal families. This is not characteristic of the difficulties encountered by popular tourist destinations generally. It is contended that senior members of elite, unaccountable and stratified institutions such as the Saudi royal family will always be likely to use their wealth and influence to evade democratic controls on land use. Attention should be drawn to the plight of the Tanzanian Masai, but restriction of other tourist activities in other territories would be counterproductive.
Tourism does not reduce corruption or promote good governance in developing states.

The opposition appear to be arguing in favour of ensuring that tour operators exercise greater caution when assessing and review the political and legal practices of destination states. The opposition side’s points do nothing to disprove that tourism is beneficial for developing states in general. It is ridiculous to expect tour operators to attempt to critique and dismantle dictatorial regimes. The most that can be expected of them is thorough scrutiny of new business partners. Large firms are as likely to be the targets of corruption as they are to benefit from it. The stakes- and sums of money- associated with the tourist trade are not as high as in the oil industry. In other words, tour operators are unlikely to be able to bribe officials and will be reluctant to comply with requests to pay bribes. Far from entrenching dictatorial or corrupt governments, tourism may help in ousting them. Touring politically contentious areas may serve to bring home the flaws and depredations of oppressive regimes to some of the west’s wealthiest and most highly educated citizens. Restricting and boycotting tourist activity may serve to reform developing states that are slipping toward extreme forms of authoritarianism and oppression. High profile boycotts of sporting events in South Africa (the 1985 grand prix, the 1970 on South African participation in international cricket and its suspension from FIFA in 1961)[i] brought political and racial oppression within the country to a wider international audience. [i] Laverty, Alex, ‘Sports Diplomacy and Apartheid South Africa’, The African File, http://theafricanfile.com/academics/usc/sports-diplomacy-and-apartheid-south-africa/
Tourism undermines the privacy and autonomy of fourth world communities.

This argument assumes that tourists are undereducated dupes who are unable to understand that they should conduct themselves conservatively when visiting foreign communities. The vast majority of western tourists- especially those inclined to spend large amounts of time and money locating and visiting fourth world communities- are highly educated. Side opposition that the problems presented by prying or curious tourists are intractable. In reality, a gentle reminder is usually all that is required to remind tourists that they are visiting sacred sites or working communities. Secular or non-Christian tourists in the United Kingdom fall uncomplainingly silent when visiting Cathedrals and churches. Visitors to America’s war memorials and to the world trade centre memorial site adopt sombre and reverent tones. There is no reason to believe that rational, intelligent individuals will not adapt their behaviour to the communities that they visit if asked to do so.
High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel

High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers.[1] Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail. [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-again...
Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure

The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up.[1] Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded.[2] [1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-again... [2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel...
High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly

Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment.[1] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig
High Speed Rail is Dangerous

This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards. The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision.[1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake.[2] [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/financing_costs.aspx [2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011, http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122751/
High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable

Within an economic climate that is in recession, the best way to avoid recession is to increase public spending. This is because the extra jobs created through public spending stimulate the economy. This is because the spending results in the employment of a number of people who otherwise would have remained unemployed and on a lower wage. As such, these people are more able to consume and more able to spend their money on consumer goods. In this way, the economy is pushed out of recession as this initial wave of spending means that the people who sold the products to the consumers now have more money themselves to spend elsewhere. Whilst this is fairly basic Keynesian analysis of the markets, the reason that the spending here is not susceptible to causing inflation and hence negating the effect is that markets take time to adjust to stimuli. The inflation rate will only increase appropriately once the market has reacted to the stimulus. As such, the initial year or two following a stimulus results in a temporary boost to the economy and then results in inflation later. Given that the recession is likely to be over in two years, dealing with inflation in the future is something that the economy can handle in response for a stimulus that might push it out of recession.[1] [1] “Keynesian Economics.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment.

The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business. Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development: "Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives." And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive: "High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties."[1] And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to. [1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/productivity.html