Tonight we are having a debate on the motion that THBT governments in the developing world should invest in sex tourism. To provide some sneak preview take a look at the plan provided by the first government. Consider that the quote of the debate is indicated by nice formatting 😉
- Developing countries become sex tourism hub,
- Government established brothels,
- Any person can go to the brothel & provide her services.
Arguments for the plan
Arg1: EU etc. countries won’t be able to use protectionism. Under SQ EU etc. are using protectionism (quotas, tariffs) against various products produced in 3rd world – won’t be able to protect against sex tourism. Plus developing world can only develop industries where they have competitive advantage.
Arg2: Basic right of survival. Providing this opportunity would allow to facilitate the development in LR (this is SR solution). Plus this is the government’s role to provide such basic rights. Further plus is that values come after the basic rights.
Arg3: Public sector not private sector. If private sectors does this then pimps appear and care only about profits. On the contrary public sector would mainly care for people involved and no exploitation would happen. Plus government would ensure safe sex and would take care about sexual diseases.
Arg4: Under democracy everyone has free choice – people can choose not to work with ones mind but use body. Where is the line for morality as similar services, say, striptease is allowed? If people are ready to supply their body, there are no reasons not to allow them!
Rebuttals and further counter rebuttals of various arguments
XArg1: Image of the country is damaged. However, no one care about the image as people are dieing from hunger. If one hasn’t had anything in her mouth for few days we don’t care about image and moral issues.
XArg2: Government’s role is to protect not exploit. Allowing this hurts people’s moral state. However, no exploitation takes place as people will be able to choose.
XArg4: There are no opportunity to sell one into slavery to ensure her life, so we don’t allow people to do anything with their body.
XNarg3: Investing somewhere doesn’t mean no investment in other areas. Plus body is the most value adding asset of people in the developing countries.
XNarg4: No tourist would like to have unsafe sex as the diseases are spreading really fast. And that’s why the government shouldn’t promote activities that spread diseases.
XNarg6: No identity would be revealed.
Arguments against the plan
Narg1: Government could invest in other things that would attract tourists – hotels, beaches etc. Plus social services (police) could be improved. This would allow people to get a reasonable job.
Narg2: Moral side of the plan as it will promote prostitution. Governments in the developing world are too weak to control. Under SQ there are prostitutes in such countries, but fewer people use them as they are afraid of illnesses.
Narg3: Doesn’t allow for sustainable development as while the government cares about sex tourism, it doesn’t invest in necessary areas – education, health care etc. Selling body is fast depreciating asset – meaning that working time decreases and at the end country gets many old people without any experience (just in sex).
Narg4: Problem of fatherless children as most likely sometimes local females would get pregnant.
Narg5: Corrupted governments would still exploit people. Plus no one would pay such people significantly more that they can earn in any other local industry, say 7 EUR per month.
Narg6: Plan increases the traditional problems – health level, crime level etc. OR creates transparent sector that no one would like, say identities of people could be revealed.
Narg7: People’s moral will be diminished as people would feel like goods that the government can choose to sell, like wood. Plus people will not trust in the government that is very needed in the developing world.