Okay, let’s first start by talking about the obvious one first. Yes, this debate will be one of your good old classics of value-judging, where the Team Affirmative has to: “Okay, so there are some benefits of both manufacturing industry and service industry, whilst there also are some harms from both of them. We are going to analyze and prove how the benefits of manufacturing industry outperforms the benefits of service industry, and then how the harms of service industry outweighs the ones of manufacturing industry. Also, that the benefits of manufacturing industry offset its harms. And that the harms of service industry offset its benefits. And, upon, or supposing, that we concede that the service industry wins against manufacturing industry both in terms of abundance of benefits and lack of harms, we are still going to analyze and prove to you how the particular and specific benefits of manufacturing industry still supersedes the ones from service industry, no matter how small in number they may be. Vice versa and the same goes to their harms.”
Well, pretty much the whole burden of proof for Team Affirmative. Team Negative takes the vice versa.
BUT! As a matter of fact, actually this debate would branch into a lot of various different sub-debates.
Expect both teams to agree that this is not a complete abandonment of a particular sector in favor of another. This is a matter of difference in threshold. Also expect Team Negative to be conceding that service industries in general are of later importance compared to manufacturing and harvesting, hence the term tertiary. Instead of manufacturing being secondary and harvesting being primary. But, general. Not covering all.
Now, as all other value-judgment debates are, there should be a comparison of cases in order to make the debate clearer to understand. So, when comparing the integrity of cases (in this case, industries, or sectors) Team Affirmative should pay attention to these service sectors in particular: education, research, and banking. Because they three are the ones which are most likely going to be the businesses glorified by Team Negative. We don’t expect that there will be Team Negative stupid enough to glorify the existence of something like the filming industry (a service sector) or the hotel industry (also a service sector) when talking about the welfare of DEVELOPING countries. Those three industries have more tangible and imminent benefits to a country compared to other types of industries (not saying that there is absolutely no benefit from filming or hotel or advertisement whatsoever, just that they pale in comparison).
Expect both teams to clash on how developed these developing countries are. Is it decided that a country should transition more into service the more developed it becomes? What about the likelihood of other countries supporting the course of action? Or is it the reverse, that other countries will feel threatened instead? By this “development”? And then will they respond accordingly towards this movement by using their own innovation and economic actions in order not to lose in terms of economic bargaining power?
The wording of the motion doesn’t call for a necessity to Team Affirmative in terms of providing a model. However, if you want, then a good form of “prioritizing” is by removal of taxes in all manufacturing industries, and extra benefits (and/or subsidy) to the workers, investors, and management alike. The number of “extra” could amount to as much as 150% of the current rate, or borrowing the rate from another different country with a more established atmosphere to the conduciveness of these manufacturing industries. Treatment for service industries stays the same.
Because manufacturing industries yield more results than service industry
Okay, well, the whole burden of proof for Team Affirmative is expected to be answered and fulfilled within this point, ah?
So, let’s start with trying to prove that manufacturing industries bring more benefit (than service industries). The characterization of developing countries should make explaining this part easier: lack of technological advancement, a plethora of unskilled labors, social gap, etc etc – makes the condition ideal for manufacturing industries to thrive and not for service industries. In all likelihood, the requirements for an ideal condition for an industry to survive varies and differs depending on which sector they are – you should Google more about this and read more Economics books in order to be able to fully understand and thus can fortify the elaborations for this.
Now let’s turn it around: identifying the weakness of service industries, thus them bringing more harm to the economy and welfare of the country as a whole compared to investing on manufacturing industries: the nature of service industries fulfilling mostly tertiary needs (luxury goods – and on top of that, mostly intangible ones) do not fit in the characterization of developing countries – okay, well, ahh, alright – it’s likely that you have already established this by now. So let’s get to exploring and analyzing further harms: chances are when we have stocks of supplies, service supplies, that do not go consumed, then bad things are about to happen. Imagine the repercussions possible when we have lots of unoccupied hotels, advertisements yielding little to zero return on profit and thus investment, “unused” psychologists, doctors, lawyers, accountants (Can we add prostitutes here? Since they also kind of belong to the service sector – okay sorry *dissent_me_plz just hit my head*).
But, yeah, unused services. Unemployment. Crime, etc. etc. Disappointment over misallocated resources, disappointment over the reality when it shows that it doesn’t need your meager and mediocre expertise, when all your four years in university have been culminating up to this point.
On another hand, the abundance of supply of a certain commodity means the decrease in price. Chances are, these service sectors will have to decrease the price in order to meet the competition. And when an industry operates below the breakeven point is when she is working her way towards her demise.
Because this serves as a proper consumption of human resource and a proper allocation of human capital.
This piece of explanation will.. be partly, mostly, okay, entirely, serving as elaboration fortifications for Team Affirmative Argument 1.
Explore and characterize developing countries properly – okay, we know that you have done that – but this time, focus on the human resources sector – try to identify the difference between the human resource quality that a developing country might have, and its difference from that of a developed country’s.
It is such that the human resource is not professional enough (we’re not robots) that it can cater towards all industries and can be tailored into meeting the demands and expectations of investors and entrepreneurs. An accountant spending years studying economics, calculus, and financial statement analysis cannot be demanded to drafting legal paperwork for a law firm (well, unless you happen to be content and happy enough with disastrous results). So, the point is that, this argument (that previous sentence you read just now) covers three different aspects. One, the demand for human resource – it’s different from country to country, but generally when speaking about whether the country is developing or developed, it is going to form a pattern. Second, the years spent studying economics, calculus, and financial statement analysis – the preparation of human resource is a form of investment from the country. Well, you know, public universities get subsidies from the government, funded by the tax money collected from the people. And, you generally don’t want that to go to waste. Distinctive difference between knowledge in liberal arts and expertise in vocational work – go Google those two definitions in order to get a better understanding of them, but tl;dr version is -> generally for developing countries, you want more vocational workers instead of liberal art thinkers. Last, the three, is that the humans studying those things themselves – how sure governments can be that their citizens can fully grasp the basics of algebra, calculus, computer language, etc are arbitrary, varying from countries to countries. But, again, they form a pattern. And, you’ve guessed it, the pattern depends on how developed that country is.
Because it is within human nature to have the tendency to destroy.
Humans destroy things. It is the curse bestowed upon us by God (sorry atheists) that it is in our inherent subconscious mind to destroy things. We destroy our dinner upon serving, that dinner that our mothers and the greengrocers and butchers and farmers painstakingly worked to create. A cigarette is destroyed by human when it is smoked. Chairs, tables, and other furniture as well as computers and automobiles get depreciated upon every usage by humans – their quality lowers, gradually, one usage at a time. If the cows destroy the grasses and leaves and tomatoes we worked hard to grow, that is for the point of making them cows fat enough so that they can be harvested. But is it ethical to feed humans then harvest them? Please note our sarcasm here.
So it is just basic ethics for people to contribute back to the society by producing things. We are cursed that we destroy things in order to live. It is just basic manner for us to create things, as we live, as we destroy. Thus, manufacturing industry.
Because, if so, when will you start developing (the service sector) then getting ready for the transition?
Answer: it will not happen. The most important part of the service industry is the education sector. We couldn’t iterate this point well enough and emphasize it strongly enough by mere words. As education is indeed the ticket to transition a country into being more developed. Be it extra training in vocational expertise or extra education which will culminate in the form of extra knowledge in liberal arts, education is the key point until people can start transitioning into more lucrative economic activities.
Another aspect of education is also about the technological advancement. As more and more people become more educated, the working phenomenon transitions from being labor-intensive into capital-intensive – lots of machinery and equipment instead of unskilled workers.
And now on to the process of this harm manifesting. How is it exactly that the transition will not happen? The moment when government sets up priority, the priority becomes interpreted as a widespread message throughout all the society. This means that everybody will get the message of “we should be producing something, instead of thinking of how to make ourselves useful in terms of providing service” and this coupled with the fact that the government actively encourages activities (assuming the previously set-up model we proposed and recommended) via the existence of subsidies and taxes, will hinder any propensity or motivation a citizen might have in establishing a commercial service business unit. Keep this phenomenon ongoing for 4-5 years, and this becomes a fixed mindset, a culture, a tradition, an identity. It is going to be ingrained within their minds that they are forever producers, not service providers. Well, good luck trying to transition with that. Fun fact: it is not easy to change heavily ingrained and engraved mindsets.
Because this will mean more pressure from the more well-established and developed countries.
The fact that they are still on the early stages of manufacturing (the fact that they are still developing countries, duh) and they keep on emphasizing at that (manufacturing) means that they (these countries) will never catch up with the progress already made by more well-established developed countries. Education is the name of the game in the long run, as what is likely already established by you in your Team Negative Argument 1. And, they will lose the race if they don’t pay proper attention to this.
This piece of argument will mostly serve as extra elaboration fortification for what is already established in Team Negative Argument 1.
Exploring the harms. Further harms. The fact that there is a discrepancy already in terms of technology employment in production between those of developing countries and developed countries means that these developing countries have to catch up with the developed in terms of upgrading their technology, not by increasing the number of factories and human workers. There is just so much land you can use in order to build factories, and sorry to say, after you have occupied all of your land, you cannot build a factory on top of another factory – this is not like an office on top of another office in a high-rise skyscraper building. It is about how heavy machinery is and you will not be able to find strong enough support for your second floor. Ah, what the hack, anyway, quality over quality. You want to be improving the quality of production via intensification (research and development, upgrading of technology and production means) instead of the quantity of production (MOAR muhchinez! MOAR hoomanz!) – no. And don’t get us started on “MOAR whoarking timez!”
Because the nature of production should belong to things, anyway, and not humans.
Ever heard of robots? That is the sole reason of why humanity is given the brain. Certainly it is true that humans have the curse that we just have to destroy things via consumption. And certainly it is true that we cannot be “harvested” after being fed, unlike chickens. But the fact is that the return on investment on a chicken is indeed in its meat. The return on investment on a human, can generally means only two things: power, and knowledge.
It is unjust to feed a man in order to harvest his power. This means that the treatment for men is no different from the treatment to a horse. Sure enough, you don’t harvest his meat, you don’t kill him, but that denies the basic essence of a human being and what separates humans from animals: the brain.
You want to empower humans by using the sole single distinctive part of the body that makes us have different caste in taxonomy. The empowerment to humans should be in the form of brain nurturing. Education. And that is contained within the service sector.
Erm, a little bit of our fifty cents.
What if you encounter an icehole Team Affirmative that sets up the debate by saying that “we will prioritize ALL manufacturing industries, and deprioritizing almost all service industries except that of the education sector”?
No, don’t think about a definition challenge. As always, we have always discouraged that, and this will be another of those times. You may assert that it is unfair and that your Team Affirmative is playing chicken out and not being loyal to the motion, but you should still play along. Run an argument along the line of “it is the research and development sector that will improve humanity, not the service sector” – then try glorifying the research and development OVER the education. Add one more argument that the fact that government is prioritizing education and deprioritizing research and development means that after our citizens have reached their much needed knowledge and expertise, there will be a brain drain happening in which they will migrate to the developed countries. Their researches won’t be appreciated here in our country! Might as well as conduct research and development somewhere else where they are more appreciated, right?
“Well, okay, that’s good, Debating404. But what if their iceholeness gets upgraded one level further and now they set up the debate by saying deprioritizing service industries except that of the education sector AND research sector?”
“Well, go for tourism. Arguments along the line of how tourism will incite and spark interests from citizens of developed countries to come (already a form of income to us), and hopefully, be motivated to improve us (another benefit to us). Don’t forget to explain how the iceholeness level of your Team Affirmative is now at level2 instead of level1.”