Professor’s Prompt:
TV and the Internet offer virtual tourism. Can that substitute for real travel?
Student A:
Yes, virtual experiences are informative, eco-friendly, and budget-friendly.
They help us learn about other cultures and plan future trips more effectively.
Student B:
No virtual experience can fully replicate being there.
Real travel engages all the senses and offers personal growth that a screen simply can’t.
本題討論虛擬旅遊是否能取代實體旅行。
我們的立場並非主張完全取代，而是認為在特定條件下，虛擬旅遊具有可行性與實質價值。
支持虛擬旅遊的論點主要集中在三方面。
第一是可近性與包容性，它讓年長者、身體受限者、經濟條件不足或有飛行恐懼的人仍能參與旅遊經驗。
第二是現實可行性，虛擬旅遊成本低、準備簡單，且在疫情或戰爭等全球危機下仍能運作。
第三是技術發展潛力，隨著 VR 等科技進步，虛擬體驗的真實感與選擇性將持續提升，不受時間與地理限制。
反對者主張虛擬旅遊缺乏真實感官體驗與個人成長價值。
我們在論證中承認這一限制，但進一步指出科技進步正在縮小虛實差距，且實體旅行本身具有結構性排他性，並非所有人都能負擔。
Agree
1. More viable for some groups- elderly and young
2. Suitable for people who are claustrophobic or having flight fears
3. More room for errors
4. Easy to prepare—in terms of cost, equipment, clothes and weight
5. Still works in the wake of a global issue like pandemic or war
6. Provide far greater choices—not confined to geography, time, and economy
7. Continuous improvement as technology like VR keeps updating