The Instigator
Torvald
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,244 times Debate No: 27127
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Torvald

Pro

This debate will be about the issues involved with globalization (the unification of the planet, the intermingling of culture and race). As Pro, I am going to be arguing for globalization; I will be arguing that it is to be encouraged for cultures to interact, and for global unity to flourish. As Con, you, whoever you are, shall be arguing the opposite.

Burden of proof shall be evenly split, (though it's negotiable)
And because we're all friends here, the rules shall be lax.
Please, no default votes, even if the Con does forfeit. (I shan't!)
Now, let us state our opinions, and support them with facts! (Though simple logic will suffice)
RationalMadman

Con

Firstly I am not anti-globalization. I am pro moderation of globalization (rhyming like the resolution).

Secondly you define globalization as the unification of the planet, the intermingling of culture and race. I think if we all intermingled and became caramel coloured quarter Asian(yellow), Asian (brown), black and Caucasian (white) we'd be living in a very dull world indeed. All males would look almost identical eventually as would females, all economies would be run exactly the same, religions would be completely wiped out (or if somehow one managed to dominate all others that would be the case). In fact any weirdness, variation or cultural clashes would be seen as obstacles to globalization, thus in a negative light when instead, as I shall logically prove, they should be seen in a rather positive light.

If anything diversity is what has led us to wars. Wars, as horrible as they can be, are the sole reason for the invention of high tech security guns, radar systems that can be used to save lives, torture methods that have extracted life-saving information as well as the realisation that we can generate nuclear power.

If you force Afghanistan to be intermingle with the western cultures, or even worse the extremely liberal south American culture (whereby seeing a woman in a bikini on a street poster is commonplace) or European cultures where naked children and half naked women at beaches is commonplace then you are bound to force conflict. It will end up being that one culture gets overpowered by the majority and feels neglected for a while, then rebels and you have a vicious cycle. Allowing them to ignore each other and stay separate is very good and keeps war at bay (considering how bad the war in Afghanistan is now further enforcement of globalization would only enrage them to unimaginable measures).

China and India are highly competitive markets both with EXTREMELY opposite ideologies and have very little trade between them other than what is extremely profitable. China believes in keeping everyone equal and thus having no true upper class, they believe that the motivation to work should be to have pride as a human being and thus have a culture with extreme prejudice towards the unemployed (which has ironically led to people working for far less than what we call minimum wage because they want to live a meaningful life). India believes that the motivation to work should be to get to the upper class and then have the power to exploit lower classes. In fact they have a segregated caste system for this purpose alone (which they believe will eventually drive the lowest class in the caste to manically work hard and educate themselves to overthrow the upper class and thus alter the scene and motivate a new class in the caste system to strive for the top, this is linked to the Hindu view of everything being a circle of events, form rebirth to economic boom and recession). Both these economies are competing and if we were to preach to them to intermingle and share you would see huge uprising and revolts left right and centre, despite the geographic closeness of them, in fact this would only make the damage of the war worse than any world war because they are not only the two largest populations on Earth but also two of the eldest. China have both been victimised to oppression in the past (the Chinese by both the Japanese and Mao's men, the Indians by the British and for a short while the Portuguese) so neither would stand down or back off the other, they both have a 'fight until I die' philosophy (more so the Chinese) with the Indians having brutal civil wars between Muslims and Hindus just highlighting their predisposition to violence (they aren't all "Gandhi" you know).

My final point is that countries such as North Korea and Burma really don't like other countries at all. They want to be left the heck alone and want as minimal trade and negotiation as they can. To begin forcing them to agree to the philosophy of globalization (especially the highly armed North Korea ready to launch multiple nuclear bombs around the world) would be disastrous.

In summary of my round one debate, globalization is nice in moderation. However, ultimately the full intermingling of everyone is a VERY dangerous idea and should never be attempted unless we want a true world war three.
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Pro

My Point
Okay, so it seems that, for the most part, I just didn't make my position clear. I don't actually mean that I want various cultures and ethnicities to be dissolved into one, big, blended and bland race. Certainly not! I just encourage unified relations between these cultures and ethnicities. Take the UK, for instance: it is comprised of four countries, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, all of which have distinct cultures, but also have fairly good relations, and act as one nation [1]. It is my will that that be such as the relations of the world: all countries cooperating together as different states of one nation. With whom one has romantic relations, with whom one lives, that is all one's choice. Cultures merely should not draw themselves into isolated containment within borders and strictures of enmity and alienation.

Diversity
You could say that diversity is the cause of wars. Then again, you could say that poor relations are the cause of war: with a strong Federal Government, the United States have not broken into war with each other for over two hundred years. With a strong unifying force, the European Union has not broken into war for many years as well, though not that many. I think it might be better to say that the absence of government and unification is what leads to wars, not diversity. Furthermore, war may lead to new scientific discovery, but so does peace. They didn't build CERN as a weapon, nor is the ISS a device of espionage, yet both of these facilities have been bearers of great scientific progress and discovery.

I will not deny that forcing cultures that are so drastically different to mingle is inadvisable. While I do not support Libertarianism, I posit that a leaf of that book should be submitted: if you don't like people who don't wear clothes, don't spend time around them, and if you don't like pictures of people who don't wear clothes, don't look at them. If you don't like the economy in a country, don't shop there. If you don't like the religion in a country, don't practice it.

GTFA
Your final point, regarding countries that trend toward xenophobia, the fear and hate of outsiders and diversity, is a good one. I suppose you can look at it like the kid in the sandbox that wants to be left alone: just...leave him alone. Let everyone in the world that's interested in peaceful socialization peacefully socialize, and just ignore everybody else. That may not sound ideal, but I think it's hardly less ideal than getting into ideology skirmishes, or just ordinary skirmishes at all.

Conclusion
I agree with you, actually, that globalization should not be a double or nothing institution. Not everyone in the world is ready for globalization. In fact, most probably aren't. But one by one, as countries decide to form stronger alliances, we can work toward a more ideal world.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
RationalMadman

Con

After much internal struggle, meditation and the deepest thought in order to find exactly where we fundamentally I realised that my opponent and I have two extremely opposed views.

The first opposing view is that I see the best way to avoid war is to prevent is, whereas my opponent prevents to 'cure' it (I shall explain this later).

The second opposing view we have is that whilst I see the default state of two countries being non-globalization, my opponent would see it as globalization (I shall go on to explain this later too).

The first fundamental issue we have is as follows. Whilst my opponent sees having one government ruling over several states, or nations, as a good way to cure war between the countries I prefer to prevent this even being necessary in the first place. The United States of America were formed far back, when Europeans tore the land of the people who, back then, were termed 'Red Indians' For Christopher Columbus', somewhat bizarre, error of thinking he had reached India because he assumed the entire Caribbean and United States did not exist as a huge chunk of land in between his westward venture from Italy to India. (although back then where he left was technically a region of Spanish rule). They tore apart the natives limb by limb, using the power of the gun against mere sword, arrow and spear. The few native families who escaped and hid developed a tradition of scalping the meant they managed to kill (for example if a man went to urinate in the forest they would be waiting very silently and patiently by trees in camouflage to silently kill him and leave the body behind without a scalp, often scalping him alive and struggling by having men restrain him and cover his mouth (the natives would never hurt women because the native American society is severely matriarchal). My point is that the great and supposed peaceful place you call America has had vile and brutal wars, enslavement of blacks and has indeed stuck its military in regions of the world which would love for it to get lost from (although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize. To intermingle people who want to remain independent and alone. If we are to consider war as bad, then certainly globalization should be viewed as bad also.

The second fundamental issue is that the default position of a country to another, according to my opponent, should be to want to engage in globalization with it. According to my opponent, if you are Nigeria and I am Kenya then we should automatically feel the duty to work together and share our resources, intermingle our cultures and impurify our way of life with yours. If ever there is a clash, only then should we pause globalization, and perhaps restrict it to just exporting and importing, which really can't be truly considered the full scale of exporting. According to my opponent if you are China and I am USA then I must demand you to give me all your resources, information, secret research projects and private economic plans for the future because globalization's core philosophy is that information shared is information used well, secrecy between nations and countries is to be seen as bad and a huge offset to the default relation between countries if you see it through my opponent's eyes. I, on the other hand, am quite the opposite. I think that not globalizing should be default and that it should only be done when is essential for government's to work together towards a common goal or opposite, thus complimentary goals (such as one country wanting to export huge quantities of textiles and the other wanting very cheap textile imports). I think globalization should be kept to the minimum and thus the default position of two nations should be, I tell you what I need to and you do the same to me. No obligation to share, to care or to intermingle people and destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet; variation in both physiques and ways of life.
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Pro

Whoa whoa, whoa! I would like my opponent to slow down, and remember that the point of a debate is to state one's case, not slander and discredit one's opponent. My opponent's entire argument is based on describing my vision of a peaceful cooperation between nations as a bloodthirsty and tyrannical mania. This is not the point of the debate, however desperate one might be for a strong case. You should've taken my advice, and spent the rest of the debate trading poetry. There's nothing wrong with sketching out how views oppose, but what you've done is go a-wassailing for blood.

A List of My Opponent's Points, Without the Appealing Filler
First Opposing View
-The United States have a gory and blood-bathed history, therefore they do not peacefully coexist now.
-Native Americans were often matriarchal, therefore globalization is bad.
-America has a trend toward sticking its chevrons where they don't belong, so globalization must be dictatorship-oriented.
-Globalization causes blood-shed and horror.

Second Opposing View
-The intermingling and sharing of cultures and resources impurifies a country's way of life.
-Countries should conduct secret weapons research.
-Humanitarianism between nations is not to be encouraged.
-Interrelation would destroy human domination of the planet.

My Address to These Points
1.1
I will not dispute that the United States has a horrific history of squelched rights and bloodshed. However, your example, of Columbus and the Red Indians is just a fallacy; European colonists warring with the natives was not an attempt at globalization, and did not even result from an attempt at globalization. Europe was trying to colonize and conquer North America (and South America), not share resources and state secrets with it.

1.2
Irrelevant.

1.3
Modern day USA may have the unfortunate trend for sending in the troops at the drop of a hat, but that does not mean globalization is some tyrannical and malevolent fixture of military propaganda. The United States foreign policy is not a good example of ideal globalization. When I use the states for an example, it is of how the individual states do not war with each other, not how they do not collectively go gallivanting off to flex their muscles. In the ideal picture of globalization, UN-like federal government would be placed above the governments of individual nations, as in the case of the United States. Just as you don't see the army of Texas marching on Nebraska, you would ideally not see the army of any country marching on that of another.

1.4
I maintain that alienation and rivalry are what cause blood-shed and violence, not globalization. Peaceful coexistence is a difficult community to blame for war.

2.1
Hold on just a minute. Are you actually suggesting that good relations between neighboring countries can cause racial impurity? That was one of the credos of Nazi Germany, and we can see how that turned out: Germany mobilized its military in an attempt to strike out at the other 'impure' lands, as well as the 'impurity' within Germany, with the ideal destination of their campaigns as a world ruled by the 'pure Aryan race.' You really do not want to get into the game of 'impurity.'

2.2
Surely my opponent is not suggesting that it is desirable for nations to not share technological progress?

2.3
If you want to live in a world in which nations feel and act on no neighborly obligation to look after their fellow nations, so be it. You'll pardon me, however, if I beg to differ; when one nation is in need, other nations should look out for them. This is not something that can be logically proven, it's just a personal preference. Look at it this way: in a unified world, if one part were to suffer a disaster, the others should provide what aid they can. A good example is the recent hurricane that struck New England: several cities were devastated, so many other states and cities jumped to the aid of those in need. I am skeptical that anyone could make a case for why this is a bad thing.

2.4
Are you suggesting that sharing technology, and peaceful interaction, could destroy individuality? Furthermore, are you suggesting that humans are the dominant species because they form nations?

The Brighter Side of Globalization
My opponent has made his case in a description of globalization as an oppressive and dictatorial force, bent on bloodily enforced mixing of 'impure' cultures with 'pure' ones. I shall now paint a picture, a happy little picture, of globalization as it should be.

Ideally, nations would be allowed peaceful existence as they saw fit, under the banner of a unified planetary federal government. One nation would not be expected to surrender its resources to another, any more than one nation in the European Union is expected to surrender its resources to another. Naturally there would be no major secrets of one nation from another; you wouldn't expect to hear about Rhode Island developing secret arsenals for use against Vermont, now would you? There would not be military conquest of anywhere, only policing, just as Great Britain does not send in the troops to invade and pacify Scotland. Globalization is not about setting up a world dictator to enforce one superior culture; that's what Nazism is about, not globalization. Globalization is about peaceful coexistence as one world, under the banner of one world, rather than the disunited and disorganized banners of many opposing nation-states.
RationalMadman

Con

Firstly, let me say what nonsensical interpretation my opponent has displayed of my round 2 debate.

"The United States have a gory and blood-bathed history, therefore they do not peacefully coexist now." No, I said they have a gory and blood-bathed history. I never once said this was reason to think they do not peacefully coexist now. Stop being a conniving rascal and actually quote me, stop intentionally lying about what I said.

"Native Americans were often matriarchal, therefore globalization is bad." No, I said Native Americans were often Matriarchal, I NEVER said this was why globalization is bad. Again, another twist of the conniving rascal that is pro.

"America has a trend toward sticking its chevrons where they don't belong, so globalization must be dictatorship-oriented." I did say that America has a trend of chevrons where they don't belong but this was not ever given as a reason to prove Globalization must be dictatorship-oriented, only to show how harshly it must occur. Again, another twist of the conniving rascal that is pro.

"Humanitarianism between nations is not to be encouraged." I didn't even use the word humanitarianism once in my debate. Again, another twist of the conniving rascal that is pro.

"Interrelation would destroy human domination of the planet." I NEVER EVER EVER said this once in my debate. Again, another twist of the conniving rascal that is pro.

The only valid points of mine he addressed were as follows:

"Globalization causes blood-shed and horror." I never once said horror and would like to abolish this term. It causes blood shed as I showed with many countries who attempted globalization. Creating a worldwide empire is exactly what globalization is about, don't lie to yourself.

"The intermingling and sharing of cultures and resources impurifies a country's way of life." This is true. I don't see how I ever said any racial slur within this so your counter is ridiculous.

"Countries should conduct secret weapons research." How else will they defend themselves? The very computer we're using was solely invented due to British research to win the Second World War by Alan Turing.

I am furious and unimaginably enraged at the conniving nature of pro's debate. I would like him to apologise and concede all points then actually address my debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Pro

I would like to point out that my condensed points of yours were not quotes, but synopses.

My opponent claims that I have misrepresented his points. If so, I apologize. Correct me if I am wrong, but, to clarify, I shall quote each applicable sentence, and interpret its meaning:

The United States have a gory and blood-bathed history, therefore they do not peacefully coexist now.
"My point is that the great and supposed peaceful place you call America has had vile and brutal wars, enslavement of blacks and has indeed stuck its military in regions of the world which would love for it to get lost from (although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize."
This sounds to me like my synopsis was not so far off-mark.

Native Americans were often matriarchal, therefore globalization is bad.
"The few native families who escaped and hid developed a tradition of scalping the meant they managed to kill (for example if a man went to urinate in the forest they would be waiting very silently and patiently by trees in camouflage to silently kill him and leave the body behind without a scalp, often scalping him alive and struggling by having men restrain him and cover his mouth (the natives would never hurt women because the native American society is severely matriarchal)."
I will admit, I did have difficulty inferring the relevance of this passage. If you wish to help, I should not object.

America has a trend toward sticking its chevrons where they don't belong, so globalization must be dictatorship-oriented.
"(although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize. To intermingle people who want to remain independent and alone. If we are to consider war as bad, then certainly globalization should be viewed as bad also."
What then is your point, if not that globalization is dictatorship-oriented?

"Humanitarianism between nations is not to be encouraged," "Interrelation would destroy human domination of the planet."
"No obligation to share, to care or to intermingle people and destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet; variation in both physiques and ways of life."
I was paraphrasing, my good chap. I would call an obligation to share, care, and intermingle 'humanitarian.' I would also say that if you call say intermingling would 'destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet,' you are saying exactly the meaning of my synopsis.

My Three, Meager, Valid Points
You never once said horror? My dear fellow, would you like me to count the number of times you said 'horror'? You said it exactly once, "So all this blood-shed and horror..." This looks like my synopsis of your point is almost dead on to your point.
My counter is ridiculous? You did say "According to my opponent, if you are Nigeria and I am Kenya then we should automatically feel the duty to work together and share our resources, intermingle our cultures and impurify our way of life with yours," did you not? How is a reference to 'impurification of our way of life' by the intermingling of cultures not in the family of racial slurs, or at least, a dangerous prejudice?
I will not deny that historically, weapons research has yielded important scientific discovery. However, if there were no war, would that prevent scientific progress from being made? Alas, we cannot certainly know, for in all of recorded history, there have not been even 300 years of world peace [2].

A Matter of Conduct
I apologize to my opponent for offending with by my summaries of his points. I also advise him that he make his points less vague and understated, if he does not wish them to be misinterpreted. My intent was not to connive, but merely to address your points, without their rich dressing in useless platitudes. I have, to my knowledge, however, addressed every point of your debate, so demanding that I address your debate is an irrational redundancy.
I express my regret at your unimaginable rage and fury, but I am afraid that I shall not be 'put in my place' (see comment section) by irrational blusterings and unsupported allegations of connivery, nor shall I concede the debate merely because you are indignant that I misunderstood or inaccurately portrayed your arguments. By all means, explain your arguments, but please do not resort to petty grumbling and bumbling: those will result only in your humbling.

Sources:
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Pro

"Who first beneath the mistletoe
On Christmas night is found,
Must pay a forfeiture, we know,
To them that stand around.
Approach, ye angel choirs, and then
Make way for happier sons of men."
John Bannister Tabb

I found that poem specifically for the occasion, since it seems I've now been both put in my place and annihilated, and I feel like celebrating, a little. It's such a pity that my opponent was unable to complete the debate. I do hate forfeiture, both the act and the poem! I bid you all, audience and opponent, a very fair and merry day indeed, as drift the snows of winter and rise the spirits of the season in good cheer!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Votebombs, you say? "Basically a full concession from con. He didn't put up much of a fight, skipped the fourth round and didn't care to argue in his last round" seems like a fairly unvotebombish vote. Read your debate, it's pretty well summarized by RyuuKyuzo.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
When he posted it, it was unvoted.

Now he got votebombs.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
why did you put this in the unvoted thread?
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
If your annihilation of me is anything like your attempt at putting me in my place, I imagine it shall be rather therapeutic.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I rarely ever get pissed of at the stupidity of my opponent in a debate. But you are beyond repair. I shall now annihilate you once and for all (not today because I cba).
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
There's no need to become upset, and there's no need to 'put in place' anyone. You were the one that originally played twister, by stating your own versions of what I see on the point. All I did was quote your main points, without the aesthetically appealing but totally unnecessary 'filling material,' such as long and informative paragraphs about methods used by the Native Americans to rebel against European colonists. Interesting, yes, and good for raising sympathy and emotion for your case, yet, but essential or even relevant to the argument, no. You can become angry and 'put me in my place' all you want, but, in the words of the Dalai Lama, "Being angry at someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." You'll only hurt your debate performance.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
You have severely pissed me off with twisting my arguments. I will truly put you in your place this round.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
If you can think of some fighting ground, sure. I can't, really. I was hoping for some xenophobic bigot with great skills in rhetoric to show up and accept the challenge. I guess the best we could do is toss around different pros and cons of globalization, even if we both agree that it's best in moderation.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
I'm not going to forfeit this just because we agree can we find some fighting ground? I want to decide it here so we don't argue about the argument itself on the real thing.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Well, you could do something witty... I usually quote Shakespeare in this type of situation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
TorvaldRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: what RK said. Need I say more???
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
TorvaldRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Basically a full concession from con. He didn't put up much of a fight, skipped the fourth round and didn't care to argue in his last round.