The Instigator
Kaynes
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nivek
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Globalization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Nivek
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 73994
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Kaynes

Pro

Comment : So this is actually my first debate here. My opponent will have an obvious advantage since english isn't my first language (Which is actually the reason why I am interested in debating on this website).

Topic : Globalization.

Definition from wikipedia : Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas and other aspects of culture.[1][2] Advances in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the telegraph and its development the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[3]

Voting system : 'Select winner'

Additional information : I am interested in a debate of ideas, I do not wish to debate about semantics or interpretation of definitions. If this is not your cup of tea, do not accept this debate. I am in favor of globalization, I will make my case for it, but you will also have to make a case against it.

Structure :

Round 1 : Acceptance only
Round 2 : Case and rebuttals
Round 3 : Case and rebuttals
Round 4 : Closing statements, no new arguments

Thank you and good luck to my opponent :)

1. Al-Rodhan, R.F. Nayef and G"rard Stoudmann. (2006). Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition.

2. Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and Society London: Sage. ISBN 978-0803983243 p. 8. "...all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society."

3. Stever, H. Guyford (1972). "Science, Systems, and Society". Journal of Cybernetics 2 (3): 1"3. doi:10.1080/01969727208542909.
Nivek

Con

I accept, thanks for having me.
Debate Round No. 1
Kaynes

Pro

(I'm sorry that I can't start the debate right now, I will next round.)
Nivek

Con

It'll be fun trying to argue from this perspective as I've never done it before.

At a certain glance, we can perhaps observe and conclude that the aspect of globalization is as a whole, positive. Imagine, local hagglers typically calling and echoing their western products, enthusiastic about the latest shoes to accompany your lonely prom night. Western Music blaring virtually from every store with the lyrics "Shake it off, Shake it off". Everyone starts to live a happy life, liberated from any traditional superstitious repercussions all the while reaping the skyrocketing profits.

This rather absurd analogy is one which I disagree and I will take on the offensive as a post-colonial theorist.

Globalization and the proliferation of first world values is as a whole, a net detriment to developing countries

When we assess globalization, it can either mean 2 things, voluntary assimilation or forced assimilation. Both involves the concept of cultural imperialism, a term used to criticize 'The Western Knowledge of the East' (1.http://tinyurl.com...). This process of international integration and the interchange of world views are far more than just a black and white factor. It extends to the exploitation of the third world,all in terms of economic, social and communication(1). As Herbert Schiller once wrote,

"The concept of cultural imperialism today best describes the sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating centre of the system."

President Bush himself have once stated (2.http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com...) "It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree.". Liberating the 'Muslims from themselves' is one fine example of globalization. Instead of reaping the fruits of a 'healthy, sturdy tree', Iraq has once again plunged into chaos, with the arrival of ISIS steadily occupying territories leading to the eventual fall of the Mosul Dam (3.http://www.nytimes.com...). This chain of never-ending violence have once again resumed, with the loss of human lives increasing momentously.

Violence will only curtail Violence. Had Iraq been left alone, especially from the hands of Bush, It would've been a different place. Had the allies lay its hands off the Treaty of Versailles, WW2 would not have occurred. To reverse the process of colonial imperialism demands that first world to stop imposing it's standards on the third world.

Non-Intervention Policies are a better alternative in preempting the loss of human lives for both past and present

The majority of colonial rule involves a strict in-direct line to the 'illiterate native chief' as was termed by the colonialists(4.http://allnigeriahistory.blogspot.com...). Since the dawn of the ignorance and the refusal of the colonialists to learn native language, they have sought the lazy way by having native puppets overseeing the affairs of their nation at the Colonialist's bidding. This maintains a strict dictatorial rule, ensuring native chiefs to unconditionally oblige supposedly in exchange for protection(4). Failure to oblige would mean death and the forced assimilation of the colonial rule. Again, the concept of 'liberating natives from themselves' applies here the same way Bush applies with Iraq.

Further, this has caused a massive chain of events. The legacy of colonialism continues on to the present, through the subtle signs of neo-colonialism. By April 2015, 2 Australians have just been ruled by the Indonesian Court to be 'executed by firing squad' (5.http://nypost.com...). One may irrational spout "These brown men are primitive!" but the underlying cause proves otherwise. Indonesia have been the victim of Dutch Colonial rule for centuries, extending from the 16th Century to the 18th Century (6.http://www.indonesia-investments.com...). In that time frame, they have been subjected to an ideological condition of subservience and a war that have caused over 215,000 deaths(6). They have been severely conditioned to accept a higher authority without questioning, the same way Australians are told by the court to be shot by gun fire without questioning.

The legacy of cultural and colonial imperialism have increased the loss of human lives immeasurably, under the past and present. A Non-Intervention Policy is the more viable alternative to prevent the loss of human lives. To preserve human life is a moral necessity.
Debate Round No. 2
Kaynes

Pro

That's really embarassing since I am the one who actually started the debate, but I'll have to FF this one.

That's too bad, i had a very good idea of my arguments and I had prepared all my sources, but I just underestimated how much time this takes.

I'm really sorry man, especially since you did prepare a case. Oh well...

Really fast, I have to say that I think you overestimate the western cultural power. Although I agree that soft power(including culture) is more relevant that hard power(And we are not a lot of people convinced of this case), the most influential cultural countries in the future will come from asia, most certainly. But there's no reason to believe that it will lead to an hegemony, we do have a balance between many superpowers right now and it seems stable, more than in a bipolar world in any case and probably more than during an hegemony. After all, the countries being all dependant of eachothers, they can't declare war, they have to cooperate. China having 1/3 of the american debt for example make them intimate partners that have to remain allies for both their interests.

I think you may believe that culture could expand without the action of a country, that people could westernized themselves simply by following a model. And that's something we would never agree on, as I firmly believe that cultural influence is the direct result of the efforts of one nation.

Alright enough of this, as you see I am passionate about the subject, It just really is too bad that I could not write a proper response to you : These take me several hours to make, sadly. But I am always open to simply discuss it, international relation is probably one of my favourite subjects
Nivek

Con

Kaynes decided to concede the debate with reason. If my opponent wishes to do so, both of us may waive the debate votes into a tie to make things palatable.

====The Debate is Over | the interactions below are to be IGNORED by voters =====

"Really fast, I have to say that I think you overestimate the western cultural power. Although I agree that soft power(including culture) is more relevant that hard power(And we are not a lot of people convinced of this case), the most influential cultural countries in the future will come from asia, most certainly. But there's no reason to believe that it will lead to an hegemony, we do have a balance between many superpowers right now and it seems stable, more than in a bipolar world in any case and probably more than during an hegemony. After all, the countries being all dependant of eachothers, they can't declare war, they have to cooperate. China having 1/3 of the american debt for example make them intimate partners that have to remain allies for both their interests."

That's interesting. I don't suppose you're implying that the security council has the right to veto any majority left outside the council and the policies of non-proliferation treaty are geared to avoid any Third World Countries from applying for a nuclear program. Any implications such as this would just serve to strengthen postcolonial thought on colonial imperialism.

"I think you may believe that culture could expand without the action of a country, that people could westernized themselves simply by following a model. And that's something we would never agree on, as I firmly believe that cultural influence is the direct result of the efforts of one nation."

So you've asserted.

"That's too bad, i had a very good idea of my arguments and I had prepared all my sources, but I just underestimated how much time this takes."

I forgot we got da formality out da house lol, I'd like to recommend a few things since you have concerns. I'd suggest following RoyLatham's idea, which is preparing a draft of your arguments beforehand. This way, you can manage time if you are a routine sort of guy(though I'm apparently not since I'm a loud annoying ENTP douche lol). Researching and debating in 3 days is too much of a boring commitment so Roy's method does help as you can retype it back and proofread it before submitting.

"I'm really sorry man, especially since you did prepare a case. Oh well..."

There is no need to apologize m8, I appreciate the care and I know who's Edward Said now as a result lol :P

"Alright enough of this, as you see I am passionate about the subject, It just really is too bad that I could not write a proper response to you : These take me several hours to make, sadly. But I am always open to simply discuss it, international relation is probably one of my favourite subjects"

Sure, any attempt at broadening my knowledge pool has my endorsement as long as it's palatable in your interests as well.


====The Debate is Over | the interactions above are to be IGNORED by voters =====

I'd like to thank Kaynes for the short debate and for introducing me Edward Said. I leave it to my opponent whether to leave this debate as a tie or whichever.

Debate Round No. 3
Kaynes

Pro

Kaynes forfeited this round.
Nivek

Con

Nivek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Do whatever you think is worthy of the debate.Whatever you choose,has my endorsement.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Oh and also, Edward Said is interesting.....haha :P

His work is hard to decipher though, big words are incomprehensible for us 2nd Language Shenanigans, Similar to Feng's translated version.

Good luck m8.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Kaynes, Ima have to forfeit last round. I'm running on my credit phone, My internet wire is cut T.T so I need the phone to do sh!t so ima have to be offline to save credit

Will be off until they reinstall everything which however will be a while :P

Leave the debate up to you m8,
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
That's no problem m8, I'll delay this the last minute because I'm busy myself. So don't expect an argument for at least 2 1/2 days lol :P
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
That's the green light!!! let's do this!!!
Posted by Kaynes 1 year ago
Kaynes
I don't !

Quite happy I found to debate with ! Good luck
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Kaynes, My english is also rusty. Mind if I take this? :P
Posted by Kaynes 1 year ago
Kaynes
That's what i'm saying. Initially i wanted the debate to touch every aspect on multiple standards. My arguments are based more on usefulness, but I am prepared to deal with the moral argument about the loss of culture.

Anyways, I am flexible, I do not mind restricting this debate to one aspect.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Look Pro is supposed to argue for Globalisation, Con is supposed to argue against Globalisation. But, on what standards? About what aspect exactly? Is it about good or bad? About being useful or not? About being causing harm or not? .Is it the whole of it, or some parts of it? . . .
Posted by Kaynes 1 year ago
Kaynes
I am not against modifying the resolution if someone wants to debate something more precised. I was initially interested in debating both the economic and cultural aspect of globalization, but I see where some people might find it too general.

Ps : The definition is in round one...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
KaynesNivek
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF