The Instigator
bballcrook21
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
warren42
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/9/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 99745
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

bballcrook21

Pro

I would firstly like to thank Hayd for starting this tournament. This is currently the second tournament that I have participated in, so hopefully it should prove interesting and enjoyable.

I also would like to thank my opponent, Warren42, for accepting this debate topic, and would like to wish him luck for this debate, and the remainder of the tournament, should he proceed onward.

The resolution of this debate is - "On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial".

Definitions:

Globalization: Globalisation refers to the integration of markets in the global economy, leading to the increased interconnectedness of national economies. [1] Economic globalization is the increasing economic integration and interdependence of national, regional, and local economies across the world through an intensification of cross-border movement of goods, services, technologies and capital. [2]



Rules:

1. No forfeits.
2. No semantics.
3. No kritiks.
4. BOP is shared.
5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.
7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter.

Structure:

R1: Con Opens.

R2: Pro Opens, Con rebuts.

R3: Pro Rebuts, Con Defends

R4: Pro Defends, Con waives.

Sources:

[1]http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
warren42

Con

Thank you to bball for this debate, and should you advance, I wish you the best of luck in the next round(s) of the tournament. Thank you also to Hayd for organizing the contest. As a brief disclaimer that I included when signing up, there is a chance I will not have enough time to finish this tournament. If this ends up being the case, I will forfeit the remaining rounds of this debate, and will post in each one, so as to award my opponent the win rather than let the forfeit glitch take place.

With that, let's begin.

I. Intro

In recent years, globalization has become an increasingly powerful international phenomenon. While some nations have embraced the change, others have become increasingly isolated. This debate is meant to analyze its effects. This brings me into a few necessary observations regarding the resolution.

II. Observations

  1. As the resolution uses “is” in its wording, we are supposed to analyze the effects of globalization up until this point, or reasonable projections based upon current trends. Therefore, we are not debating future conditionals, and statements such as “If we changed abc, it would fix xyz.” should not be considered in the debate.
  2. Though the resolution specifies that we are to analyze economic globalization, the effects are left open-ended. Therefore, as long as effects are a result of economic globalization, they need not be limited to economic effects.

III. Economic Volatility

This is a relatively short point. Put simply, globalization creates extremely unstable economies in developing nations.

“[The] huge amount of floating international capitals may lead up to bubble economies and disorderly fluctuation of foreign exchange rates. They may also weaken the monetary sovereignty of a country and bring along a dysfunction of its monetary policy.” [1]

These economies are on the bubble and can easily be decimated if the speculation fails to materialize into anything substantial.

IV. Exploitation of Poor

1. Migrant Workers

In the increasingly globalized economy, some nations prosper, while others fail. This is a given. However, there are real concerns related to this. As failed states emerge, workers in these areas search for new employment opportunities, and since their own nation’s economy has crumbled, these jobs are near impossible to come by in their homeland. In developed nations, however, an increasing proportion of people are above the age of 60 (expected to reach 19% by 2050) and a decreasing birth rate (due to increased rights of women, increased educational opportunities, and increased access to family planning) means that the population needed for labor work will be marginal at best. This mis-matched supply of labor on one end of the border and demand on the other creates quite the issue. According to the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, as the more developed nations tighten border security despite increased demand for part-time labor from migrant workers, it becomes increasingly difficult for migrants to find safe, legal, employment, and therefore turn to illegal immigration. This is especially true for women; whose options are fewer due to discrimination in certain markets. Trafficking is a result of the intersection of the economic pressure to migrate and the political restrictions upon doing so. As they are no longer under the protection of the law, men, women, and children alike become victims of human trafficking. [2]

“Global trade agreements, which rarely include adequate labor standards and protections, often contribute to the exploitation of migrant workers. For example, the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) resulted in increased investment in Africa, leading to the growth of textile and garment factories in Export Processing Zones (EPZs) in countries such as Uganda. To fill the low-wage jobs in these factories… [young women were recruited].” [3]

These women were taken advantage of, both sexually and in their labor, due to limited rights of migrant workers, a problem not unique to Uganda. Similar instances happened across Africa due to the AGOA. [2] This isn’t going to change until workers’ rights that are “internationally recognized” are ***actually*** internationally recognized. The four major tenants of this include: 1. Freedom of association and collective bargaining 2. Elimination of forced and compulsory labor 3. Elimination of employment discrimination 4. Abolition of child labor [3] (which has its own issues that need to be addressed, as addressed below.

Human trafficking isn’t limited to sexual work, as is often depicted, however. Exploitive labor conditions exist across near every industry, and traps victims in a never-ending cycle of dependence. Employers find foreign workers more suitable for the dirty and dangerous work because they are perceived as more flexible and cooperative [2] due to the fact that they have few, if any, other options.

American University concludes:

“Global economic policies… also have the direct effect of increasing the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation.” [3]

2. Child Laborers
Migrant workers aren’t the only ones exploited under economic globalization. In developing nations, foreign demand for raw materials is increased dramatically due to globalization. Facing increased demand, producers need more human capital. In most of these countries, children are seen as potential sources of supplemental income for a family, as these families suffer from poverty, and any increase in income is of paramount importance. Therefore, child laborers, who often, but not always, overlap with the migrant worker population.

The most prominent example of this is the cocoa market, as it was brought into focus in the past decade. Upon scrutiny, attempts to change were made, but no effects were realized. [4] Thousands of child laborers were still employed in this industry, and thousands more in various other industries as well, such as the young women in Uganda’s textile industry as mentioned above.

It will take a considerable change in the culture that will ensure children are seen as people rather than a means of income for suppliers.

In both the case of migrant and youth exploitation, hundreds of thousands of lives are ruined. Thousands are raped, thousands are worked to near-death, and far too many are outright killed for varieties of reasons.

V. Environmental Harms

Economic globalization focuses on profit maximization. This would be a good thing if it didn’t come at a cost to everyone, in the form of environmental degradation. It is general international consensus that global warming exists, and is caused by humankind, at least to some extent. Globalization results in increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, creating harms for everyone worldwide.

1. Transport

As globalization spreads its fingers across the globe, it becomes increasingly important to be able to access what were once far corners of the earth. Travel, and more importantly, freight shipment, is becoming more common due to globalization. This means that particularly planes, trains, and cargo ships, are becoming more widely used. Over the course of just 14 years, from 1990 to 2004, aviation emissions increased by 86%. Aviation is a major contributor to GHG emissions, as it is currently responsible for roughly 4-9%. [5] Sea transport is responsible for 2-4% of global fossil fuel use.

2. Consumption

Another key tenant of globalization is increased consumption. As goods are produced in massive quantities, such as in China, they need energy as an input to their creation. To address this issue, China has decided to build incredibly large numbers of coal-burning power plants, at times a rate of one plant a day. [5] Though cheap and easy to utilize, coal burns dirty. As formerly undeveloped nations become developed, they will continue to be massive contributors to GHGs and will only worsen climate change.

3. Deforestation

In order to create land that is more suitable to foreign interests, foreign companies purchase forests and clear-cut the land. Now, we can stop right here and analyze how foreign entities are taking advantage of local peoples and their livelihoods, which are often related to their natural resources. This just exacerbates the migrant worker problem. It also destroys the intrinsic value nature has to not only the natives but everyone. However, it goes further to compound the problems globalization creates related to GHG emissions, as it decimates the number of trees able to extract CO2 and convert it back into oxygen. Deforestation is responsible for roughly 20% of the increase in CO2, and every day it only gets worse, with a patch of land twice the size of Paris disappearing every 24 hours.

Global warming is quickly changing the world we live in for the worse. Droughts devastate sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, China, Central Asia, and a plethora of other areas worldwide. In the next 70 years, it will render nearly 2 billion people without access to water. It will also increase the number of natural disasters that strike each year, to which about 65.5 million people fall victim. Furthermore, once the global temperature is increased by three degrees Celsius, 20-30% of the species on Earth will become extinct, negatively affecting biodiversity and ravaging ecosystems, foodwebs, and in turn, the status quo of human life.

VI. Conclusion

I have proven that globalization creates unstable economies that can easily be destroyed by a foreign entity, drastically increases abuses of migrant and child laborers, and is equivocal to global warming and destruction of life as we know it. A vote in affirmation is a vote that encourages all of these to continue or worsen. A vote for the negative is a vote to resist these evils. Vote Con. Thank you and over to bball.

VII. Sources

[1] https://goo.gl...

[2] https://goo.gl...

[3] https://goo.gl...

[4] https://goo.gl...

[5] https://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
bballcrook21

Pro

Introduction

Economic globalization, as pointed out in the given definitions, does not refer to the external effects regarding the social and political climate of the nations involved. I found this to be implied within the definition itself, as well as the topic of debate, but it seems as if my opponent has misconstrued the subject of debate. Argument should revolve around the economic ramifications, such as the national income, technological growth and general innovation, employment, fiscal health of ordinary citizens, etc. It should not include the environmental or social effects, as those are external or secondary effects of economic globalization, not primary ones. The voters should take this into account when assessing the debate.

I. Poverty

Economic globalization has been a worldwide phenomenon for the past 200 years, encompassing the birth of the Industrial Revolution and the lessening of absolute poverty within much of Europe, and later, the rest of the developing world. Data from the World Bank as well as various other major organizations shows that the world poverty rate from 1820-2015 has declined by a substantial percentage, amounting to billions of people lifted out of both absolute and relative poverty over the span of two millennia. As shown by the graph below, this trend has been a sharp decline, with much of world poverty being eradicated over the same span of massive efforts to decrease trade barriers, end mercantilist fiscal policies, and accentuate international trade. [1]

The source also states "As we can see, in 1820 there were just under 1.1 billion people in the world, of which more than 1 billion lived in extreme poverty. Over the next 150 years the decline of poverty was not fast enough to offset the very rapid rise of the world population, so the number of non-poor and poor people increased. Since around 1970 we are living in a world in which the number of non-poor people is rising, while the number of poor people is falling. According to the estimates shown below there were 2.2 billion people living in extreme poverty in 1970, and there were 705 million people living in extreme poverty in 2015. The number of extreme poor people in the world is 3 times lower than in 1970." [1]



Additionally, it is very important to note the work done by China in particular in eradicating much of their poverty levels in the span of a over 40 years.

As shown below, Chinese economic policies regarding trade and international exchange of goods has lessened poverty substantially, contributing to much of the gains in the eradication of poverty in the world. From almost 750 million people in 1990, the poverty rate has fallen to less than 50 million in 2015, a 700 million decrease in the span of 25 years. At the same time, the Chinese government has lessened trade barriers, such as tariffs, and has engaged in various international trade unions, such as NAFTA and China-ASEAN FTA, as well as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. [3]

The entirety of this is due to a rapid interconnection of nations and the lessening of trade barriers, leading to vast amounts of investments in developing nations and the systematic eradication of poverty.

Economists and statisticians expect that these growth rates will further decrease poverty in the future, nearby eliminating it altogether. By 2030, they expect poverty levels to be below 5%, down by almost 90% in 200 years. [1]



Such decreases in poverty not only aids the development of nations across the world, it also allows for greater involvement in the economy for people, as the inflow of investments creates greater opportunity for poverty stricken communities and nations to take part in the global economic sphere.

World Bank data states that "By 1820 only a few places in the world had achieved economic growth – and only to a rather small extent. The reduction of poverty from the last 200 years was largely possible because economic growth brought higher incomes to more and more people in the world." [1]


II. Productivity and Efficiency

Economic globalization leads to specialization and a substantially more efficient allocation of resources than before the establishment of trade. For example, the growth of manufacturing sectors in developing nations such as India, China, Indonesia, and the Eastern Bloc (Post-Soviet Era) has allowed for the movement of labor to manufacturing while maintaining agricultural levels as a result of innovation within the industry, all due to the desire for profit in a cost-efficient manner. As many developing nations are trapped in the cycle of endless money recycling within the economy, the eradication of trade barriers creates incentives for foreign investors to tap into these economies. When it comes to businesses as a whole, large corporations benefit from the larger economies of scale as a direct result of their ability to partake in foreign markets, benefiting the inhabitants of these nations greatly through a decrease in prices, an increase in wages, and the creation of facilities for employment.

The following source has a similar assertion, stating that "An economic policy of self-sufficiency would cause Floridians to waste precious resources raising salmon themselves even though the salmon raised by Alaskans would be cheaper. Likewise, self-sufficiency would cause the Alaskans to build costly greenhouses to grow oranges instead of buying cheap Florida oranges." [4]

Additionally, it references various empirical studies, writing that "Numerous recent studies by economists (Vamvakidis, 2002; Bhagwati and Srinivasan, 2002) have shown that the pattern of economic progress around the globe reflects, among other things, a country's willingness to jump on the globalization train. Krueger (1995) makes a forceful case that globalization is important for developing nations. Recent evidence on global economic policy provided by Gwartney and Lawson (2002) provides powerful evidence of the benefits of trade. Gwartney and Lawson rate countries' openness to foreign trade on a zero to ten scale based on a range of factors such as tariffs, quotas, and other trade restrictions." [4]

III. Income and Economic Growth

Perhaps the most important facet of economic globalization is the rampant increase in the national income of every nation involved in international trade and mutual investment ventures. From the 1990s onward, China has maintained a relatively high amount of economic growth, surpassing 10% during certain periods and maintaining an average of 6% in the past 2 decades. This is due to the West's push for the lessening of trade barriers during the 1990s, thus allowing for Western capital, particularly from the United States to flow into developing nations, primarily China. This has not only led to the eradication of much of nation's poverty (as stated before), but also to the rapid growth in its GDP. [5]

The Indian GDP has been growing at a record pace as well, topping 8% growth in some quarters. [6] In the same time period as the growth of the Chinese economy, the Indian economy went from a lessening of growth during some quarters to a stable level of annual growth reaching well above the growth maintained by most developed nations.

Additionally, economic globalization affirms capital inflow and outflow, as nations gain comparative advantage as a result of their ability to enlarge their respective business sector's consumer base. As wealth is not a zero sum game, this form of investment and consumption levels accelerate employment and income of individuals in developed nations while allowing for the easing of costs for consumers in developed nations, thereby benefiting each party. Furthermore, such a rapid increase in economic growth and high levels of capital inflow allows for developing nations to not only develop faster, but at a more productive and efficient rate. China, as an example, went from a destitute agrarian society in the 1960s to the 2nd largest economy and a hub for trade and innovation 5 decades later, all due to the policies undertaken by the Chinese government regarding trade and foreign investment.

Globalization has a large benefit for developed nations as well. Investments from developed nations allows for developing nations to grow, but these investments bring profit back to the developed nation, as well as outsourcing labor to nations with a need for better employment opportunities, thus creating demand within service industries in the developed nation itself, as the manufacturing is outsourced. While this may be seen by political demagogues as a disadvantageous undertaking, the lower cost of production combined with a large economies of scale for businesses in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy allows for a decrease in the price of consumption for consumers, further creating incentive for investment and growth.

An article by Investopedia documented different empirical studies regarding the benefits of globalization, stating that "Foreign Direct Investment's impact on economic growth has had a positive growth effect in wealthy countries and an increase in trade and FDI, resulting in higher growth rates. Empirical research examining the effects of several components of globalization on growth, using time series and cross sectional data on trade, FDI and portfolio investment, found that a country tends to have a lower degree of globalization if it generates higher revenues from trade taxes. Further evidence indicates that there is a positive growth-effect in countries that are sufficiently rich, as are most of the developed nations." [7]



Sources:
[1]https://ourworldindata.org...
[2]http://povertydata.worldbank.org...
[3]http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn...
[4]https://www.elca.org...
[5]http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
[6]http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
[7]http://www.investopedia.com...
warren42

Con

I. Intro

I stand firm in my assessment of the resolution that the effects need not be economic. If, for example, an economic policy has positive economic effects but devastating environmental consequences, it is not a beneficial policy. The same logic applies here, as globalization directly causes these issues, and these should be weighed heavily in this debate. However, I'd like to spend less time debating interpretations and more time on the content itself.

II. Re: Poverty

I will have four responses to the poverty argument.

A. Technology

One thing my opponent overlooks is drastic technological improvements that happened over the past 200 years. Now, admittedly, such strides could not be made without globalization, but some effects would still have been felt as technology developed independent of globalization. Therefore, the impact is not due solely to globalization, as my opponent would like you to believe.

B. China's Poverty

I'm really glad my opponent brought up China, because he has fallen into a trap that the World Bank, which was used as his second source, has laid for him. "Poverty" was defined very narrowly, at $1.90 or less per day. This means if you make $1.91/day, you aren't living in poverty, which is clearly ridiculous. My opponent’s own first source contends the following:

“It is important to notice that the International Poverty Line is extremely low. Indeed, ‘extreme poverty’ is the adequate name for those living under this low threshold. Focusing on extreme poverty is important precisely because it captures those most in need. However, it is also important to point out that living conditions well above the International Poverty Line can still be characterized by poverty and hardship.” [1]

The average income was approximately $8.22 per day [2], which seems like a huge leap. However, income inequality comes into play. Urban Chinese are, on average, making roughly $12.33 per day, while the rural average is only about $4 per day. [2] China has, whether intentionally or not, taken full advantage of the World Bank's definitions.

"The urban households aren’t exactly raking it in, but the rural households have not progressed far enough beyond the World Bank’s arbitrary $3.10 to say they have escaped much of anything, and certainly not poverty." [2]

Additionally, there’s a disparity between coastal and interior provinces. This income inequality makes it seem like the average Chinese worker is enjoying significantly more wealth than is actually the case.

"The problem is that the advancement is not being enjoyed evenly. Even the urban households in many of the interior Chinese provinces are earning far less than the per capita average. Meanwhile, cities like Beijing and Shanghai are doing over 43 percent better than the mean, and urban households in coastal provinces like Zhejiang or Guangdong are also doing extremely well. The contrast is even starker when you look at the map of urban household income beside a map of per capita disposable income by rural household. The rural workers in the coastal provinces are doing far better than their peers in the interior provinces, many of whose per capita incomes per household remain dangerously close to the World Bank’s poverty cut-off." [2]

These same principles are therefore extrapolated worldwide. Poverty is reduced, yes, but my opponent's figures are inflated and do not accurately reflect the hardships faced by many of the people living just above the poverty line, and instead show that income inequality has made it seem that the world is better off than it is.

C. China's Cheating

Finally as a brief note, please realize that China’s GDP figures must be taken with a grain of salt. China has been known to manipulate data for its own benefit [3] and therefore its GDP is not going to be entirely accurate.

D. China's Workers' Woes

China is also a perfect example of how globalization has created environments that fosters abuse of workers. Cross-apply my arguments from my constructive, and add that legal workers are also abused in nations without ethical labor laws. For example, in Apple factories in China, workers are subject to unpaid labor, 12 hour workdays six days a week, and deplorable living conditions. [4] Worst of all, when working with the hazardous chemicals used in production of electronics, workers are not properly trained. This leads to exposure to lethal chemicals, leading to chronic disease and death. These practices are common across most industries, and therefore the (less than alleged) growth of the Chinese economy has an ugly underbelly which my opponent neglected to inform the voters of.

The Chinese economy has not improved solely to globalization, and it hasn't improved nearly as much as my opponent seems to think. What small growth has occurred due to globalization is negated by the fact that developed nations take advantage of developing in order to advance their own agendas.

III. Re: Productivity and Efficiency

I will have two major responses to my opponent’s arguments on P&E.

A. Population Booms

"For example, the growth of manufacturing sectors in developing nations such as India, China, Indonesia, and the Eastern Bloc (Post-Soviet Era) has allowed for the movement of labor to manufacturing while maintaining agricultural levels as a result of innovation within the industry, all due to the desire for profit in a cost-efficient manner." -Pro

Incorrect. Much, if not most, of this is due to the massive population increases. It makes sense that they can continue to have the increased manufacturing and stable agriculture when they also have more people to employ.


B. Bursting Bubble Economies

“As many developing nations are trapped in the cycle of endless money recycling within the economy, the eradication of trade barriers creates incentives for foreign investors to tap into these economies.” -Pro

This is true, and it causes the economic bubbles I mentioned in the previous round. It is obvious that these economies can easily be destroyed if the speculation ends up being only speculation. Turn this point against my opponent and consider it an argument won by the negative.

IV. Re: Income and Economic Growth

I will have three major responses to the income and growth argument. (I have a macroeconomics exam tomorrow evening, and the first two arguments I make helped me study, so thank you!)

A. Improper Use of Economics Terminology

National income and GDP are not interchangeable. My opponent uses them as such. National income is limited to wages, rent, interest, and profits paid to factors of production. GDP includes depreciation and indirect business taxes as well. I ask my opponent to ensure precision of argumentation and to not use these interchangeably from this point onward. That said, it seems my opponent intended to say GDP, so this is where I shall focus my rebuttal.

B. Limits to GDP

GDP is not a full story of economic growth. It, like nearly all measures, is short in some areas. GDP does not equate to well-being, as it does not account for quality of life or income distribution. I have already discussed China’s problems with income distribution, and India isn’t pretty either. In India, the top 1% controls 58% of the wealth. [5] Just as a frame of reference, in 2014 the 1% controlled 21% of wealth. [6] My opponent talks about increased GDP but leaves out who is actually getting this money. It sure isn’t bettering the average Chinese/Indian worker.

C. Abuse of Workers

“Globalization has a large benefit for developed nations as well. Investments from developed nations allows for developing nations to grow, but these investments bring profit back to the developed nation, as well as outsourcing labor to nations with a need for better employment opportunities…” -Pro


We saw in my constructive that this is one of the biggest harms of economic globalization. The profits being brought back due to outsourcing of labor is a wonderful euphemism for the idea that the rich in the developed nations take advantage of and abuse the rights of the workers in foreign nations, which could not occur in their developed homeland. This is a reason you should be voting Con, rather than affirming the resolution.


V. Conclusion

I have proven that my opponent’s arguments are largely overstated and that the benefits of globalization are only truly realized by the rich. Marginal increases in income to the average worker with massive increases in the income of the 1% does not outweigh the overworking and systematic abuse of the workers in developing nations. Furthermore, I have cast reasonable doubt on his data and sources, and encourage the voters to take note of this. For these reasons, we must negate the resolution. Thank you.

VI. Sources

Debate Round No. 2
bballcrook21

Pro

Introduction

The rules, which were accepted by my opponent, state that "My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own." He has broken this rule, as he stated twice during the debate that he wishes to alter the topic of debate. As I have mentioned previously, the debate is specifically about economic globalization, which means that environmental effects, "worker's rights" and other such issues are not to be discussed. We are discussing the rise of GDP, per capita income, prices, etc. This should definitely be taken into account by the voter, as failure to realize this is an automatic forfeiture by my opponent.

Contention 1:

Before I address my opponent's first argument, which is irrespective of globalization, I would like to point out the blatant hypocrisy in his argument.


He stated that China often reports false or exaggerated data, then uses a source from Mr. Gao Shangquan, who is the "China Research Society of Enterprise Reform and Development, Chairman of China Reform Foundation and also a professor and Ph.D. supervisor at Beijing University." If the government of China reports false data, why would they allow for such observations to be published?

I would also like the point out that the entire source is filled with absolute tripe, as it shows a clear and concise bias, as well as the lack of sourcing of any kind. In fact, this source is nothing more than a well-worded paper, and does not present any form of real statistical backing.

Therefore, the entire contention that economic globalization may create financial bubbles is moot.

Contention 2:

My opponent makes a central flaw in the following argument: "In the increasingly globalized economy, some nations prosper, while others fail. This is a given. However, there are real concerns related to this. As failed states emerge, workers in these areas search for new employment opportunities, and since their own nation’s economy has crumbled, these jobs are near impossible to come by in their homeland. In developed nations, however, an increasing proportion of people are above the age of 60 (expected to reach 19% by 2050) and a decreasing birth rate (due to increased rights of women, increased educational opportunities, and increased access to family planning) means that the population needed for labor work will be marginal at best. "



In fact, his entire argument is fallacious. My opponent fails to understand that correlation does not equate to causation, and in the case of globalization, these poor working conditions have been reduced. Ever since the rapid globalization and industrialization of currently successful nations, the levels of child labor, as well as various other labor abuses have gone down. The only cases in which labor abuses still persist at large levels are due to government abuse and corruption, or a lack of basic laws (also a fault of government).

The following source, which unlike my opponent's sources has a very large appendix, argues and documents that "In general, the HDI for highly globalized regions is much higher. However, HDI trends for less globalized regions also seem to be catching up. This is more valid for the East Asia & Pacific (EAP) region, which saw an even more rapid pace of human development from the same period and exceeded the global average in 2000. This was due to the region’s high and shared economic growth." [1] The Human Development Index (HDI), is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.[2]

The same source also states that "Additionally, globalization has spread industrialization to developing countries, and has thus reduced global income inequality (Firebaugh and Goesling 2004). Economic globalization, in terms of trade liberalization, was found to be effective in increasing productivity and institution-building in societies, which 11 leads to faster economic growth." [1]

Lastly, my opponent refers to the exploitation of workers. The mistake he makes is forgetting that this trend has been going down, and that simply stating that it exists is not a good argument against economic globalization. Similarly, crime exists in Switzerland, but we would not state that Switzerland's system has allowed for crime to fester and develop, would we? Instead, we would say that the policies they have set into motion have allowed for crime to fall, much like it has occurred in almost every nation impacted by economic globalization, in both crime statistics and in exploitation of labor.


The aforementioned statement is proven by data from the World Bank, which is presented here [3]:



The source also states that "Contrary to popular perception, most working children in the world are unpaid family workers, rather than paid workers in manufacturing establishments or other forms of wage employment." showing that most of the children simply work within the family to aid them, rather than being "exploited" in factories of the like. Additionally, the source goes onto state that "Many studies rely on the LABORSTA data to shed light on the extent of child labour in the 20th century. However, this source is generally believed to understate the extent of child labour, since data is not collected for work inside the household (not even market work). Nonetheless, regardless of discrepancies between these two sources, the trends tell a consistent story: the share of economically active children in the world has been going down for decades." [3] [4]

As shown, the entire argument against the exploitation of workers is moot, as it neglects the fact that this exploitation already existed before globalization, and has been going down ever since as a result of it.

Environmental Issues

This set of arguments has nothing to do with economic globalization, and I would like to point out that the source which my opponent uses states the following "Globalisation helped accentuate the major environmental damages we’re experiencing today, even though it’s only indirectly responsible." The source itself admits that economic globalization caused it indirectly, rather than directly, meaning that this is not a sufficient argument against economic globalization, nor does this reflect the subject of the debate.

I am unable to argue furthermore as the arguments laid out by my opponent have not stayed on topic. I will not allow for my opponent to go off subject, which he has done multiple times. Therefore, I will not continue to write contentions, as I have also briefly looked over his counter-arguments and they are also filled with off-subject remarks. As a result of these clear violations of the rules, it is a loss.

Conclusion

My opponent has made various fallacious arguments and has backed them up with biased or insipid papers which in turn had no backing itself. Not only does my opponent provide very few apolitical and academic resources with which to judge the economic effects, he also breaks the rules set in the first round.

He has stated that he does not agree in the rule regarding economic globalization twice in this debate, meaning he has broken these rules, as it states in the structure that he waives his right to make such decisions.

LASTLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, my opponent fails to understand that this debate's resolution starts with ON BALANCE, meaning whether or not there are negative aspects does not matter, so long as the positive aspects outweigh these negatives. As he has not stated anything in regard to this, it's easy to say that his argument is insufficient.

Also, breaking these rules is not only an automatic forfeiture, it is also a problem for me, as I am unable to argue against anything if the subject of contention is changed from what was previously agreed upon by me. Therefore, I would like to ask my opponent to waive these next rounds, as his conduct regarding the subject of debate was examplary of rule-breaking, and thus is an automatic forfeiture.

My opponent also fails to adequately prove all of his ideas as being absolute facts, and has not provided enough information or backing to show that these effects are somehow directly caused by globalization and that they are accentuated by it, rather than eased. The entirety of his argument regarding the resolution is moot, as he has strayed off topic as well as forgotten to provide sufficient documentation of such phenomena.


Sources:
[1]http://www.waseda-giari.jp...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]https://ourworldindata.org...
[4]http://www.ilo.org...


warren42

Con

I apologize for the misunderstanding between my opponent and myself, however, I believe that no infraction has occurred, and therefore will continue with my case defense.

I. Intro
As I have stated, I am sympathetic toward my opponent, as I see why he believes a violation of the rules has occurred. However, I will briefly state why that is not the case. In the first round, my opponent merely stated the definition of economic globalization, and no other definitions. Therefore, though I am not free to add my own definitions, as per rule six, I operated under the generally understood definition of beneficial, which is essentially "has (generally) good effects" and since my opponent did not state anywhere in the opening round that the effects being debated must be limited to economic effects, my case is topical. It discusses the effects of economic globalization, some economic, some environmental. I will briefly address my opponent's problems with my first two contentions as they come up.

II. Defense of Bubble Economies
A. My opponent seems to believe that this is not directly related to globalization, which makes absolutely no sense. The speculation in third world countries is due to new markets being opened up via globalization. Globalization is a direct cause of this investment. It is also obviously an economic effect, as it relates to the economic

B. My use of a Chinese source is far from analogous to my opponent's use of Chinese data. While my opponent uses Chinese government figures on the Chinese economy, I use a Chinese individual's analysis of an economic phenomenon on behalf of the United Nations. These are very different. However, if you, as voters, still buy this argument of my opponent's, that this argument should be discarded due to it being from a Chinese source, that's alright, just discard this point along with any of my opponent's that relate to Chinese government figures.

C. My opponent called the source biased, but there is a distinct difference between reaching a certain conclusion as a result of analysis and bias. My opponent did not state (at all) why or how it is biased.

D. Finally, my opponent's substantial argument on this point is the idea that it does not provide source material. However, this does not make sense, as it is primary analysis. Analysis need not refer to others' research. Mr. Shangquan, for whatever reason, noticed the phenomenon of globalization and decided to analyze it for himself. Though my opponent can make the argument it is less reliable than a meta-analysis, primary analysis does exist, and this source is not unreliable just because it is a primary analysis.

Therefore, I have successfully defended from each of my opponent's attacks and proven that this is a negative economic effect of globalization.

III. Defense of Worker Abuse

A. This is also an economic effect, as labor is a key factor in the economy. Do not buy the assertion that this is not an economic effect.

B. "My opponent fails to understand that correlation does not equate to causation..." -Pro

I understand the difference very well, as my three years of interscholastic debate in high school saw this argument many times. Then, like now, my opponents were mistaken. I discussed how globalization causes some economies to collapse and backed this up with evidence. Then, I showed how tight border policies force these people into working for black market operations since they were illegally trafficked across borders. Once they illegally enter a country, they are less likely to be protected by law, because it is the same law that could incriminate them. The other option is that third-world workers are taken advantage of by multinational companies or companies in first-world nations due to the cheap and relatively exploitable labor in the third-world. If not for globalization, the companies would not have access to the easily controlled and abused labor in these nations. It is an economic effect that is a direct result of
economic globalization.

C. My opponent focused entirely on child labor. I will concede my child labor sub-point, but pull through the abused workers point (which does encompass some child labor also) as an economic harm of globalization.

IV. Defense of Environment
A. Indirect effects are still effects, and the increased international shipping that globalization has caused are the largest increase in the damage to the environment. The indirect effects are still very much a result of globalization. Since my opponent refused to attack this point any further, it, as well as all of its effects, flow through and are won by the negative. These include destruction of the intrinsic value of nature, habitat loss, and global warming, which will result in 2 billion people losing access to water in the next 70 years, loss of 20-30% of the species on Earth, and increasing the frequency of natural disasters to kill millions more annually.

V. Re: Conclusion
I'm going to do something a little different and respond to my opponent's conclusion as if it were an argument, because it kind of is.

"My opponent has made various fallacious arguments and has backed them up with biased or insipid papers which in turn had no backing itself. Not only does my opponent provide very few apolitical and academic resources with which to judge the economic effects, he also breaks the rules set in the first round." -Pro

This is false. My opponent used the single "biased" source and extrapolated this (unsupported) assertion to all of my sources. My opponent also claims I provide few apolitical and academic sources. However, that is not the case. My sources came from a variety of reliable institutions, including but not limited to the following:
  • The Economist
  • The International Business Times
  • The Centre for Research on Globalization
  • The United Nations
  • Indiana University's Maurer School of Law
  • American University
  • Yale University
  • The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

My opponent either didn't bother to look at the majority of my sources or is intentionally lying to misinform the voters about the nature of my sources. Because, as you can see, not only do I have an extensive list of reliable and esteemed institutions, both academic and otherwise, being sourced to craft my argument, but they have the "very large appendix" my opponent claims they do not.

"He has stated that he does not agree in the rule regarding economic globalization twice in this debate, meaning he has broken these rules, as it states in the structure that he waives his right to make such decisions." -Pro

This is again simply not true. I have never said I do not agree with the rule. What I disagree with is the idea that I have broken this rule, and at the beginning of the round clarified for the voters exactly why no infraction occurred.

"LASTLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, my opponent fails to understand that this debate's resolution starts with ON BALANCE, meaning whether or not there are negative aspects does not matter, so long as the positive aspects outweigh these negatives. As he has not stated anything in regard to this, it's easy to say that his argument is insufficient."-Pro

Again false. I have never once said that there are negatives, so the resolution cannot be true, and actually made a statement that proves my understanding of what "on balance" means. In my conclusion in the last round, I mentioned how the negatives outweigh the positives. Whether or not you agree with this, it proves that I at a minimum understand "on balance" and how it affects the debate.


VI. Conclusion

I have proven multiple things in this debate. The first is the negative of the resolution, as the massive environmental effects of economic globalization, coupled with bubble economies and abuse of workers (both of which are definitively economic effects) outweigh (on balance) my opponent's exaggerated benefits. I have also proven that no infraction has occurred. My opponent may have intended to limit the debate to the economic effects of globalization, but did not outline this clearly in the opening round. I am sympathetic to this, but am not going to forfeit solely because my opponent did not effectively communicate the parameters of the debate. I thank my opponent for the debate and Hayd for the tournament, and urge votes in negation. Thank you.

I do not have sources for my defense as it was all logical or tangential references to prior sources.

Debate Round No. 3
bballcrook21

Pro

Introduction

Yes, in fact, an infraction has occurred. We were set to debate the benefits of economic globalization, and while my opponent has agreed to these rules, he has stated multiple times during the debate that he would like to change factors that affect the resolution, which is completely against the rules that were set before the debate formally started. Therefore, this should be taken into account by the voter, as I have stated multiple times in both the debate as well as in private message to not engage in activities regarding indirect effects, such as environmental factors or "abuse" or workers.


Defense A. Technology

My opponent states that technological advances are not directly caused by globalization, which is incorrect. The amount of capital that has been invested into developing nations has created incentives in both developed and developing economies to create new technology. Great examples of this would be Silicon Valley in California, or Bangalore in India. [1]This is caused directly by the inflow of venture capital, which cannot be made possible without the reduction of economic barriers, exacerbated by none other than economic globalization. I would also like to point out that my opponent has stated that " Now, admittedly, such strides could not be made without globalization, but some effects would still have been felt as technology developed independent of globalization.", which is a direct admission of the benefit of economic globalization. However, he states that some of these advancements were not caused by globalization. This is purely irrespective of the fact that many of the advancements were, in fact, caused my economic globalization, and a statement of this kind does not hold any ground as there isn't any drawback within the technological sector of economic globalization. Therefore, my opponent's argument is moot, something that he has indirectly agreed to as well.


Defense B. Poverty

My opponent states that the way in which poverty is measured is incoherent. This is clearly not the case, and is a wrongful diagnosing of any problems associated with poverty. The measure for poverty has been the same in these past 200 years, and has only been adjusted for inflation, making the real wealth completely equal. Therefore, the measure of poverty has stayed at $1.90 per day in wealth relative to the time.


My opponent states that "It is important to notice that the International Poverty Line is extremely low. Indeed, ‘extreme poverty’ is the adequate name for those living under this low threshold. Focusing on extreme poverty is important precisely because it captures those most in need. However, it is also important to point out that living conditions well above the International Poverty Line can still be characterized by poverty and hardship.”

The issue with this argument is that it doesn't actually do anything to argue against the effect of economic globalization over a set period of time. As we have seen, the more globalized nations and their economies have become, the more their extreme poverty levels have been reduced. This is a causal relationship, and is perfectly indicative of the benefits of economic globalization on economies around the world. [2] This very same source has stated that "In the past only a small elite enjoyed living conditions that we would not describe as a life in extreme poverty today. With the onset of industrialization and rising productivity the share of people living in extreme poverty started to decrease. The share of people in extreme poverty has decreased continuously over the course of the last 2 centuries."

My opponent also makes the mistake of not reading the report in full, the introduction of which says quite clearly that "The poverty measurement is based on the monetary value of a person’s consumption, but since consumption measures are unfortunately not available for all countries", meaning the fact that it's $1.90 doesn't quite matter, so long as it's equal in value across the board (which it is).


What I found quite hilarious as I was reading over my opponent's arguments was the fact that he conceded so many points. Here is an example of another concession: "These same principles are therefore extrapolated worldwide. Poverty is reduced, yes, but my opponent's figures are inflated and do not accurately reflect the hardships faced by many of the people living just above the poverty line, and instead show that income inequality has made it seem that the world is better off than it is." How exactly my opponent believes that an admission on his part of the poverty reducing powers of economic globalization helps his argument is beyond me. It's also important to point out that my opponent has made a very grave mistake, as he has mis-read the data. If the share of people living under $1.90 per day has fallen, that means that people are getting wealthier in terms of income, which is a good thing. Wealth does not come immediately, but the sheer fact that my opponent does not realize this is egregious at best. In fact, the amount of people that have been living on $1.90 per day has fallen from 44% in 1980 to 9.6% in 2015, an almost 35% drop in 35 years. The amount of people living under $2 per day has gone from 94% in 1820 to 52% in 1990, which is when they stopped tracking that data point. [2] This is very important to note, because it shows that people living with so little wealth relative to inflation and purchasing power has FALLEN by a very wide margin, meaning that billions around the world are constantly being lifted out of their poor economic situation into a much better one.

Defense c. China's cheating

My opponent has once again failed to read the very same source he uses. This source states that "There is a difference between smoothing data and totally fabricating it. Evidence suggests that China is guilty of the former (the lesser charge) but not the latter (the more serious allegation)." [3]

Therefore, this assertion by my opponent is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. It only goes to prove that my opponent is unable to provide relevant information and sources, rather resorting to half-truths and statements taken out of context.


I would also like to ask, why would my opponent use Chinese statistics to counter-act my claim when he also states that their statistics are not to be trusted?

Defense D. Worker Rights

My opponent is wrong once again. He is stating that the Chinese workers are being taken advantage of, and this is due to globalization. This is incorrect, as the status of Chinese workers pre-globalization was far worse than it is now, meaning that over that time period, economic globalization has made a positive effect on the rights and lives of Chinese workers.


Defense E. Productivity

My opponent states that productivity increases are due to population, which is a half-truth. Yes, the increase in population has allowed for more productivity as it has fostered higher incomes for families, thus allowing for more training and education, but this is due entirely to the forces of economic globalization, which has bred these very same education techniques and technological innovations in the workplace. According to OECD statistics, productivity has risen in most nations in the world in the past couple of decades. [4]


My opponent also mentions bubbles, which are created due to poor monetary policy, not globalization. Bursting economic bubbles are not a direct result of investments, more so being the result of poor monetary management by the government. This is indicative of China, as they constantly devalue their currency, free from the power of private entities that seek to invest in globalization economic systems.

Defense F. Income And Economic Growth

GDP and national income are both indicators of the total amount of wealth created annually, thus the case on the technical terms of remotely incorrect. The value of goods within a nation can be calculated with GDP, which is the national income itself. These measurements tools are all focused on recording the total value of goods and services produced annually.


The assertion by my opponent that GDP does not show every facet of the economy is correct, but purely irrelevant. Per capita income, as well as poverty level statistics aid in showing the positive effects of economic globalization, which I have used various times. The incessant desire to point out that GDP is not a valid indicator of every economic fact is irrespective of the fact that I have used multiple other mechanisms with which to prove that the amount of wealth that people have had has increased drastically in the past 200 years due to the positive effects of economic globalization.

Once again, my opponent believes that the abuse of workers is somehow an argument against economic globalization. That is similar to stating that the fact that there is still stupidity is a valid argument against the existence of education programs, which is simply not true. The rights and collective well being of workers has increased drastically over the past couple of years, affirming the resolution that economic globalization is, on balance, beneficial.


Conclusion

My opponent's arguments have been laden with misinformation, fallacies, and half-truths. Instead of identifying the cause of these issues he presented, he simply equated economic globalization with these issues, many of which were not even within the scope of the debate. Additionally, my opponent has not been able to prove that the economic negatives of economic globalization outweigh the benefits, as this is the goal of the debate, hence the name "On balance". As I have done just that, without going out of the bounds of the debate, I am clearly the winner.


Sources:
[1]http://www.businessinsider.com...

[2]https://ourworldindata.org...
[3]http://www.economist.com...
[4]http://stats.oecd.org...
warren42

Con

I urge you to vote Con for all the arguments I have presented.

I waive this round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Hayd 10 months ago
Hayd
Pro win, RFD here:
[http://www.debate.org...]
Posted by C_e_e 10 months ago
C_e_e
I hate when debates end in a tie like this, http://www.debate.org... .
No votes have been placed for this debate.