The Instigator
Proving_a_Negative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JP_Hatecraft
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

You choose the topic. I choose my position.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 69576
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Round 1 Con: Acceptance and Choose Topic
Round 2 Pro: Choose Position and Opening Argument (Definitions if Needed)
Round 2: Con: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal and Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttal and Arguments
Round 5: Closing Statement

You choose the topic. It may be anything you wish. I get to choose my position though.
Note: Since I am pro without actually knowing what the topic is, you should disregard this unless I am actually pro.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

I accept this debate. It's a wonderful idea!

Resolution: Globalization of culture has more negative effects then positive effects.

Globalization: A process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology.

If you wish to redefine globalization you may, I just thought I might as well put one in there.
Debate Round No. 1
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

The position I choose is pro.
One of my classes that I am taking is "Cultural Anthropology" which deals directly with this topic.

All Cultures are Equal
The very first point that my professor made was that all cultures are just as good or "normal" as another. This is stated many times in our textbook. Cultures make us unique as well. We can't judge other cultures without experiencing it ourselves. We can study different tribes in Africa and have our opinions on them, but we can't publish any work we do unless it is first-hand experience with it. People have the tendency to look through what we call "Western glasses" where if something is different from here in the US, you are weird. This is completely wrong.

Culture is Required for Human Development
The way we behave in a social atmosphere, how we dress, how we talk, what we eat, the pace in which we walk, and much more are determined by culture. We are taught culture from the moment we are born through experience. If we ever made a universal culture, it wouldn't be a culture. It we be a biological trait that we inherit. Without having differences from others, we would have no idea what makes us unique. This is a difficult concept to grasp without an example. Here is the example our professor gave. "We all love football here in the United States. Many people in this room probably cheer for the Packers and absolutely hate the Vikings. What if I told you that without the Vikings, you would lose interest in football? Imagine this hypothetical situation. We only have Packers vs. Packers. Which side would you cheer for? Would it matter? How long before you stop watching? This is why we need diversity. We can relate to each other through other people's differences."

Clash of Civilizations
Believe it or not, similarity causes tension. Take Muslims and Christians for example. Both believe in the Old Testament of the Bible, but they have one major difference. Christians believe that Jesus was god, but Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet. Everything after that stems off that key difference. There is a lot of hostility between these two groups. When asked why, we get responses such as this: "It's not because they are different, it's because they are similar." Now imagine how horrible it would be to try to unify everybody into a global culture. Just mixing 2 religions is bad enough.

3rd World Countries
Unifying culture would be especially bad for 3rd world countries. Without social media and televised events the only thing that keeps them connected is culture. The only reason why they can function in their civilizations is because they have differences around them that keep them unique. With a unified culture, they would be severely impacted and possibly cease to exist.

Sources
It was rather difficult to find sources for this subject because how do you make experiments to test all of this...
1. Cultural Anthropology- 14th Edition (Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember)
2. Professor Hayder Al-Mohammad
JP_Hatecraft

Con

Thanks to the Pro for letting me choose the resolution and letting me know beforehand about the side they were picking.

In addition to the previously provided definition of culture I would like to add the following definition:
Culture: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Globalization increases the Competition of the Free Market
Currently different cultures have different focuses of technology and services. As culture, and thereby the desires and goals of the people change to be similar the amount of organizations who work on a particular service will increase. This will allow the global market to become more efficient as competitiveness increases. As services and businesses become more competitve the market will grow, thus allowing for less developed regions to develop faster. For example in the highly Westernized country of India gdp grew 5% in 2013. However in the less Westernized, but previously economically similar (They grew out of the same region and were colonized by the same nation), Pakistan's gdp only grew 4.4%.
http://data.worldbank.org...;

Globalization allows for more Global Harmony
Groups which share common cultural elements are more prone to be able to ally. Let's look at a major example. In the Cold War Era Two major alliances formed. The Warsaw Pact/COMECON and NATO. They were formed based off of one major cultural element, the way that the country's economy operated. My opponent may try to say that this is not an element of culture, but it fits under the definition provided. As you can see cultural elements like these ally countries and groups and thus will promote harmony.
http://www.history.com...

Globalization Helps Disadvantaged Groups
Globalization will allow countries and groups which had previously been left behind economically to catch up. By defintion, globalization increases interaction between groups and people internationally, through trade and investment especially. By increasing the amount of investment in poorer countries the internal economy and standard of living.
http://www.globalissues.org...
This artical primarily discusses the deficeit between what rich countries countries could give and do give. It also shows some of the benefits of development. Globalization would increase the amount of investment in countries which are less developed, and therefore assist them.

I provided links to my sources directly below where I referenced them.

Good Luck to the Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

I managed to get this done surprisingly. Than you to Con for being patient with my arguments.

Rebuttal
From an economic standpoint, globalization hurts more than it helps. Con showed that there is an expansion of economy through open trade, but I will argue that this doesn't come without consequences. Check out these graphs:


Image result for Import quota
Image result for free trade graph economics

The top graph refers to trading with a quota (a limit on total imports). The bottom graph shows no trade boundaries at all. The import does decrease overall economic growth, but for very good reasons. The first reason is that the government can make money off the import. On those graphs, any area represents an amount of money. The amount the government would make from the import would be the G and H quadrants from the first graph. It is absolutely necessary for the government to make money or it cannot operate. The second reason is that it won't hurt either the consumers or the suppliers as much. Even though (for economic growth) having open trade has a net benefit, it is one sided. If the good you are trading has a low world price compared to the country, then consumers will want open trade. If the good has a high price in the world, suppliers will want open trade. What happens to the other side? They are forced to sell it at the world price, or buy it at the world price. Having an import tax will help out whoever gets the losing end in open trade. The third reason is that some goods absolutely need to be produced in a country. When a country is forced to produce goods on its own, it will eventually become good at it. If America always bought guns from other countries where they are better quality and lower price, we wouldn't be able to make good guns if we went to war with them. There are many other goods deemed necessary for national defense like this. This is why we need to have trade boundaries by not letting globalization take over. Cultural globalization would want an open market world, but we can't allow this.

How would open trade affect the globe? It significantly hurts developing countries. In this article you can see why: http://www.jstor.org... This is what the author says, "If this model [A model showing economic growth in developing countries] were anywhere close to being accurate, and if the world capital markets were anywhere close to being free and complete, it is clear that, in the face of the return differentials of this magnitude, investment goods would flow rapidly from the United States and other wealth countries to India and other poor countries." By this, we can see that open trade will help developed countries, but absolutely destroy 3rd world countries.

That is all I have time for. Good luck to Con.

Sources
1. I used Google images for those pictures... I don't remember exactly what I typed in. Sorry.
2. http://www.jstor.org...
JP_Hatecraft

Con

I will be addressing my opponents 2nd speech here. I would like to point of that my opponent bears the Burden of the Proof.

My opponent states that all cultures are equal. This is moot, as if all cultures are equal then replacing one with another has no net benefit or harm.

My opponent states that culture is required for human development. This is true. However, note something in his example. His points out 2 differences that exist within the same culture. Culture does not make everybody the same. It just means everybody has the same etiqutte and values. A Vikings fan and a Packers fan are part of the same culture. Globalization wouldn't affect diversity.

My opponent is wrong here. Similarity does not cause tension. Tension is created when there are differing levels of power between groups, at least one group has achieved a percieved basic standard of living above that of the othe, is constantly present when the two groups both can't support themselves, or when two groups can't forgive for and earlier rift. Lets look to the Pro's Islam and Christianity example. People are turning into extremists when there are no other options.
http://www.independent.ie...
Mixing similar groups isn't the problem. What we need to do to solve this is try to create understanding between the two groups and to allow the two groups to become more equal. By spreading culture between the two we can accomplish this.

My opponents claim about third world countries is moot. He claims that third world countries are bound culturally. The vast majority of third world countries are in Africa.
http://www.nationsonline.org...
African Countries were largely established with no regards to the natives and were just lines drawn on a map. If these countries are recreated to make countries which are bound culturally and not just bound by a history of common Western oppression it could result in longer lasting peace. Globalization doesn't effect this one way or the other.
Debate Round No. 3
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Proving_a_Negative forfeited this round.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

I extend all points and ask for courtesy points as my opponent forfeited a round.
Debate Round No. 4
Proving_a_Negative

Pro

Proving_a_Negative forfeited this round.
JP_Hatecraft

Con

I apologize to the readers, when I saw that my opponent had forfeited I forgot to rebutt allow me to do that now.
Irrespective of this I ask for courtesy points and argument points.

A government recieving any trade is better then no trade. And one side is not always disadvantaged in a trade because different regions have different resources (irrespective of culture, culture does not directly effect resources). He states "it won't hurt consumers or suppliers as much" so I am confused as to what the argument there is. Finally his third argument is moot becuase if all regions shared culture they would be able to cooperate economically and produce goods that they mutually need. An open world market is good becuase if we keep it restricted we will limit growth which is bad for all parties.

I haven't purchased this document so I cannot fully review it. However goods flowing to poor countries isn't bad as the majority of the world's population lives in poor countries. I not understand how more money would destroy 3rd world countries, more resources is what is needed for development.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 2 years ago
JP_Hatecraft
What's the rules on me rebutting your rebuttal? Should I wait until my next speech or attack it if characters allow?
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
I'm going to try to get my rebuttal done before the due date. However, I am a little busy with homework (mostly organic chemistry). Please forgive me if it is a little incomplete.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 2 years ago
JP_Hatecraft
Pro, I am sorry for waiting so long to address this. But what do you think about philosophy? Like Utilitarianism and Ontology?
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 2 years ago
JP_Hatecraft
I would personally vote Con. However, it would be the voter's decision.

Thanks for the early warning!
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
I have one question about the resolution. If there were 3 very strong benefits but 4 very weak negatives, which side would win? By the way, I think I am siding with Pro. You can start getting ready for your argument.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 2 years ago
JP_Hatecraft
@Proving_a_Negative Why thank you! I would be lying if I said I didn't sit staring at my monitor for 10 minutes trying to think of a good one.

@Raven Debater I hope so.

@Longline ?
Posted by RavenDebater 2 years ago
RavenDebater
This will be an interesting one. I'll keep my eye on this
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
I absolutely love the topic. Thank you for accepting this debate. I must make a strategy. :)
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
Longline
Hmmm
No votes have been placed for this debate.