The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction

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: 3/25/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,492 times Debate No: 72282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




i stand in strong negation of the statement, resolved: "On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction". In order to better understand the information that the Con side wishes to present today, it is necessary to understand some terms. Blacks Law ( the dictionary that the United States Supreme Court uses) defines poverty as A term used to denote a condition in which people are unable to meet their basic necessities, due to lack of money or skill. The United Nations defines "economic globalization" as: " the increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies."1. I believe that economic globalization does not decrease poverty rates for the following reason

Contention One: Globalization displaces the poor. The effects of globalizing the economy of a country is felt by more than simply those who manage it. In a study by the Journal of Developing Societies, it was found that India is essentially depriving its poor, tribal people of a sustainable livelihood by promoting the unregulated growth of mineral-based industries in their area. The report went on to say, and I quote: "In the name of modernization and the country's economic development, the elites in India are taking over the life sustaining resources of the poor and pushing them into a further marginalized state of living as a result of displacing them from their land and homes.". This is not simply an isolated instance, as a similar situation can be observed on the other side of the globe. In Mexico, nearly forty percent of farmers were displaced by a prime example of economic globalization- the North American Free Trade Act. These displaced people are often then forced into slums, as detailed in the aforementioned report. The report concluded by stating the following: "Their status changes from self-sustaining members of their local ecosystem to ecological refugees who are forced into the slums of the large urban centres and urban-industrial towns created by the development pathologies of our time". This in turn enhances the effects of poverty, thus not decreasing poverty, but instead making the problem worse.

Contention Two: Economic globalization creates inequality in developing societies. According to a study published by the Economist in 2014, contrary to popular belief, multinational corporations will hire the skilled workers in countries, as opposed to the unskilled workers. However, as a result of this, the unskilled workers are not given such opportunities. This leads to increased inequality. The gap between the upper and lower class expands significantly, as shown by this report. It cites a GINI study, which is a method used to determine inequality. The closer the score is to zero, the more equally the money is distributed amongst the people. The average score on the Index is about 10%. However, China, a country that has been radically altered by economic globalization, scores a whopping 34%. This is preposterous. A report published by the Global Policy Forum stated that citizens will observe, "signs of injustice, insider privilege, and unequal opportunity" all as a result of inequality. This same report went on to state: "In developing countries inequality is usually economically destructive; it interacts with underdeveloped markets and ineffective government programs to slow growth " which in turn slows progress in reducing poverty.

Contention Three: Globalization exploits the poor through sweatshop labor Globalization critics often cite sweatshops as a prime example of the "race to the bottom" phenomenon. A "race to the bottom" is defined as a situation characterized by a progressive lowering or deterioration of standards, especially (in business contexts) as a result of the pressure of competition. This happens when world markets are opened to free, unfettered trade. Without transnational labor guidelines and regulations, big corporations will look to place factories and manufacturing plants in countries with the most relaxed environmental and labor standards. Developing countries then compete for the patronage of these companies by lowering labor standards -- minimum wages and workplace safety requirements. The result: horrendous working conditions like those described above, and no state oversight to make the factories change them. Sweatshops are a way for corporations to exploit the poverty and desperation of the third world, while allowing them to circumvent the living wages, organization rights, and workplace safety regulations labor activists have fought long and hard for in the west. "In a village in the Mekong delta in Vietnam a woman and her twelve-year old daughter sit all day in the shade from five in the morning until five in the evening making straw beach mats. For their labour they receive $1 a day." "In China, workers at Wellco Factory making shoes for Nike are paid 16 cents/hour (living wage for a small family is about 87 cents), 11-12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, 77-84 hours per week; workers are fined if they refuse overtime, and they're not paid an extra rate for overtime hours.

The evidence shown here today, makes it abundantly clear that Economic Globalization is in no way "reducing worldwide poverty." For these reasons we urge the judge to vote Con.


I accept Con's challenge and hope for a good debate.

Also, for those of you voting, try to look at this subjectively. Do not vote on which side you think is right, but rather which side debated better.

Let's begin.


Economic globalization: The worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration. []

Poverty: Being in poverty is defined by the World Bank as making less than $1.25 per day.

Poverty Reduction: Permanently lifting as many people out of poverty as possible.

Third-World Countries: Underdeveloped countries with widespread poverty.

C1: Benefits Countries

Economic globalization results in easier trade, which ultimately results in a reduction in poverty. As there are more collective opportunities then there are when the trade remains in a single country, the benefits are obvious. An increase in global trade has been shown to increase economic stability as well as economic bounty.

SA: Globalization Increases Quality of Life

According to Yale Global online “The poor countries that display the greatest success today are those that engage with the global economy.”. As an increase in the wealth of poor countries revitalizes their economies, then the increase in money can be directly correlated with an increase in the quality of life of the poor. And thus, economic globalization can also be correlated with a decrease in poverty

SB: Opportunity

With Global access, education becomes significantly better for poor countries. With the money coming in from expanded trade, third-world countries would be able to buy computers and electronics. According to Justin Lin, the chief economist of the World Bank (which is largely considered the most prestigious position in economics), "Continuous technological upgrading is the most important driving force for a country's long-term dynamic growth in modern times.” As they would now be both aware and capable of accessing more alternatives than their single country could provide, they have better education opportunities, and thus, less poverty. If a person were to want a better job, using online resources, the person could find a better alternative than if they were to just look inside their country. Globalization would provide these connections and would allow a higher level of understanding in poorer countries.

C2: War Reduction

Everyone participating has a vested interest in maintaining a peaceful global economy. This translates to a reduction in warfare.

SA: Comparative Advantage

Comparative advantage is where one country can produce something cheaper than another country. If economic globalization were to happen, certain countries would be able to supply each other with resources that they might be lacking. Besides providing poor countries with much-needed resources, this builds brotherhood among countries worldwide, thereby preventing warfare, which reduces poverty.

SB: War is Bad for the Impoverished

This reduction in warfare would benefit the poor in a number of ways. According to Mike Lofgren, a former congressional aide, around the year 2000, when the Department of Defense was growing, jobs were created at the slowest rate since the Hoover administration. The Congressional Research Service says that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars increased the national debt by $1.4 trillion. Increasing debt, and slowing down job creation is not helping poverty. As a lack of war would decrease poverty, and economic globalization decreases war, economic globalization reduces poverty.

For the reasons stated above, I see no other ballot that that of the affirmation.
Debate Round No. 1


Conservatively_Liberal forfeited this round.


I extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


I want to start off by apologizing for my absence in my first round, and expect to see the consequence of it on the ballot in the conduct section. I also want to state that all my evidence from this round is at the bottom, and includes links to the specific studies..

So I'm going to attack my opponents case in the order of his contentions and if I succeed in doing so, I have won this round.
The Pro side states in their first contention that says that economic globalization benefits countries though increase quality of life, and increased opportunity. I first want to point out that the Pro side has not cited any empirical evidence on these so called "benefits". I have two responses to this contention:
First, in Contention one sub-point A, my opponent says that globalization and poverty reduction are linked though a correlation. I agree with this statement, we cannot simply say something directly effects something else without a causation. Meaning, if Suzy gets a job at target, then targets sales soar 300%, can we say that Suzy drove targets sales 300%? No, that is just a correlation. To prove something like this, we need evidence that shows it.
My second response is to what my opponents second point is, increased opportunity. What he is saying is, there is more infrastructure for better education. I will agree when the statement that globalization brings better education, BUT how does that help poverty if they couldn't reach this higher education. This is exactly what is happening. According to Moana S. Simas of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute in October of 2014, "Child labor, for example, derives mostly from poor households whose short-term benefits from income generated by the children exceed the benefits of sending the children to be educated" This means that because of globalization causes children to work in sweatshops, and because they are in sweatshops, they can't go to school. So who are reeking the benefits of this increase in education? Very simple, the wealthier families.
As You can see, my opponents first contention falls.

My opponents second contention states that globalization decreases war. This is the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. With increased economic globalization, we are actually seeing an increase in terrorism. According to Gil Feiler of Bar Ilan (ilan) University in 2007 "Islamic terrorism is financed by a global array of individuals, fronts, businesses, banks, criminal enterprises, nominally humanitarian organizations and states. Financial flows take a variety of routes " some complex, some simple, but all are evasive. The combined annual budget of Islamic terror groups between 1995-2005 hovers around the US $1 billion mark " the equivalent of $100 million per annum. This represents a substantial increase from estimates for the years 1984-1994 of US $80 million. Execution of terrorist activities requires a reliable cash stream. After his capture in 1995, Ramzi Yusif, the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks admitted that cash problems prevented his operatives from making as large a bomb as they had intended. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh made a similar assessment, stating the operation did not follow its original plan and was hastily executed due to inadequate resources." This shows that economic globalization DIRECTLY funds terrorists.
The whole goal of economic globalization is to move capital across borders with the least amount of government involvement (Rogowski & Tannenbaum) , this opens the doors to money laundering and other ways to financially support terrorists (Kumar & Campbell). Lastly, according to Ben Doherty of "The Guardian", terrorism impacts the poor and poorer countries the most.
As you can see, this contention has also fallen.
In the end, all of my opponents contentions have fallen, and for these reasons, I urge a con ballot.

Moana S. Simas et al. (Sustainability) "The "Bad Labor" Footprint: Quantifying the Social Impacts of Globalization." MDPI.COM. Accessed 18 Jan. 2015. Published 24 Oct. 2014.

Feiler, Gil. "The Globalization of Terror Funding." Bar Ilan University. Sept 2007. Web. 3 January 2014. <;.

Rogowski, Ronald, and Tannenbaum, Daniel. "Globalization and Neo-Liberalism: How Much Does Capital Mobility Restrain Government Policy?" Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Nov 2005. Web. 4 Jan 2014. < df>.
(Control F "A major aspect of globalization is that capital moves faster and more easily across national borders.")

Kumar, Leena Thacker and Campbell, Joel R.. "Global Governance: The Case of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing." Forum on Public Policy. 2009. Web. 3 January 2014. <;.
(Control F "As the most prominent global terrorist organization, al Qaeda created an extensive global financial network. ")

Doherty, Ben. "Pakistan attack reveals the truth about terrorism: it kills more poor Muslims than rich westerners." The Guardian. 17 December 2014. Web. 4 January 2015. <;.
(Control F"National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland")


evanallred123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rd360 3 years ago
Thank you for making this debate, as the idiots who I am debating against are beginners and have literally copied word for word your whole entire debate. We proved it straight-out within the first CX, and I thank you wholeheartedly for making my opponents look like fools, and probably get kicked out of their debate team. Once again, thanks!
Posted by evanallred123 3 years ago
Sorry for missing the final round. I was at an actual speech and debate tournament. Districts in fact. Apologies for the incomplete round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.