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

Whoa whoa, whoa! I would like my opponent to slow down, and remember that the point of a debate is to state one's case, not slander and discredit one's opponent. My opponent's entire argument is based on describing my vision of a peaceful cooperation between nations as a bloodthirsty and tyrannical mania. This is not the point of the debate, however desperate one might be for a strong case. You should've taken my advice, and spent the rest of the debate trading poetry. There's nothing wrong with sketching out how views oppose, but what you've done is go a-wassailing for blood.A List of My Opponent's Points, Without the Appealing FillerFirst Opposing View-The United States have a gory and blood-bathed history, therefore they do not peacefully coexist now.-Native Americans were often matriarchal, therefore globalization is bad.-America has a trend toward sticking its chevrons where they don't belong, so globalization must be dictatorship-oriented.-Globalization causes blood-shed and horror.Second Opposing View-The intermingling and sharing of cultures and resources impurifies a country's way of life.-Countries should conduct secret weapons research.-Humanitarianism between nations is not to be encouraged.-Interrelation would destroy human domination of the planet.My Address to These Points1.1I will not dispute that the United States has a horrific history of squelched rights and bloodshed. However, your example, of Columbus and the Red Indians is just a fallacy; European colonists warring with the natives was not an attempt at globalization, and did not even result from an attempt at globalization. Europe was trying to colonize and conquer North America (and South America), not share resources and state secrets with it.1.2Irrelevant.1.3Modern day USA may have the unfortunate trend for sending in the troops at the drop of a hat, but that does not mean globalization is some tyrannical and malevolent fixture of military propaganda. The United States foreign policy is not a good example of ideal globalization. When I use the states for an example, it is of how the individual states do not war with each other, not how they do not collectively go gallivanting off to flex their muscles. In the ideal picture of globalization, UN-like federal government would be placed above the governments of individual nations, as in the case of the United States. Just as you don't see the army of Texas marching on Nebraska, you would ideally not see the army of any country marching on that of another.1.4I maintain that alienation and rivalry are what cause blood-shed and violence, not globalization. Peaceful coexistence is a difficult community to blame for war.2.1Hold on just a minute. Are you actually suggesting that good relations between neighboring countries can cause racial impurity? That was one of the credos of Nazi Germany, and we can see how that turned out: Germany mobilized its military in an attempt to strike out at the other 'impure' lands, as well as the 'impurity' within Germany, with the ideal destination of their campaigns as a world ruled by the 'pure Aryan race.' You really do not want to get into the game of 'impurity.'2.2Surely my opponent is not suggesting that it is desirable for nations to not share technological progress? 2.3If you want to live in a world in which nations feel and act on no neighborly obligation to look after their fellow nations, so be it. You'll pardon me, however, if I beg to differ; when one nation is in need, other nations should look out for them. This is not something that can be logically proven, it's just a personal preference. Look at it this way: in a unified world, if one part were to suffer a disaster, the others should provide what aid they can. A good example is the recent hurricane that struck New England: several cities were devastated, so many other states and cities jumped to the aid of those in need. I am skeptical that anyone could make a case for why this is a bad thing.2.4Are you suggesting that sharing technology, and peaceful interaction, could destroy individuality? Furthermore, are you suggesting that humans are the dominant species because they form nations?The Brighter Side of GlobalizationMy opponent has made his case in a description of globalization as an oppressive and dictatorial force, bent on bloodily enforced mixing of 'impure' cultures with 'pure' ones. I shall now paint a picture, a happy little picture, of globalization as it should be.Ideally, nations would be allowed peaceful existence as they saw fit, under the banner of a unified planetary federal government. One nation would not be expected to surrender its resources to another, any more than one nation in the European Union is expected to surrender its resources to another. Naturally there would be no major secrets of one nation from another; you wouldn't expect to hear about Rhode Island developing secret arsenals for use against Vermont, now would you? There would not be military conquest of anywhere, only policing, just as Great Britain does not send in the troops to invade and pacify Scotland. Globalization is not about setting up a world dictator to enforce one superior culture; that's what Nazism is about, not globalization. Globalization is about peaceful coexistence as one world, under the banner of one world, rather than the disunited and disorganized banners of many opposing nation-states.