WODC Round 3 - Economy

Hello Zaradi, voters, and readers to the 3rd round of the World Online Debate Cup 2015. In this debate I will have the pleasure of not only debating one of the brightest debaters on the website, but also the newly crowned Vice President as well, a status which I congratulate him on working so hard to attain. I would like to thank Larz and Whiteflame for playing such instrumental roles in this tournament and persisting in their efforts to keep it going on time and on track, and would like to congratulate Whiteflame as well, for his promotion to vote moderator. Ok, let's get started.Framework I'll simply start out by giving my general analysis of the scope of the topic. The debate resolution is that of a parliamentary style debate, within such a debate style, the resolution would be a simple true or false question. The resolution does not specify a couple of things, the first of which is what economy we are talking about. We could be talking about the economy of the United States, or Germany, and any other individual nation; or we could actually be talking about the world economy as a whole. I believe that since the answer is not specified we should be simply using an ‘on balance’ type debate, where we reference the general and typical effects of economic globalization, whether it occurs within an individual country or the global market as a whole; in the end it represents about the same thing anyways. To add onto this, pro should not be offering any plans to achieve economic globalization to advance the cultures of indigenous peoples, instead we should be talking about the likely effects of economic globalization, on balance. The second part of the resolution that is not defined is what ‘more globalized’ means. In this way we are talking about change from the status quo towards an increase in globalization, but this could mean anything from .001% change to infinity. Thus in this regard we should focus on the trends in a calculus type of way, and whether or not an increase in globalization would result in net negatives or positives for indigenous peoples as we approach infinite economic globalization. Pro is of course making a proposition and my only job is to show that an increase in economic globalization would result in either a neutral or negative benefit for indigenous peoples. Pro must show that it results strictly in positive impacts for them, thus Zaradi takes the full BOP. Some definitions which may be important Culture: the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Globalize and globalization: a.) the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets –merriam b.) 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. Indigenous peoples: There is no universally accepted definition for “Indigenous,” though there are characteristics that tend to be common among Indigenous Peoples: They tend to have small populations relative to the dominant culture of their country. However, in Bolivia and Guatemala Indigenous people make up more than half the population. They usually have (or had) their own language. Today, Indigenous people speak some 4,000 languages. They have distinctive cultural traditions that are still practiced. They have (or had) their own land and territory, to which they are tied in myriad ways. They self-identify as Indigenous. Examples of Indigenous Peoples include the Inuit of the Arctic, Native Americans, hunter-gatherers in the Amazon, traditional pastoralists like the Maasai in East Africa, and tribal peoples in the Philippines. This House believes a more globalized economy would net benefit indigenous cultures. shoot...