On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

IntroductionThe 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 IssuesThis 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.ConclusionMy 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...