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

I would like to point out that my condensed points of yours were not quotes, but synopses.My opponent claims that I have misrepresented his points. If so, I apologize. Correct me if I am wrong, but, to clarify, I shall quote each applicable sentence, and interpret its meaning:The United States have a gory and blood-bathed history, therefore they do not peacefully coexist now."My point is that the great and supposed peaceful place you call America has had vile and brutal wars, enslavement of blacks and has indeed stuck its military in regions of the world which would love for it to get lost from (although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize."This sounds to me like my synopsis was not so far off-mark.Native Americans were often matriarchal, therefore globalization is bad."The few native families who escaped and hid developed a tradition of scalping the meant they managed to kill (for example if a man went to urinate in the forest they would be waiting very silently and patiently by trees in camouflage to silently kill him and leave the body behind without a scalp, often scalping him alive and struggling by having men restrain him and cover his mouth (the natives would never hurt women because the native American society is severely matriarchal)."I will admit, I did have difficulty inferring the relevance of this passage. If you wish to help, I should not object.America has a trend toward sticking its chevrons where they don't belong, so globalization must be dictatorship-oriented."(although admittedly the Arab nations seem to have hated them for no reason and now many are allying with American and British troops in the hopes of creating an Arab version of 'democracy' which would simply be a non-violent dictatorship). So all this blood-shed and horror actually originated from the human urge to try and globalize. To intermingle people who want to remain independent and alone. If we are to consider war as bad, then certainly globalization should be viewed as bad also."What then is your point, if not that globalization is dictatorship-oriented?"Humanitarianism between nations is not to be encouraged," "Interrelation would destroy human domination of the planet.""No obligation to share, to care or to intermingle people and destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet; variation in both physiques and ways of life."I was paraphrasing, my good chap. I would call an obligation to share, care, and intermingle 'humanitarian.' I would also say that if you call say intermingling would 'destroy the very reason humans are the dominant species of the planet,' you are saying exactly the meaning of my synopsis.My Three, Meager, Valid PointsYou never once said horror? My dear fellow, would you like me to count the number of times you said 'horror'? You said it exactly once, "So all this blood-shed and horror..." This looks like my synopsis of your point is almost dead on to your point.My counter is ridiculous? You did say "According to my opponent, if you are Nigeria and I am Kenya then we should automatically feel the duty to work together and share our resources, intermingle our cultures and impurify our way of life with yours," did you not? How is a reference to 'impurification of our way of life' by the intermingling of cultures not in the family of racial slurs, or at least, a dangerous prejudice?I will not deny that historically, weapons research has yielded important scientific discovery. However, if there were no war, would that prevent scientific progress from being made? Alas, we cannot certainly know, for in all of recorded history, there have not been even 300 years of world peace [2].A Matter of ConductI apologize to my opponent for offending with by my summaries of his points. I also advise him that he make his points less vague and understated, if he does not wish them to be misinterpreted. My intent was not to connive, but merely to address your points, without their rich dressing in useless platitudes. I have, to my knowledge, however, addressed every point of your debate, so demanding that I address your debate is an irrational redundancy.I express my regret at your unimaginable rage and fury, but I am afraid that I shall not be 'put in my place' (see comment section) by irrational blusterings and unsupported allegations of connivery, nor shall I concede the debate merely because you are indignant that I misunderstood or inaccurately portrayed your arguments. By all means, explain your arguments, but please do not resort to petty grumbling and bumbling: those will result only in your humbling.Sources:[2] http://www.nytimes.com...