Globalization

Pro has not rebutted my interpretation of the framework, so it must stand. There is a fundamental principle that my opponent has failed to understand: globalization is not a requisite for a strong economy. Under certain conditions it may aid a developing economy, but it is not the primary cause of globalization. My opponent at no point in his argument proved that the primary factor in economic development was globalization. My opponent committed a logical fallacy in his claim. He stated that because globalization was present in some of the better economies, that it was the cause of economic increase. Unless my opponent can prove that his listed benefits occur because of globalization, and no other factor, he must lose this argument. My opponent cited an example of Japan's economic growth to prove his point, but he has failed to correctly interpreted his own evidence. When I examined it I found that Japan's economic growth was not limited to economic globalization. In fact, there were a number of variables that contributed to Japan's success. Near the end of the article there is a section titled "Lessons from Japan". It cites a number of factors as the cause of Japan's excellence: An excellent education system, effective quality control implementations, subsidies for targeted industries, and increased competition in the domestic market. Because of this my opponent has not, in fact, can not prove that globalization is the main factor in Japan's economic expansion. My opponent's attack on my dependency theory is completely invalid. In fact, dependency theory has become more relevant than ever. According to a UN development report [1], more than eighty percent of the world's population live in countries where the wage differentials are widening. What can we attribute this to? Dependence theory. Additionally, there are other ways in which false positives can occur. Simply because a country is wealthy does not mean that the country is actually creating benefits in any way; a large percentage of the wealth in the said country could be held by a small percent of the population. This enables those that are richer to extract their money from those who already have very little. Not only is there no evidence that globalization is the sole cause of economic benefits, globalization is not even solving the problems that it is purported to. My opponent's first argument is basically a citation of countries that have economically increased in the past. The burden of proof falls to the pro in this debate. As such, he must prove beyond a doubt that the main cause of any benefit is globalization. As he has failed to do so this argument must fall. My opponents second argument is essentially that racism is decreased by globalization. This is completely false. We live in a time of semi-globalization, and there has been little to no decrease in warfare. If globalization decreased war, then as time progressed and globalization increased the number of wars occurring should decrease. As this is clearly not the case this argument clearly falls. I have effectively proved that the benefits my opponent listed cannot be tied to globalization, as well as proved that the other potential benefits that he brought up do not occur. In addition to this I have invalidated my opponents attacks on my own case. It is for these reasons that I urge votes in favor of the Con. [1]-http://www.theguardian.com... [2]-http://www.brookings.edu...