Economic Globalization

Rebuttals1. Isolation if we don't accept globalizationThis point is objectively false for a number of reasons:1. First of all, this is the black or white (false dilemma) fallacy. My opponent falsely asserts there is only two options: isolation, or accepting economic globalization. However, this is quite false, as there are other options, similar to the one for which I advocate.2. Per the definition, which my opponent did not attest or challenge (and thereby accepts), economic globalization is "The trans-national increase in trade and capital transfers across national boundaries." [1] Increase, as denoted, is the key word here. Not accepting economic globalization doesn't prohibit trade, it just doesn't advocate for the rampant increase. 3. Thusly, a country isn't by default isolated by nonacceptance of globalization. The claim that the countries would be much poorer is unfounded.2. More money flowHere's a few responses:1. While money can flow in an easy manner, that doesn't necessitate countries being richer. In fact, I've shown how labor implications render this point false.2. My evidence points to the fact that income distribution has worsened. Job opportunities have failed because of this (my evidence also supports this) and subsequent poverty is not solved.3. In the end the flow of money =/= to a richer population, as the money can become transparent for the common people.3. Economic globalization and bananasA couple of responses here, as well:1. Trading, again, doesn't require economic globalization. Before the term was even implicit of an increase in trading, trading existed.2. The rampant increase, as economic globalization would advocate, actually detriments the environment, as I've demonstrated. This would logically destroy the environment in which bananas grow. How can we justifiably advocate for something that would harm banana trade? The argument here is turned: environmental impact of globalization destroys the banana assertion.4. OutsourcingI have some responses of clarification and argumentation:1. What my opponent is claiming here is not just globalization, it's outsourcing. Yet, this doesn't justify globalization for a few reasons as I'll mention.2. Outsourcing is harmful. While it is acclaimed to be good for individual business, it has unintended consequences, a few of which include the following: "[it] leads to fragmentation and disintegration of the supply chain, inviting new competitors into the industry. It also nurtures corporate complacency; and it undermines a company’s relations with its labor, customers, and the domestic and local communities." [2] These harms can lead it to being a bad business strategy as well as bad for the individual.3. Outsourcing lowers quality. CBS News notes "Many firms that provide outsourcing quickly cut the quality of component parts in order to increase their margins." [3] Desperation leads companies to cut down on quality to make more cash for their business itself.4. Outsourcing in regards to progress. Global research finds "Beginning in 2002 the US began running trade deficits in advanced technology products with Asia, Mexico and Ireland. As these countries are not leaders in advanced technology, the deficits obviously stem from US offshore manufacturing. In effect, the US is giving away its technology, which is rapidly being captured, while US firms reduce themselves to a brand name with a sales force." [4] Instead of helping the outsourcing nation, it erodes their dominance. Moreover, labor standards and practices in these outsourced companies is despicable. [5] It's not progress for poverty alleviation and human rights activism when a consequence of globalization degrades labor practices as well as the labor laws themselves.Conclusion:Environmental concerns coupled with labor concerns should be sufficient to negating the resolution. However, accompanied by falsehood's that lie in the affirmative (economic impact isn't there), there is no option but to negate.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca...[5] http://www.worldaffairs.org...