On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

IntroductionYes, in fact, an infraction has occurred. We were set to debate the benefits of economic globalization, and while my opponent has agreed to these rules, he has stated multiple times during the debate that he would like to change factors that affect the resolution, which is completely against the rules that were set before the debate formally started. Therefore, this should be taken into account by the voter, as I have stated multiple times in both the debate as well as in private message to not engage in activities regarding indirect effects, such as environmental factors or "abuse" or workers. Defense A. TechnologyMy opponent states that technological advances are not directly caused by globalization, which is incorrect. The amount of capital that has been invested into developing nations has created incentives in both developed and developing economies to create new technology. Great examples of this would be Silicon Valley in California, or Bangalore in India. [1]This is caused directly by the inflow of venture capital, which cannot be made possible without the reduction of economic barriers, exacerbated by none other than economic globalization. I would also like to point out that my opponent has stated that " Now, admittedly, such strides could not be made without globalization, but some effects would still have been felt as technology developed independent of globalization.", which is a direct admission of the benefit of economic globalization. However, he states that some of these advancements were not caused by globalization. This is purely irrespective of the fact that many of the advancements were, in fact, caused my economic globalization, and a statement of this kind does not hold any ground as there isn't any drawback within the technological sector of economic globalization. Therefore, my opponent's argument is moot, something that he has indirectly agreed to as well. Defense B. PovertyMy opponent states that the way in which poverty is measured is incoherent. This is clearly not the case, and is a wrongful diagnosing of any problems associated with poverty. The measure for poverty has been the same in these past 200 years, and has only been adjusted for inflation, making the real wealth completely equal. Therefore, the measure of poverty has stayed at $1.90 per day in wealth relative to the time. My opponent states that "It is important to notice that the International Poverty Line is extremely low. Indeed, ‘extreme poverty’ is the adequate name for those living under this low threshold. Focusing on extreme poverty is important precisely because it captures those most in need. However, it is also important to point out that living conditions well above the International Poverty Line can still be characterized by poverty and hardship.”The issue with this argument is that it doesn't actually do anything to argue against the effect of economic globalization over a set period of time. As we have seen, the more globalized nations and their economies have become, the more their extreme poverty levels have been reduced. This is a causal relationship, and is perfectly indicative of the benefits of economic globalization on economies around the world. [2] This very same source has stated that "In the past only a small elite enjoyed living conditions that we would not describe as a life in extreme poverty today. With the onset of industrialization and rising productivity the share of people living in extreme poverty started to decrease. The share of people in extreme poverty has decreased continuously over the course of the last 2 centuries." My opponent also makes the mistake of not reading the report in full, the introduction of which says quite clearly that "The poverty measurement is based on the monetary value of a person’s consumption, but since consumption measures are unfortunately not available for all countries", meaning the fact that it's $1.90 doesn't quite matter, so long as it's equal in value across the board (which it is). What I found quite hilarious as I was reading over my opponent's arguments was the fact that he conceded so many points. Here is an example of another concession: "These same principles are therefore extrapolated worldwide. Poverty is reduced, yes, but my opponent's figures are inflated and do not accurately reflect the hardships faced by many of the people living just above the poverty line, and instead show that income inequality has made it seem that the world is better off than it is." How exactly my opponent believes that an admission on his part of the poverty reducing powers of economic globalization helps his argument is beyond me. It's also important to point out that my opponent has made a very grave mistake, as he has mis-read the data. If the share of people living under $1.90 per day has fallen, that means that people are getting wealthier in terms of income, which is a good thing. Wealth does not come immediately, but the sheer fact that my opponent does not realize this is egregious at best. In fact, the amount of people that have been living on $1.90 per day has fallen from 44% in 1980 to 9.6% in 2015, an almost 35% drop in 35 years. The amount of people living under $2 per day has gone from 94% in 1820 to 52% in 1990, which is when they stopped tracking that data point. [2] This is very important to note, because it shows that people living with so little wealth relative to inflation and purchasing power has FALLEN by a very wide margin, meaning that billions around the world are constantly being lifted out of their poor economic situation into a much better one.Defense c. China's cheatingMy opponent has once again failed to read the very same source he uses. This source states that "There is a difference between smoothing data and totally fabricating it. Evidence suggests that China is guilty of the former (the lesser charge) but not the latter (the more serious allegation)." [3]Therefore, this assertion by my opponent is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. It only goes to prove that my opponent is unable to provide relevant information and sources, rather resorting to half-truths and statements taken out of context. I would also like to ask, why would my opponent use Chinese statistics to counter-act my claim when he also states that their statistics are not to be trusted?Defense D. Worker RightsMy opponent is wrong once again. He is stating that the Chinese workers are being taken advantage of, and this is due to globalization. This is incorrect, as the status of Chinese workers pre-globalization was far worse than it is now, meaning that over that time period, economic globalization has made a positive effect on the rights and lives of Chinese workers.Defense E. ProductivityMy opponent states that productivity increases are due to population, which is a half-truth. Yes, the increase in population has allowed for more productivity as it has fostered higher incomes for families, thus allowing for more training and education, but this is due entirely to the forces of economic globalization, which has bred these very same education techniques and technological innovations in the workplace. According to OECD statistics, productivity has risen in most nations in the world in the past couple of decades. [4]My opponent also mentions bubbles, which are created due to poor monetary policy, not globalization. Bursting economic bubbles are not a direct result of investments, more so being the result of poor monetary management by the government. This is indicative of China, as they constantly devalue their currency, free from the power of private entities that seek to invest in globalization economic systems.Defense F. Income And Economic GrowthGDP and national income are both indicators of the total amount of wealth created annually, thus the case on the technical terms of remotely incorrect. The value of goods within a nation can be calculated with GDP, which is the national income itself. These measurements tools are all focused on recording the total value of goods and services produced annually.The assertion by my opponent that GDP does not show every facet of the economy is correct, but purely irrelevant. Per capita income, as well as poverty level statistics aid in showing the positive effects of economic globalization, which I have used various times. The incessant desire to point out that GDP is not a valid indicator of every economic fact is irrespective of the fact that I have used multiple other mechanisms with which to prove that the amount of wealth that people have had has increased drastically in the past 200 years due to the positive effects of economic globalization.Once again, my opponent believes that the abuse of workers is somehow an argument against economic globalization. That is similar to stating that the fact that there is still stupidity is a valid argument against the existence of education programs, which is simply not true. The rights and collective well being of workers has increased drastically over the past couple of years, affirming the resolution that economic globalization is, on balance, beneficial.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments have been laden with misinformation, fallacies, and half-truths. Instead of identifying the cause of these issues he presented, he simply equated economic globalization with these issues, many of which were not even within the scope of the debate. Additionally, my opponent has not been able to prove that the economic negatives of economic globalization outweigh the benefits, as this is the goal of the debate, hence the name "On balance". As I have done just that, without going out of the bounds of the debate, I am clearly the winner. Sources:[1]http://www.businessinsider.com...[2]https://ourworldindata.org...[3]http://www.economist.com...[4]http://stats.oecd.org...