Globalization is way more prejudicial for third world countries than it is beneficial.

First off, I would like to go over the topic of sweat shops hurting economy. I am not an economist, but from the classes I have taken on ecenomics, I have picked up on some things. You say that "people have absolutely no choice but to work for multinational companies which developed countries own" but you have over looked one major factor, with these jobs, there is a demand created, not a demand for Nike shoes, or nice cars, or name brand electronics, but a demand for the necessities of life, such as food. I cannot see how Nike making shoes in a 3rd world country, will hurt the food industry, or the clothing industry, they don't have to compete with Nike. All Nike does is put money into the economy, but they don't sell their shoes there, they sell them elsewhere, where they know they will sell. So how can this possibly hurt the economy by putting money in, but not taking it out? If it is somehow happening, it is defying many of the simple philosophies of ecenomics. You also state that a textile industry is in jeapordy, because we "impose huge quantities of clothes which are of lower quality but could still be sold and would do away with one of the best textile industries in the world not to mention thousands of jobs". You don't have me convinced that a leading superpower, has decided that rather than sell clothes in their country, where they could make large profit, they will sell it in a third world country where they will make less profit, and at a very low price, which they would have to be doing to destroy the market that is already there. You have also claimed that weapon sales "had a lot to do with this huge war", and although I am not sure what "huge war" you are talking about, I don't think that we can blame the destruction caused by this war on the fact that the U.S. sold weapons, and I am sure there were reasons, which at the time of the sales, were thought to be more important than peace, such as brining the fall of communism, and the rise of democracy. You talk about the weapon sales in Nicaragua, but if you knew why the weapons were sold, I think you would have a different opinion, they were sold to the Nicaraguan's who almost entirely opposed the government, and were planning a revolution, they did overthrow the government, but the cost was the economy, which was destroyed, but none the less, the people got their independence, the exact same way we got ours from the British with the help from the French, they took a risk with there economy and lost, but they also were sucessful in their true goal. The same thing happened in Honduras, which is how they overthrew their oppressive government, and after that, there economy has actually started to grow, so the weapon sales are not always a bad thing, and are often done for what is beleived to be in the intrest of the people. I have shown that all the problem you show are not actually problems, but usually good, and in some cases, side effects of something better. It also seems as though I was backed into making a choice between being a "good person and saying "yeah the sweat shops are horrible, people shouldn't have to do that for a living" or "good debator" going on the fact that the sweat shops are better than nothing". Both are true, and I agree that these people have it tough, and they have problems, but I don't think that we should pin their problems on Globalization. But the resolution shows that we must compare a before and after of globalization, not an us and them and tie in globalization, and I believe I have shown that although it is still bad, it is better than before.