On Balance, Economic Globalization is Beneficial

I apologize for the misunderstanding between my opponent and myself, however, I believe that no infraction has occurred, and therefore will continue with my case defense.I. IntroAs I have stated, I am sympathetic toward my opponent, as I see why he believes a violation of the rules has occurred. However, I will briefly state why that is not the case. In the first round, my opponent merely stated the definition of economic globalization, and no other definitions. Therefore, though I am not free to add my own definitions, as per rule six, I operated under the generally understood definition of beneficial, which is essentially "has (generally) good effects" and since my opponent did not state anywhere in the opening round that the effects being debated must be limited to economic effects, my case is topical. It discusses the effects of economic globalization, some economic, some environmental. I will briefly address my opponent's problems with my first two contentions as they come up.II. Defense of Bubble EconomiesA. My opponent seems to believe that this is not directly related to globalization, which makes absolutely no sense. The speculation in third world countries is due to new markets being opened up via globalization. Globalization is a direct cause of this investment. It is also obviously an economic effect, as it relates to the economic B. My use of a Chinese source is far from analogous to my opponent's use of Chinese data. While my opponent uses Chinese government figures on the Chinese economy, I use a Chinese individual's analysis of an economic phenomenon on behalf of the United Nations. These are very different. However, if you, as voters, still buy this argument of my opponent's, that this argument should be discarded due to it being from a Chinese source, that's alright, just discard this point along with any of my opponent's that relate to Chinese government figures.C. My opponent called the source biased, but there is a distinct difference between reaching a certain conclusion as a result of analysis and bias. My opponent did not state (at all) why or how it is biased.D. Finally, my opponent's substantial argument on this point is the idea that it does not provide source material. However, this does not make sense, as it is primary analysis. Analysis need not refer to others' research. Mr. Shangquan, for whatever reason, noticed the phenomenon of globalization and decided to analyze it for himself. Though my opponent can make the argument it is less reliable than a meta-analysis, primary analysis does exist, and this source is not unreliable just because it is a primary analysis.Therefore, I have successfully defended from each of my opponent's attacks and proven that this is a negative economic effect of globalization.III. Defense of Worker AbuseA. This is also an economic effect, as labor is a key factor in the economy. Do not buy the assertion that this is not an economic effect.B. "My opponent fails to understand that correlation does not equate to causation..." -ProI understand the difference very well, as my three years of interscholastic debate in high school saw this argument many times. Then, like now, my opponents were mistaken. I discussed how globalization causes some economies to collapse and backed this up with evidence. Then, I showed how tight border policies force these people into working for black market operations since they were illegally trafficked across borders. Once they illegally enter a country, they are less likely to be protected by law, because it is the same law that could incriminate them. The other option is that third-world workers are taken advantage of by multinational companies or companies in first-world nations due to the cheap and relatively exploitable labor in the third-world. If not for globalization, the companies would not have access to the easily controlled and abused labor in these nations. It is an economic effect that is a direct result of economic globalization.C. My opponent focused entirely on child labor. I will concede my child labor sub-point, but pull through the abused workers point (which does encompass some child labor also) as an economic harm of globalization.IV. Defense of EnvironmentA. Indirect effects are still effects, and the increased international shipping that globalization has caused are the largest increase in the damage to the environment. The indirect effects are still very much a result of globalization. Since my opponent refused to attack this point any further, it, as well as all of its effects, flow through and are won by the negative. These include destruction of the intrinsic value of nature, habitat loss, and global warming, which will result in 2 billion people losing access to water in the next 70 years, loss of 20-30% of the species on Earth, and increasing the frequency of natural disasters to kill millions more annually.V. Re: ConclusionI'm going to do something a little different and respond to my opponent's conclusion as if it were an argument, because it kind of is."My opponent has made various fallacious arguments and has backed them up with biased or insipid papers which in turn had no backing itself. Not only does my opponent provide very few apolitical and academic resources with which to judge the economic effects, he also breaks the rules set in the first round." -ProThis is false. My opponent used the single "biased" source and extrapolated this (unsupported) assertion to all of my sources. My opponent also claims I provide few apolitical and academic sources. However, that is not the case. My sources came from a variety of reliable institutions, including but not limited to the following: The Economist The International Business Times The Centre for Research on Globalization The United Nations Indiana University's Maurer School of Law American University Yale University The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development My opponent either didn't bother to look at the majority of my sources or is intentionally lying to misinform the voters about the nature of my sources. Because, as you can see, not only do I have an extensive list of reliable and esteemed institutions, both academic and otherwise, being sourced to craft my argument, but they have the "very large appendix" my opponent claims they do not. "He has stated that he does not agree in the rule regarding economic globalization twice in this debate, meaning he has broken these rules, as it states in the structure that he waives his right to make such decisions." -Pro This is again simply not true. I have never said I do not agree with the rule. What I disagree with is the idea that I have broken this rule, and at the beginning of the round clarified for the voters exactly why no infraction occurred. "LASTLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, my opponent fails to understand that this debate's resolution starts with ON BALANCE, meaning whether or not there are negative aspects does not matter, so long as the positive aspects outweigh these negatives. As he has not stated anything in regard to this, it's easy to say that his argument is insufficient."-Pro Again false. I have never once said that there are negatives, so the resolution cannot be true, and actually made a statement that proves my understanding of what "on balance" means. In my conclusion in the last round, I mentioned how the negatives outweigh the positives. Whether or not you agree with this, it proves that I at a minimum understand "on balance" and how it affects the debate. VI. Conclusion I have proven multiple things in this debate. The first is the negative of the resolution, as the massive environmental effects of economic globalization, coupled with bubble economies and abuse of workers (both of which are definitively economic effects) outweigh (on balance) my opponent's exaggerated benefits. I have also proven that no infraction has occurred. My opponent may have intended to limit the debate to the economic effects of globalization, but did not outline this clearly in the opening round. I am sympathetic to this, but am not going to forfeit solely because my opponent did not effectively communicate the parameters of the debate. I thank my opponent for the debate and Hayd for the tournament, and urge votes in negation. Thank you. I do not have sources for my defense as it was all logical or tangential references to prior sources.