EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That a more globalized economy would net benefit indigenous cultures

0 points
5 points
kallistarkallistar (PRO)
A more globalized economy would benefit indigenous cultures by assimilating indigenous communities into aspects of the modern economy such as post-secondary education, and high-tech industries, as well as taking full part in parts of government to assure equal representation of those communities, as well as in other nations besides the United States.
Return To Top | Posted:
2019-03-08 01:27:42
| Speak Round
dpowell3543dpowell3543 (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to participate in this debate with me. I shall now respond to my opponent's arguments.

Section 1: Yes, it's true that a globalized economy may provide indigenous peoples a voice in their local governments, however this won't work for all the peoples. Please note that the United Nations has made it illegal to disturb some of the world's indigenous peoples in anyway. This is because the UN wishes to protect their culture and their territory from the rest of us. In other words, they want to make sure that what happened to the Native peoples of America, doesn't happen again.

Section 2: One point that my opponent brings up is the promise of economic growth. So far, that hasn't been provided. Take a look at the indigenous peoples of Bolivia and Mexico.  Thanks to a globalized economy, the rural areas and indigenous communities are now the poorest in the country. Their governments, especially in Mexico, keep taking more and more of their money for trade deals and to protect the environment. On top of that, a globalized economy could lead to more tourism, which makes it more possible for some greedy tourists to exploit the peoples' cultures for personal profit. In other words, someone could buy or steal a bunch clothes and/or artifacts, then pawn them off online. According to the paper, which link will be posted below my arguments, the only people who have benefitted from globalization are rich land owners while the poor indigenous people are just losing all their money and their land. But hey, Bolivia managed to get an indigenous president. That makes everything better right? I highly doubt it.

Section 3: Two more points my opponent has brought up are education and high-tech industries. These both play into the last section. If we bring high-tech industries into the communities of indigenous people, we'd be taking away more of their land. As for the education, since globalization seems to be taking away their money, how can they afford to have any education? Sure, in most countries the government pays for it. However, if the government was going to pay for it, why weren't they doing so already if they were to begin with?

In the end, we have to ask ourselves whether or not a globalized economy can help benefit indigenous people. From what we've seen so far, no it can't. In the world today, globalized economies have either not touched indigenous communities due to existing laws established by the UN, or has done more harm to them than good. As I have stated earlier. A globalized economy would take the Indigenous peoples of the world down the same paths that the Native Americans went down over a hundred years ago. Now I will leave the readers and my opponent with this question. Do we really want the sins of our fathers to become this sins of their sons?

Again, I'd like to thank my opponent for taking the time to debate this topic. I look forward to reading their response/closing arguments.


Return To Top | Posted:
2019-03-08 15:48:45
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2019-03-16 11:11:43
crossedJudge: crossed
Win awarded to: dpowell3543
kallistar forfeited
0 comments on this judgement
2019-03-16 18:10:32
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: dpowell3543
I mean basically PRO lost this debate by forfeiting, but even if we ignore that, the points they made were not substantiated by evidence or even by citing an anecdotal example. I left just having to take their word for the claims they made. With that approach all CON has to do, (since they get the last word) is contradict PRO. No evidence or reasoning needed, just a simple, "no it won't." would have done.
This is because, with no evidence or examples, it's just two statements of fact. A lousy way to debate.

Thank goodnees that CON actually took the time to type out a basic but clear negation then.
I didn't rate Section 1 that much, but the points raised in Section 2 really hammered it home. Examples were cited and the reasoning was clearly explained.
Clear win to CON, for the forfeit, but also for the arguments.

PRO - you had 4000 characters. You really needed to use them.
You made some strong statements but until you support them with evidence or examples, they are paper thin.

I also would have appreciated an explanation of what a more Globalized Economy would look like, and what it would cost the Indigenous cultures, if anything. It was pretty predictable that CON would be claiming that the cost would be too high, so it would have helped your case to meet that one on the front foot - try to head off some of those arguments before they were made. Especially since this was only a two round debate.

CON - great response. Very easy to follow, and a strong argument. You were essentially conceding some benefits but stating that the cost would be too high.
Reading your argument, my expectation was that you were leading to saying that the indigenous coutures would be wiped out as a result of the Globalization. You kind of said that, but I thought it would have been so much stronger had you tied it to PRO's point. She made the mistake of focussing on the Indigenous PEOPLE, and not the Indigenous CULTURES. Even if she was right, and a globalized economy would have been great for the individual people, the resolution was concerned with their CULTURE. You could have very clearly tied your points to the loss of the culture and gotten the slam dunk.

You DID make these points, especially when you mentioned the UN, but I had to kind of read between the lines and connect the dots myself.

All in all though, great round. Well done.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29