Antiglobalisation Debate on Boards

DeVore

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109111

The recent thread on this topic was facinating and I'd like to see it debated in detail in a public debate via the Pathos/Logos system we've set up. So, can people suggest a formal encapsulated topic for debate and could I call for people to put their names forward For or Against as being willing to be involved in the subsequent debate?

Thanks,
DeV.

shotamoose

Hard to find one motion for discussing such a huge, varied and controversial topic, if it even is a single topic.

but here's some suggestions:
"globalisation is about the expansion of freedom, democracy and justice"
"anti-globalisation protestors are just resisting the inevitable"
"we should globalise justice, not corporate greed"

etc ... I'm sure there'll be better ideas ...

chill

Originally posted by DeVore
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109111

The recent thread on this topic was facinating and I'd like to see it debated in detail in a public debate via the Pathos/Logos system we've set up.

What the 'ell is that when it's at home ?

invincibleirish

i suppose a topic could be "have anti globalisation protests(violent or otherwise) actually had an impact on the globalisation process".

DadaKopf

Too faffy. The debate should be about facts, not conjecture. The topics should be more solid.

gom

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Too faffy. The debate should be about facts, not conjecture. The topics should be more solid.

Globalisation: "Shaping a better society"

I think that a title for the debate should be short and simplistic. Something that can polorise opinion. Perhaps me topic title is too short.


I would definitly wish to take part if the topic is as I suggest or similar. I'd fall on the "Against" side of the fence for the above.

DadaKopf

It's also that the term globalisation can be interpreted different ways, so taking a topic like 'trade liberalisation' or at least specifying the definition of globalisation in the motion would make the debate less wishy-washy.

gom

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's also that the term globalisation can be interpreted different ways, so taking a topic like 'trade liberalisation' or at least specifying the definition of globalisation in the motion would make the debate less wishy-washy.

And as another safe guard to wishy-washy loss of substance. Certain things should be no-go areas. Such as try to justify or condemn the actions of Anti-Globalist protestors or the police and authorities that crack down on them...
Of the topic is...

Trade-Liberisation: "Shaping a better society"

Perhaps it should sitck to the Economic effects of Trade-Liberisation and not the Socio-Democratic effects.

DadaKopf

I think the argument should incorporate both. Arguing through two different lenses and attempting to synthesise the two views could be more interesting. It might also make team strategy more effective. So the motion should be concrete but it should also give enough scope to cover all the important areas.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's also that the term globalisation can be interpreted different ways, so taking a topic like 'trade liberalisation' or at least specifying the definition of globalisation in the motion would make the debate less wishy-washy.

But surely that level of ambiguity is essential to enable both sides to take a defensible position.

Indeed, I would go further and say that debate is most usefully about interpretation and conjecture rather than just pure fact - it is about the interpretation of fact, and the conjecture of where the implications of this interpretation will lead us.

Just looking at globalisation - the reality of the globalist trade liberalisation / free markets we are discussing here. There are scant few genuine facts which show that it is a good thing. We have lots of people telling us that it should be good, others telling us it will be good, and some more telling us that if others' weren't making a mess of it....it would be great. But there's precious few facts showing that its the best option - or even a good thing - in the way it has been implemented to date.

So - what facts are there to debate?

Ultimately, the pro-globalisation ppl would either have to take a stance of "its good for the rich, and screw the poor cause I aint one of them", or come up with conjecture about how it might be good if it were implemented properly, or conjecture about how the current path we tread may ultimately prove to be a good one......

Debate is not about fact. Its about interpretation, opinion and conjecture.....all of which should be supported by fact.

Getting caught up in the wording of the title simply shows how interpretation etc. are obviously important

jc

HaVoC

i would like in on the debate.

with the E.U. forming up for centralisation total globalisation is getting closer and closer

how about

"Globalisation: 1st world money grabbing or global evolution??"

DadaKopf

I meant that whatever the topic ends up being that it's a definite motion and not something vague because that'd just be a really boring debate.

I guess what I meant is: it has to be meaty.

DeVore

Its going to be either this topic or the RTS one. Both need proposed debating topics....

We should really discuss this in Pathos but here is ok too since its going to be a political debate anyway!

DeV.

bonkey

Personally, I'd favour the RTS one, because in a very real sense it is a concrete example of antiglobalisation, it is irish-relevant, and it is most definitely something that opinions are highly split over.

jc

DeVore

will we be seeing you declaring for the other team Bonkey?

DeV.

bonkey

I'll wait to see what the final "firmed-up" topic is, and what the level of interest from others in participating is.

Also, the dates and times of the first debate may not suit me....depending on when they are fixed for.

But allowing for all that....I'd have to provisionally say "yes".

jc

DeVore

The way I'll be intending to do it is to see who puts their names in for the Great Debate and from them I will pick a team captain for each side. The captains then choose their lieutenants (presumably people they feel comfortable working/debating with) and we go from there.

I'm also going to be looking for a guest Judge to join myself and Fergus Cassidy of the Tribune who has agreed to judge it too.
(any suggestions anyone??)

DeV.

SkepticOne

A short definition of globalism would be helpful to frame the debate. It is a fairly broad term and if you don't define it you will simply get people listing off their grievances with the world.

shotamoose

I'll provisionally put my name forward for the debate, but it's all still very up in the air.

The Corinthian

Structured debate on emotive issues are impratical.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Structured debate on emotive issues are impratical.

I would have said "more interesting", instead of "impractical".

In general, I think the first thing anyone should do looking at any debate they may be interested in is to say to themselves "can I handle this topic". If its too emotive for you, then the answer should be no.

deV....I'm a "provisional" too. As mentioned above...once there's a topic and dates, I'll let you know for sure.

jc

Turnip

Topic ideas :

How should the process of globalisation be implemented?

How will new technologies affect social, cultural and political relations?

DeVore

It needs to be a statement so that we can have Ayes and Nays...

"RTS has been effective in raising awareness of our urban decay."

or

"Globalisation is the next inevitable step on the path humans started down when coinage was invented. Those who resist it are battling against the sea."

anyone else want to have a go at framing such a statement?

DeV.

Turnip

Oh I see, ok.

How about - "The current process of globalisation while not perfect is still better than any alternative."

Originally posted by DeVore
"Globalisation is the next inevitable step on the path humans started down when coinage was invented. Those who resist it are battling against the sea."

That's no good because the anti-globalisation mob say they're not opposed to globalisation but rather they're opposed to having a particular economic model globalised...even though it's the model people vote for. Real democrats they are. :rolleyes:

Duffman

Suggestion:

"Globalisation is good for Africa"

Turnip

"Democracy is fundamentally a bad idea."

Some neo-fascist and wannabe communist types have explicitly said this or something similar here recently. I'd be interested to see a debate about it. There seems to be a resurgence of political extremism at the moment. Tends to happen following a period of liberalism.