Globalisation has done more harm than good. Do you agree?

1. Definition of globalisation: The opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers. However, it does not include unhindered movement of labor and, as suggested by some economists, may hurt smaller or fragile economies if applied indiscriminately.

1.1. Trade

1.2. Freer exchange of ideas

1.3. Increasing connectivity between countries to decrease the relative distance

1.4. Improved technology in transport and communications

2. Thesis: Globalisation has been largely beneficial

2.1. Opening of markets (e.g. signing of Free Trade Agreements, FTAs)

2.1.1. Increased the level of trading activity between countries to promote growth in revenue

2.2. Ease of access to travel over long distances, allows people to go on holidays to relax and have fun

2.3. Creation of the internet and technological gadgets has allowed people living in different parts of the world to communicate easily (e.g. handphone, computer, video conference)

2.4. Diffusion of knowledge

3. Stand: Disagree that Globalisation has brought about more harm than good.

4. Anti-thesis: However beneficial globalisation is, we cannot ignore the harms that it brought about

4.1. Poorer countries do not have the capital to start trading activities, unable to participate and are lagging behind countries active in trade

4.1.1. Increases the rich poor divide, increasing disparities

4.2. Diffusion of knowledge

4.2.1. Information can be easily spread using modern communication methods such as the internet. Such efficiency can be a bane if messages that were to be spread were harmful (e.g. spread of negative messages to recruit terrorists)