The Instigator
Tophatdoc
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,692 times Debate No: 42263
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Tophatdoc

Pro

This debate is about whether Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism. I as the Pro side, will be arguing that Free Trade is better than Protectionism in American society.

Debate Structure
Round 1- Acceptance only.
Round 2- Opening Arguments.
Round 3- Rebuttals.
Round 4-Closing Arguments. No new evidence.
Guidestone

Con

This should be a fun debate.

I accept, and will try to prove protectionism is better than free trade for American society.
Debate Round No. 1
Tophatdoc

Pro

I would like to thank the Con side for accepting this debate.

Free Trade is better than protectionism for the following five reasons.

1. Free Trade is good for Americans
Free Trade is good for Americans because consumers will benefit from producer surplus. This would be how Americans can consume at an overwhelming alarming rate. An example of this would be Walmart. Walmart can produce goods at a cheaper rate and consumers can purchase at a cheaper price[1]. Free Trade allows Americans to consume more at a cheaper price.

[1]http://www.forbes.com...

2.Free Trade is good for the impoverished
As I said in #1, Free Trade allows consumers to consume more because of the surplus. This is most beneficial to those who are poor. The poor can consume and won't have to worry about their finances as they would under protectionism. Free Trade according to the World Trade Organizations helps to reduce poverty.

[2]http://www.wto.org...

3. Free Trade eliminates incompetent competitors
For example, Free Trade allowed the Japanese to bring cars to America. The US auto manufacturers brought out the Pinto, Pacer, and Vega to compete but failed miserably. Americans should not have to purchase inferior products for the sake of incompetent producers.

[3]http://www.nbcnews.com...

4.Free Trade encourages economic development
With Free Trade, foreign companies and American companies can invest in each other's countries. This allows corporations to have an interest in the economic growth of other countries.

5. Free Trade leads to a more mutually satisfying foreign policy
Countries are mutually invested in each other. Therefore countries are less likely to go to war with one another. Countries engaged in a Free Trade agreement will reconsider going to war because they will suffer economically as a result. Free Trade also prevents the United States from getting into trade wars with other countries in the vile exchange of tariffs and quotas.
Guidestone

Con

1. Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social Good
Things such as Labor Unions, Environmental protection, minimum wage, child labor, health and safety standards causes prices of goods to go up. Since it would be cheaper to produce the same products in places that don't have these, free trade allows them to move to those countries and avoid those policies. While Protectionism makes everyone play on the same field, and even encourages countries to adopt some of those polices to try to avoid tariffs, or quotas. "While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held at least partly in check by the brave new fact of off shoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far" [1]

2. Free Trade causes job loss
When countries can make the same products at a lower price than America then those jobs move there causing unemployment. 2,273,392 jobs were outsourced in 2011 [2] When Jobs are loss less people earn money, when less earn money there is less spending, when there is less spending companies cut cost by outsourcing or firing workers, and it continues from there. Also trade deficit caused by free trade creates more unemployment.

Jobs displaced due to trade deficict with Mexico, 2010

3. Free Trade causes Trade Deficits
When companies outsource jobs it makes the US export less and/or import more which causes trade deficits. "In 1993, before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, the U.S. had a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico, which supported 29,400 U.S. jobs. Since then, imports from Mexico have grown much faster than U.S. exports, resulting in large trade deficits that have displaced 682,900 jobs nationwide since 1994." [3] "U.S. Trade Deficits Grow More Than 440% with FTA Countries, but Decline 7% with Non-FTA Countries" [4]

4. Free Trade creates undesirable interdependency
With economies all linked together it does prevent wars as long as everything is good, but lets say a country, Greece, starts experiencing economic problems. The whole European Union would be effected eventually effecting the whole world. The economic downturn in one country quickly effects all other countries. This is can also be seen in the great depression. Countries that were self-sufficient like the USSR or Japan had significantly less unemployment than countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc. [5]


Sources
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[3] http://keystoneresearch.org...
[4] http://citizen.typepad.com...
[5] http://elsa.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Tophatdoc

Pro

"Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social Good"
No, Free Trade is merely an agreement between countries. Free Trade does not regulate how countries are supposed to dictate their domestic policies.

Free Trade-"a system of trade between nations in which there are no special taxes placed on imports"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"Things such as Labor Unions, Environmental protection, minimum wage, child labor, health and safety standards causes prices of goods to go up. Since it would be cheaper to produce the same products in places that don't have these, free trade allows them to move to those countries and avoid those policies. "

Your mistaken. Many countries within the European Union and in the EEA have labor unions, environmental protection, wage floors, high health and high safety standards. The European Union has European Economic Area(EEA) which is Free Trade between EU member states and a few EFTA members states. Countries in the EU and EFTA have more of these "social goods" than the United States. They are engaged in Free Trade.

http://www.efta.int...

"While Protectionism makes everyone play on the same field, and even encourages countries to adopt some of those polices to try to avoid tariffs, or quotas. "

Protectionism does not "make everyone play on the same field" as Con would have you believe. Let us revisit the Tariff Reform debate in early 20th century Britain. The debate for Tariff Reform was because most of the countries Great Britain traded with had tariffs. Great Britain was a free trader. So they wouldn't "play on the same field." I would argue Protectionism can lead to tireless imperialism as well. As Joe Chamberlain, Cecil Rhodes, and others knew that for Protectionism to work effectively is to have more capital than other countries.
http://www.jstor.org...

""While corporate profits soar, individual wages stagnate, held at least partly in check by the brave new fact of off shoring -- that millions of Americans' jobs can be performed at a fraction of the cost in developing nations near and far""
Protectionism is crony capitalism. Corporations are allowed to sap the American populace in uncompetitive markets. Corporations are allowed to reap more profits under Protectionism than under Free Trade.

Murray Rothbard- Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity
http://mises.org...

Corporate profits are increasing because there is a higher rate of consumption(1). People a century ago did not have the cpaacity to consume as much as we do in today's time.

(1)http://www.pbs.org...

"individual wages stagnate"
Wages are relative to industry. If your thinking about how Walmart and McDonald's. Think again, most employees only stay and work between five-six months at either. Employees who work for such a short period of time have a limited amount of productivity due to their lack of experience.

"When countries can make the same products at a lower price than America then those jobs move there causing unemployment. 2,273,392 jobs were outsourced in 2011"
The products tend to be inferior which is something the Con forgot. My opponent has also equated the American population of over 300 million to a feeble 2 million. The interests of the mass is worth more than the interest of the few. The majority should consume less so that 2 million can have jobs. More Americans should risk falling into poverty to consume American products(2). To compare the suffering of 2 million does not equate to the suffering of 300 million. What the Con doesn't say is that job losses are temporary, not permanent. People will usually be payed around the same wage they were previously employed at because of their productivity. For example, an automotive engineer will not be flipping burgers at McDonald's if his company outsourced his job. He will be able to find another engineering job at a different firm because he is a skilled worker.

(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Also trade deficit caused by free trade creates more unemployment. "
No, it doesn't(3). Foreign firms invest in the United States and employ Americans. Seventeen million Americans are employed because of Free Trade(4).
(3)http://www.cato.org...
(4)http://blog.heritage.org...

" Free Trade causes Trade Deficits.........U.S. Trade Deficits Grow More Than 440% with FTA Countries, but Decline 7% with Non-FTA Countries"
Of course, many countries are consuming more then they produce. The United States is one of the best examples of this phenomena. Trade deficits are not bad(5). Americans are consuming more Mexican goods. We are helping to employ more Mexicans while we reap the benefits of their hard labor.
(5)http://www.radford.edu...

"Free Trade creates undesirable interdependency"
Interdependency is desirable , Free Trade agreements are consensual.

"The whole European Union would be effected eventually effecting the whole world. The economic downturn in one country quickly effects all other countries."
This is inconsequential because it is inherently part of the economic cycle. Busts will happen inevitably in free market economies. Countries have recovered from them. The United States and the United Kingdom have had multiple booms and busts but are still some of the strongest economies in the world.

" Countries that were self-sufficient like the USSR or Japan"
The USSR are was a command economy. Of course unemployment would be low because they didn't even have a free market. The United States was far superior in economic development compared to the USSR(6). Japan during the Great Depression was involved in a war in Manchuria during the Great Depression . War stimulates the economy and create jobs. Post-World War 2 Japan was not self sufficient.

(6)http://www.foia.cia.gov...
Guidestone

Con


1. Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social Good
Yes, free trade is an agreement between countries, but I am talking about the consequences of actions. True, free trade does not regulate how countries are supposed to dictate their domestic policies, but that is the problem. Since in free trade favors the cheapest production it gives countries financial incentive to not enact laws dealing with labor unions, environmental protection, minimum wage, etc. This does happen in countries we have free trade with such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic still uses child labor [1] If the US enacts Protectionism will it make goods produced by child labor more expense; therefore, it will be less bought. It will also favor Domestic products which would fund American jobs and the economy which is better for American society than free trade.
It does make countries play on the same field because it raises the prices of products that doesn't use policies such as abolishing child labor, or environmental protection. Just because a country uses free trade doesn't make protectionism not make countries on the same field like my opponent claims. As far as causing imperialism free trade is great for that from the Opium Wars, and Banana Wars.
American markets are not uncompetitive since we have anti-trust laws. Further, Protectionism doesn't mean that no trade will take place it just means countries using unfair practices will pay the price when they export their products. Korean cars would still have made its way to the United States, so claiming it will make it uncompetitive is false. If corporate profits are better under protectionism that means more people are buying domestic products which means more American Jobs which is better for American society.
"As underdeveloped countries attempt to cut costs to gain a price advantage, many workers in these countries face low pay, substandard working conditions and even forced labor and abusive child labor. This “race to the bottom,” as critics call this drive to cut costs at the expense of human rights, is a key target of protests aimed at the WTO. Yet the WTO states it does not consider a manufacturer’s treatment of workers reason for countries to bar importation of that manufacturer's products. The WTO notes developing countries insist any attempt to include working conditions in trade agreements is meant to end their cost advantage in the world market." [3]

2. Free Trade causes job loss
Even if the products are inferior it still results in job loss, so I don't see the point of this. A feeble 2 million? That is still a huge number and deserve attention. The interest of the mass is worth more than the few? This same reason was used to justify all sorts of horrible things like the Holocaust, Segregation, etc. The minority deserves protection too. Consumption would not fall because more people would be domestically employed and those people would be buying more domestic products. Poverty would decrease because jobs would be moving back into America because it could be cheaper for companies to produce the products here, which results in more employment, which results in less poverty. It isn't the skilled jobs that are being outsourced anyways it is the jobs the impoverished would take, meaning free trade is actually worse for the impoverished Americans.

3. Free Trade causes Trade Deficits
Trade deficits are bad because it only increases our huge national debt. Yes, free trade is employing a lot of Mexicans, but at the cost of American Jobs. This means free trade is worse for American society than protectionism. This point still stands.

4. Free Trade creates undesirable interdependency
Busts will happen in an economy, but global depressions would be avoided. When the recent depression happened global trade fell significantly. [2] This resulted in the biggest depression since the 1930s. Free trade makes a domino effect; once one economy falls it takes all the others down. Also, it could lead to bullying. If a country is dependent on another country to keep their economy they are effectively subordinate to that country. For political freedom, economic independence is necessary. This requires abandonment of free trade. Just because we can recover from recessions doesn't mean we should not try to avoid them in the first place. The examples of the USSR and Japan are to show countries can avoid a global depression with the right trade policy, and of course Post-World War 2 Japan wasn't self sufficient we wiped 2 of their production cities off the map and firebombed their capital.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.voxeu.org...
[3] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...



Debate Round No. 3
Tophatdoc

Pro

“True, free trade does not regulate how countries are supposed to dictate their domestic policies, but that is the problem”
My opponent has not shown that protectionism will dictate the creation of more social goods either. Argentina, the most protectionist country in the world according to the World Bank, has severe forms of child labor taking place(1). There has been no evidence provided by my opponent that suggest protectionism equals more social goods. In fact if we want to speak historically, when the United States was most protectionist in the 19th century there was less labor laws and less worker's rights. Child labor was common(2) and unions(3) were not recognized by employers or the government(3). To imply that protectionism creates more social goods is wrong.

(1)http://www.dol.gov...
(2)http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...
(3)http://www.rense.com...

“This does happen in countries we have free trade with such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic still uses child labor”
The United States has a Free Trade agreement with Mexico. Mexico has child labor laws(4) and a minimum wage(5). Again, the countries that Con is referring to are underdeveloped. Underdeveloped countries tend to have child labor whether it is illegal or not. This was the case as I pointed with Argentina, who is protectionist. Correlation is not causation. Free Trade has nothing to do with the creation of child labor. Child labor has existed in these countries prior to their Free Trade agreements.

(4)http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
(5)http://www.marketwatch.com...

“If the US enacts Protectionism will it make goods produced by child labor more expense; therefore, it will be less bought. It will also favor Domestic products which would fund American jobs and the economy which is better for American society than free trade.”
This plan would only result in impoverishing more Americans at the expense of a minority of Americans gaining jobs. Consuming Americans goods is already expensive. Now, my opponent suggest Americans should consume more to benefit a minority of Americans. The level of consumption of American goods will increase depending on what Protectionist method is used(Tariff/Quota). Therefore, American goods' prices would soar. Who would be affected? The lower and middle classes of the United States. Lower class Americans would no longer be able to drive to work if we put a tariff on OPEC. Middle class Americans wouldn't be able to choose to eat healthy foods from Latin America because of a tariff. Essentially middle class and lower class Americans would have to restrict their consumption. They would consume less. Less consumption is worse for the economy. That is not good for America. Nor is it better for America. It is worse for America.

“It does make countries play on the same field because it raises the prices of products that doesn't use policies such as abolishing child labor, or environmental protection.”
No, it does not make countries play on the same field. The only thing that is on the same field is that the price of all products non American increase. Countries would sell their goods to other countries aside from the United States who would want to consume what they offered regardless of child labor or environmental protection. So it does not make them play on the same field as Con claims.

“Just because a country uses free trade doesn't make protectionism not make countries on the same field like my opponent claims.”
I don't even understand what your saying.
“As far as causing imperialism free trade is great for that from the Opium Wars, and Banana Wars. “
If Free Trade causes a great amount of imperialism. The Con has just further shown that Free Trade would be better for America. The imposing country reaps the rewards of imperialism. Britain reaped the rewards of the Opium Wars and the United States benefited from the Banana Wars. So Free Trade did benefit America more.

“American markets are not uncompetitive since we have anti-trust laws. Further, Protectionism doesn't mean that no trade will take place it just means countries using unfair practices will pay the price when they export their products. Korean cars would still have made its way to the United States, so claiming it will make it uncompetitive is false.”
Con has made a fallacious claim. No one has mentioned in this entire debate that American markets were “uncompetitive.” I have only mentioned Protectionism protects incompetent competitors. Also Protectionism does make the market less competitive because the government is raising the prices on a foreign firm's goods. Therefore, incompetent firms can compete in markets to produce inferior goods at higher prices due to Protectionism.

“ If corporate profits are better under protectionism that means more people are buying domestic products which means more American Jobs which is better for American society.”
More American jobs at the expense of the 300 million Americans paying higher prices. Poverty would increase exceptionally because people will have to consume at a higher price.

“ The interest of the mass is worth more than the few? This same reason was used to justify all sorts of horrible things like the Holocaust, Segregation, etc. The minority deserves protection too. “
Con has committed a fallacy, Appeal to Emotion. Con has also used Godwin's Law. The benefits of the majority outweigh the benefits of the minority in Free Trade. Unlike Protectionism which protects a few American jobs, a few American corporations, at the behest of the rest of America.

“Consumption would not fall because more people would be domestically employed and those people would be buying more domestic products. Poverty would decrease because jobs would be moving back into America because it could be cheaper for companies to produce the products here, which results in more employment, which results in less poverty.”
I have already refuted this point in the first round when I addressed American consumption. Consumption would fall because American goods more. Then the prices of American goods would rise due to the American goods being consumed. There would be no consumer surplus. Therefore people would consume a lot less. Poverty would increase due to the rise in prices. Only 2 million jobs would move back to America. 2 million jobs is not even a quarter of the adult American workforce. It is insignificant compared to the overall 300 Americans who reap the benefits of Free Trade.

“Yes, free trade is employing a lot of Mexicans, but at the cost of American Jobs.”
I have already refuted this claim because the job losses were temporary not permanent.

“If a country is dependent on another country to keep their economy they are effectively subordinate to that country. For political freedom, economic independence is necessary. This requires abandonment of free trade.”
If this is the case as Con says, this would further the case why the United States should engage in Free Trade. The United States could benefit from having more countries subordinate to it. This would be better for American society, not worse.

“The examples of the USSR and Japan are to show countries can avoid a global depression with the right trade policy”
Of course but Con forgot to mention the fact that neither of these countries were close to being the largest economies when he is referring. The United States and other countries had busts because they were developing. The United has been the largest economy since the 1870s. The countries that Con has mentioned in this context(USSR, pre-WW2 Japan) are inconsequential by comparison.

“The examples of the USSR and Japan are to show countries can avoid a global depression with the right trade policy”
That doesn't show that Protectionism prevents depressions. The United States created the Smoot_Hartley Tariff right before the Depression began to impact severely in 1930(6). None of it has to to do with trade because they were command economies already. North Korea doesn't suffer busts because it is a command economy. The people all equally suffer. That is not acceptable for the United States.
(6)http://future.state.gov...

Let's sum up my points in this argument:
1. Free Trade does not undermine the Social Good
I already refuted my opponent's argument that Free Trade undermines social good. He has selectively chosen the results of Free Trade in underdeveloped countries. Underdeveloped countries tend to have cheaper production due to significant amount of low productivity. Lower productivity equals lower wages. Why is there less productivity? That is because there is a less educated citizenry.

I have already pointed to the European Union and the European Free Trade Association that have more social goods then the United States. These countries engage in more Free Trade and have more "social goods." So the idea that Free Trade undermines social good is empirically wrong.

2.Free Trade is good for Americans

3.Free Trade is good for the impoverished

4.Free Trade encourages economic development

5.Free Trade leads to a more mutually satisfying foreign policy

6. Free Trade does not make everyone play on the same field

7.Protectionism is crony capitalism

8. Free Trade creates jobs

9. Protectionism creates more poverty

The Con side has not shown how Free Trade is better for Americans. Instead he has shown that Free Trade is better for a select minority of Americans. The United States is made up of over 300 million Americans, not two million. Everyone reaps the benefits of Free Trade regardless of race, religion, gender, unionized, or nonunionized. A vote for protectionism is a vote for crony capitalism. A vote for Free Trade is a vote for all Americans. Vote Pro.
Guidestone

Con

1. Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social Good
I have shown how free trade gives economic incentive to keep laws regarding minimum wage, child labor, environmental protection from being implemented. We were protectionist in the 19th century, but that was for creating industries. Those tariffs allowed US industry to grow without being crushed by international competitors. Especially rebuilding after a devastating civil war, it ensure our economic self-sufficiency. Also, before the free trade agreement was signed in 1985 with Israel [3], the US abolished Child labor [1], established a minimum wage [2], and most social goods were made while using these protectionist polices.
Mexico still has problem with child labor according to the world bank [4]. Even if they are underdeveloped it doesn't mean that free trade still doesn't give incentive to not establish restrictions. My opponent stated " Free Trade has nothing to do with the creation of child labor." making people think that my position is that free trade causes child labor. I said no such thing. This is a logical fallacy called a strawman [5]; he misrepresent my view to make it easier to refute. My actual position was that free trade give financial incentive to not pass laws regarding child labor which my opponent has not refuted.
Protectionism would help the impoverished unlike what my opponent would have you believe. When my opponent says the goods are expensive that just means they are more expensive than goods produced by countries like china, and El Salvador who use child labor. He is right that it would cause consumption to go up, but that is good since it is consumption that drives the economy. However, he fails to see the full effects on the economy. Yes demand will increase, but supply increases as well because those millions of new workers are making products too. This increase in supply will drop prices. Further, increase demand leads to lower prices of local goods. I will give an example a local shop sells 100 items this local shop needs to cover all its overhead expense on those 100 items, but since in protectionism consumption goes up to lets say 120. Now the overhead cost of the local business is spread around 120 items instead of 100, thus lowering the price of each item.
There is another important economic effect, the decrease of unemployment. Since millions of people are now working and self sufficient they no longer need to be on welfare, food stamps, other social programs which in turn decreases government spending. Also, since people are self sufficient they have a less of a reason to turn to crime for money, so it would result in less crime too. I agree with my opponent the lower and middle class are effected, they are in a better economic situation than under free trade.
It does make countries play on the same field. Of course it is only in the United States because that is who would be enacting the tariff. To claim that I meant it would make a fair playing field globally is absurd and another strawman.
You said protectionism makes markets uncompetitive, and I responded that they wouldn't be uncompetitive because we have anti-trust laws, and that protectionism doesn't mean there is no trade. That wasn't fallacious like my opponent claims. Protectionism might protect "incompetent" industries for a short time, but if they are really incompetent they will fail to another domestic industry or foreign if they the foreign industry is that much better.
Concluding, Companies (local and large) make more money, more people are employed, consumption rises the only loser here is other countries; therefore, protectionism is better for American society than free trade.
2. Free Trade causes job loss
This isn't an appeal to emotion. "t's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position." [6] The argument I made is a logical argument called reductio ad absurdum, which is "the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating that its logical conclusion is absurd." [7] Your statement that the benefits of the majority outweighs the benefits of the minority logically concludes that things like the Holocaust, segregation, etc. are not bad since the majority benefited from the minority.
3. Free Trade causes Trade Deficits
Those job losses are permanent unless they come back or new ones open up. If there are 100 jobs and 100 people then 10 jobs are outsourced there are now 10 unemployed. It is important to note that unemployed means looking for any work and not getting it. No matter how "temporary" it is it still causes economic harm. What is temporary anyways six months, six years either way it wasn't permanent because they got a job.
4. Free Trade creates undesirable interdependency
You assume the United States would be on the better end of imperialism. You also assume that America would be the country with subordinates. This isn't true in 1979 we had a major oil crisis because we were too dependent on foreign oil and it hurt our economy severely [8]. Economic interdependency is bad, it would be better if other countries mistakes didn't affect the US.
The size of the economy doesn't matter in this case, if you are not dependent on other countries economically you can not be affected if they have economic hardship. Think of it like dominoes and you have two rows if one row falls the other is still standing. In free trade the countries are lined up in one row of dominoes and as soon as one falls they all fall. In protectionism the US is in a separate row an not effected by other's falling.
"The United States and other countries had busts because they were developing." Apparently Japan and the USSR industrialization does not count as developing.

I have shown that free trade keeps Americans out of work, that it keeps people impoverished, it hurts economic growth with trade deficits, that it makes countries dependent for vital resources, that it protects our social goods, and it loses American jobs.
Concluding Protectionism is better for American society than Free Trade.

Sources
[1] http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...]
[2] http://www.dol.gov...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.worldbank.org...
[5] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[6] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[8] http://www.autonews.com...
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
TophatdocGuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made multiple appeals to emotion in this debate which was not relevant to the free trade argument. Holocaust and child labor are appeals to emotion regardless of the stance of Con in the last round. For this reason I hand the arguments to Pro, as logic and reason allowed my to asses that free trades would be more effective. In contrast with Con I had to sift through the words, to find the meaning and so it was not convincing. Conduct points and source points are shared, even though the debate seemed to be getting heated at the end. I am awarding grammar and spelling to Pro, as the formatting used by Con made the debate very difficult to read. I eventually cut and paste the text in word to read it.