The Instigator
19146md
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maven
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Free Trade should be Valued above protectionism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Maven
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,951 times Debate No: 14882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

19146md

Pro

This debate is created purely to help me get ready for LD district. Thank you:

UIL Spring 2011 Aff
Free trade is efficient. Think about your own home. You could become self-sufficient and grow
your own food and make your own furniture. But in most cases, you'll be better off spending
the same amount of time working at whatever your best at, earning the money to buy these
goods from experts at producing them, and having plenty left over for other goods. I ask you
judge(s), "would you make something when you could buy it cheaper from outside your home"?
The same applies to states. Alaska could spend lots of money on hothouses and grow oranges
and banana's, and become self-sufficient. But it's far better for Alaska to specialize in oil, and
use the wealth it gains to import oranges and bananas from Florida, which has the weather for
it. What's true of state borders is just as true for international ones. It makes more sense for
Americans to work in businesses in which they excel, and use this wealth to trade for goods in
which other countries excel. Because of these reasons, today I must affirm the resolved: Free
trade should be valued above protectionism. The standing value for today's debate is societal
good, which is taking action for the good or advancement of a society as a whole. The criterion
that shall be used in conjunction with societal good is the law of comparative advantage, which
declares that every nation can improve its economic position by specialzing in the most efficient
product lines available to them. I offer the following definitions for clarity in todays round: Free
trade- an economic concept referring to the selling of products between countries without tariffs or other
trade barriers. From American Heritage
Protectionism- the economic policy of promoting favored domestic industries through the use of high
tariffs and other regulations to discourage imports. From wordiq.com
Contention 1: Free Trade promotes Peace and
prosperity.
Each person has a natural right to be free from arbitrary interference. Trade barriers
disrupt voluntary and mutually beneficial activities. Protectionist policies reduce social harmony.
Free trade breaks down barriers and the narrowness of provincialism, increases tolerance, and
encourages friendly relations. Voluntary exchange counteracts nationalistic tendencies and
replaces parochial attitudes with a global perspective. Trade requires one to understand the
customs of the people he is trading with. Free trade is about peace. The removal of trade barriers
would help the cause of universal peace and minimize conflicts around the world. When trade is
free, consumers gain from the products of other countries and friendships and trust develop.
Third world countries are helped through free trade. By removing our trade barriers, we can give
private firms in third world nations easier access to our markets. If our government placed tariffs
or trade barriers, then the countries would not be able to buy as much from us. Not only will the
residents of these nations have the chance to develop new industries and expand their existing
ones, their contract with peopke from free nations have the chance to develop new industries
and expand their existing ones, their contract with people from free nations will promote the
recognition of human rights and worker rights all over the world.
Contention 2: Protectionism undermines prosperity.
A: Protectionism weakens U.S industries
Hiding behind trade barriers has not even proven to be good for the
protected industries in the long run. Protected sectors tend to grow weaker
and less competitive when shielded from competition. High trade barriers
have not "saved" the domestic textile, apparel, footwear, and other low-end
manufacturing secters from long-term decline and lost jobs. Higher domestic
prices forced on consumers also dampen demand and promote substitutes,
shrinking the domestic market.
B: Protectionism ultimately leads to economic
collapse.
From a Washington Post article, Jan 28, 2009; Once an engine of global growth, trade is already
set to decline by 2% in 2009, according to the World Bank. It could collapse all together if
countries start shutting out one another's goods in a short-sighted effort to salvage domestic
industries. The United States started one such trade war in 1930, when it enacted a tariff increase
that prompted European retaliation-thus helping turn a bad recession into the Great Depression.
Better to learn from this history than repeat it.
Contention 3: Free Trade minimizes threats to
World problems.
A. Poverty is the main cause of destruction.
Unfortunately, not every nation can afford to protect the enviroment in the ways that the United
States does. According to John A. Charles at Cascade Policy Institute. " A recent report by
the World Trade Organization reinforces these points. The report concludes: One reason why
enviromental protection is lagging in many countries is low incomes. Countries that live on
the margin may simply not be able to afford to set aside resources for pollution abatements.
If poverty is the core of the problem, economic growth will be part of the solution". These
countries don't have the money to protect the enviroment and they don't have the technology to
know that they are destroying the enviroment. Not to mention the growing population of these
countries is polluting large amounts of water and land because of human waste.
B. Free Trade offers the superior solution to
Poverty
From Daniel Griswold at Cato Institute.
"How do we expect hundreds of millions of people to pull themselves out of poverty if we
do not allow them access to global Markets? It is morally and economically incoherent to
denounce global poverty and sweatshops one moment and to denounce imports from and foreign
investment to the very same countries where the poor people actually live." We cannot continue
to let countries limit trade like they do if we want any sort of future for ourselves and our
children. From Douglas Irwin, Dartmouth College. "Countries that restricted foreign trade and
investment may have avoided foreign exploitation, but remained desperately poor nonetheless.
Meanwhile, international trade created opportunities that in fact promoted development and
reduced poverty. Many countries that encourage trade did not remain stuck producing just raw
materials, but began exporting an increasing array of labor-intensive manufactured goods."
If these countries opened their trade to all nations and allowed foreign exploitation, it would
actually benefit these countries economically and allow them to stand up on their feet and start to
contribute large quantities of money to environmental protection, which leads to my next point.
C. Enviromental threats are best adressed
through poverty reduction
From Bjorn Lomborg, political science, University of Aarhus, Denmark.
"We have grown to believe that we are faced with an inescapable choice between higher
economic welfare and a greener environment. But, Surprisingly…environmental development
ofter stems from economic development—only when we get sufficiently rich can we afford the
relative luxury of caring about the environment"
The priority of the rich is to secure their future and the main threat to their future is the
destruction of the environment. This is why people with little economic worries would help the
poor by allowing free trade.
Maven

Con

In our world theres no fairness in the free market. Removing taxes will open the barriers for goods from all the world to travel freely, you propose that the countries should focus in the good they can take more advantage of(alaska and its oil for example) but is not as easy as that;there are no equal countries with equal conditions: the facts of resources available, internal political issues, and even and location can affect them.

Lets see the resources; not all countries have the machinery to produce in mass what they could, alaska can focus on its oil; it would be a great provider to the USA, it is close so it means less cost on transportation, alaska could replace other oil sources that has more cost due to transportation(venezuela for example), now they lost a major buyer. The renewable capacity is other factor, the nonrenewable(diamonds,gold) are easy to sell thanks to their rareness, but hard to obtain, and countries that focus on then(most of african countries) have to face that soon or later those goods are going to dissapear, and the money they invest in machinery would be wasted as there no machines able to create diamonds or oil.

The actual political situation is a determinant factor on free trade, most countries in the world, including first world ones, have to deal with inflation and depreciation isn't a determinant issue for strong countries, but in the third world countries it actually generates a barrier, the high inflation of some African countries makes for them impossible to compete in a global market, with high cost and low earnings who can?
the concept of free market is based on a non-existent equality.
Debate Round No. 1
19146md

Pro

My opponent provided no arguments. Therefore he agrees with my case
Maven

Con

The concept of free market is based on a non-existent equality,therefore is not suitable.
What are you saying? i have an argument.
Debate Round No. 2
19146md

Pro

My opponent has provided no structure to his case, so therefore it is invalid. Moving on, My opponent has showed no proof. Therefore, you should vote con.

P.S- Your mom! :D
Maven

Con

I really dont have anything to say, at least i tried to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
Two words: Great Deppression
Also two more: Greedy People
Posted by Suitecake 5 years ago
Suitecake
lol @ 'my opponent presented no arguments; therefore he agrees with my case'
Posted by Necrophiliator 5 years ago
Necrophiliator
No sources.

B(
Posted by 19146md 5 years ago
19146md
Thanks!
Posted by wonderwoman 5 years ago
wonderwoman
I almost want to use Machiavellism to defeat this.
Posted by BullEviscerator 5 years ago
BullEviscerator
Why laissez faire doesn't work:
1) Comparative Advantage's premise of insular capitals isn't fulfilled. (Free capital flow between countries work towards an absolute advantage)
2) Kills small businesses

I would accept except I don't know how to debate LD. :P
Posted by Sniperjake1994 5 years ago
Sniperjake1994
i assume I'll be able to critique?
Posted by Sniperjake1994 5 years ago
Sniperjake1994
protectionism protects/restricts trade. fair trade is simply a mean of equal opportunity to trade
Posted by KikoSanchez182 5 years ago
KikoSanchez182
Sorry, I don't know that much about the subject tbh. What is the difference between protectionism and fair trade?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
19146mdMavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro acted immaturely Con made a better argument
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
19146mdMavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate ended when Pro simply refused to continue.
Vote Placed by Green_Man 5 years ago
Green_Man
19146mdMavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with CiRrK
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
19146mdMavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting con because Pro just exploited the round to get arguments for himself