The Instigator
19146md
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Free trade should be valued above 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 3 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,296 times Debate No: 14853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

19146md

Con

Uil Spring 2011 Neg
"When goods are not allowed to cross borders, soldiers will"- Frederic Bastiat. A country can only produce as efficiently as its cultural values, reflected in its business ethics and labor laws, allow. In a country such as the United States, productivity is limited to the extent that it does not involve child labor, long labor hours, forced labor, or unsafe working conditions. So what happens if a country does not have the same standards as we do? Well, they might produce the goods more efficiently, in a manner of speaking. The problem is the efficiency your consumers gain comes at the expense of the cultural value your buying power once maintained. Here's an illustration: lets say that a Chinese child laborer, henforth known as a (ccl) works for $.10 an hour, whereas a U.S laborer, known as a (usl) in the same field earns $8.00 an hour. Assuming the product is of the same quality, you can afford to hire up to 80 ccls for every one usl. Your efficiency is seemingly increased ten fold. Furthermore, if you wish to hire only 50 ccls, you might be able to get away with inferior production processes. Now your efficient only because, compared to the consumer culture you are infiltrating, you are a criminal. That is the problem with free trade: the countries that benefit from it most are the ones we should least want to support with our consumer dollars. When we do, we displace our cultural values within our society, at least to the extent of that singular product or service, with those of the provisionary society. This is why I must negate resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. The value for today's debate shall be Sovereignty, which is a government position that is independent from foreign control or intervention and has the power to regulate its own affairs. The criterion that shall be used in conjunction with Sovereignty is Unilateralism, which is A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies. I offer the following definitions for clarity in today's 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 is bad for a society; it denies basic human rights
Chinese workers are denied the right to form unions, are often paid less than China's own very low minimum wage, and are denied overtime pay. But if free trade is bad for labor, then we should end it, not patch it up, as fundamental economic defects are too profound for a few labor agreements to fix. Free trade is not fair trade; it benefits strong nations at the expense of weaker ones, and rich interests at the expense of the rest of us. Available evidence shows that Africa's economy is experiencing increasing and serious deterioration in terms of trade, despite tremendous efforts deployed by its governments to reorganize and restructure their economies, often at a very high social cost. Trade liberalization has worked to undermine the comparative advantages that Africa might have had, aggravating their development problems and leading to the abuse of labor standards and human rights.
Contention 2: Protectionism is the better alternative for a country, rather then Free Trade.

Protectionism means a nation looks at its economy as one of its assets. A government will make industrial, production and trade policies designed to ensure the nation's economic success. This could allow a country to develop economically. Japan was a good example in the aftermath of World War Two. The term Made in Japan, was considered a bad thing to put on a product. Then they started making the best electronics, and cars. They quit being a big joke.
In our country we have, at least in the past, considered it important that workers make a minimum wage, that children go to school instead of entering the workforce at an early age, and that prisoners, especially political prisoners not be forced to work for literally pennies a day, if they get paid at all. We buy a lot of products from countries that don't have such protections. We pay less for them, but we jeopardize our economy. We buy shirts, athletic clothing and shoes from countries that use child and prisoner labor and have no minimum wage. Corporations are there to make money, not to have a moral conscious. They go where they can maximize profits, no matter what the costs to their country. A protectionist policy would keep products out from countries that unduly exploits its labor, uses child labor or prisoner labor. While we would pay higher prices, we would also have the additional money to afford them. We would have a healthy economy based on a strong manufactoring base.
CiRrK

Pro

==AC==

I value Human Prosperity. This has the strongest link the resolution because the purpose of trade is for a human benefit, namely the flow of capital and goods. Trade is a human creation for human benefit, thus we must first evaluate how much free trade or protectionism benefits the human populous.

The criterion is Maximizing Comparatively Good Ends. In other words, human prosperity is best achieved when governments implement policies, in this case - trade policies, that will lead to the best outcome. The best outcome, is the best benefit in comparison to the cost incurred.

Thus, the burden: I must prove the aff is comparatively better than the neg world.

C1: Free Trade Protects the Environment

Free trade solves environmental collapse – three reasons
Schoenbaum, homas J., Professor and Executive Director of the Center for International and Comparative Law and the University of Georgia,

Analysis shows that existing GATT regulations place virtually no constraints on the ability of a nation to protect its own environment and resources against damage caused by either domestic production or domestically produced or imported products. n9 GATT rules can also be made consistent with efforts to preserve regional and global environmental quality. Furthermore, trade liberalization, whether on a global or regional basis, will actually help the environmentalists' cause by (1) fostering common standards for environmental protection that must be observed even by certain developing countries that currently ignore environmental concerns; (2) terminating subsidies, particularly in agriculture, that are environmentally destructive, as well as inefficient; and (3) ensuring economic growth, which will create the financial means, particularly for developing countries, to control pollution and protect the environment.

Environmental collapse causes global wars
Homer-Dixon, Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies

Experts have proposed numerous possible links between environmental change and conflict. Some have suggested that environmental change may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or globally, causing instabilities that could lead to war. Another possibility is that global environmental damage might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a fairer share of the world's wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go along with agreements to protect the global envronment, or that "free-ride" by letting other countries absorb the costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees, spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among themselves because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution. A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers. Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and insurgencies. In general, many experts have the sense that environmental problems will "ratchet up" the level of stress within states and the inter-national community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation.

Environmental collapse causes extinction

Diner ["The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom" l/n]

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. ([ ] = correction)

==NC==

V: Sovereignty

--> He provides no resolutional link. So there is no way to evaluate that sovereignty is important in the round.

--> IMPACT TURN: Valuing sovereignty is bad because it promotes a national interest over a human interest. E.g. valuing sovereignty would have protected the Holocaust because it was under Hitler's sovereign protection.

C1: Human Rights

--> His analysis of China is completely unwarranted. He never gives solvency that making China follow protectionist measures means they wont be authoritarian-communist, will give their people better wages and rights in general. No warrants at all.

--> LINK TURN: Free Trade Leads to Chinese Democracy

Griswold (Daniel T., Associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade, Democracy and Peace

In China, the link between trade and political reform offers the best hope for encouraging democracy and greater respect for human rights in the world's most populous nation. After two decades of reform and rapid growth, an expanding middle class is experiencing for the first time the independence of home ownership, travel abroad, and cooperation with others in economic enterprise free of government control. The number of telephone lines, mobile phones, and Internet users has risen exponentially in the past decade. Tens of thousands of Chinese students are studying abroad each year. China's per capita GDP has reached about $7,600 per in terms of purchasing power parity. That puts China in the upper half of the world's countries and in an income neighborhood where more people live in political and civil freedom and fewer under tyranny. Among countries with lower per capita incomes than China, only 27 percent are free. Among those with higher incomes, 72 percent are free. Only 16 percent are not free, and almost all of those are wealthier than China not because of greater economic freedom but because of oil.

C2: Better Alternative

--> He completely misrepresents Japanese History. Japan was one of the Asian Tigers, namely one of the Asian Markets which promoted free trade and NOT protectionism. Its cause Japan could sell their electronics in foreign markets that their economy boomed.

--> LINK TURN: Free Trade solves the economy

Free trade promotes economic growth and solves the impact to downturn
Griswold Daniel, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute

International trade and investment are not to blame for downturns in the economy and may, in fact, be moderating the business cycle recessions have actually become milder and less frequent. Other countries that have opened themselves to global markets have been less vulnerable to financial and economic shocks. Countries that put all their economic eggs in the domestic basket lack the diversification that a more globally integrated economy can fall back on to weather a slowdown. economies that trade less with other countries are more prone to sudden stops and to currency crises. Access to foreign capital markets can allow domestic producers and consumers alike to more easily borrow to tide themselves over during difficult times.
Debate Round No. 1
19146md

Con

I would like to take this time to thank my opponent. I have a tournament this friday and this is helping me prepare.

Now to get down to business. I will attack my opponents case then uphold mine.

My opponents value was human prosperity. Free trade does not benefit man. If there are no taxes, then the economy is doomed to devolve.
His criterion was Maximizing Comparatively Good Ends. human prosperity is best acheived when there is peace, not free trade.

Contention 1- My opponent states no given date for this quote, so therefore his contention could be made up as there is no source, therefore his contention crumbles

Contention 2- "A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers" My opponent shows no proof for this statement.

Contention 3- Once again, my opponent shows no real proof. Therefore,his case must crumble.

I will now uphold my case:
Value- My opponent states that I provide no resolutional link. As a matter of fact, I did. While I did not directly state it, The reader can come to the conclusion that sovereignty helps state that protectionism should be valued above free trade. My opponent also states no poof that "Valuing sovereignty is bad because it promotes a national interest over a human interest"
Criterion- my opponent did not attack my criterion, so therefore it stands

Contention 1: I provide warrants in my case. I show all kinds of examples in my contention and throughout my case. '

Contention 2: My opponent states no evidence.

My opponents case and his attacks on my case lack evidence.
Therefore, you have no other reason but to vote con.

Thank you
CiRrK

Pro

==AC (my case)===

V: Human Prosperity

He says that if there are no taxes, then the economy is doomed to devolve.

--> First, free trade and taxes arent mutually exclusive. The U.S. comparatively uses free trade an yet we have taxes. Free trade is referring to flow of goods and capital between nations. Taxing deals with the power of the government intake capital like income and capitals gains.

--> If he is referring to trade barriers with levied taxes, this brings in minimal revenue compared to other forms of taxes and a lot of nations lack trade barriers using taxes and their economies are booming, like Taiwan.

VC: MCGE

He says that we need peace free trade.

--> He doesnt say how protectionism promulgates peace and/or how free trade hinders peace

C1: Environment

He says I give no dates or sources

--> I gave the author and the article where it was cited, if he is that concerned about fabrication he can look them up

He then says I give no warrant for the food decline argument from the Dixon evidence.

--> What Dixon is saying is that environmental collapse destroys natural resources, like farmland, which results in resource wars. Empirical proof can be seen in destruction of African land. The analysis however is that groups of people, due to scarcity, will use violence to gain the resource they need for survival

He then says to the Diner evidence that I give no proof.

--> The proof is in the evidence itself. Environmental collapse results in destruction of elements needed for survival.

=NC=

V: Sovereignty

He says he provided a resolutional link because sovereignty promotes protectionism.

--> This is not true on the fact that maintaining sovereignty and trade policy are two separate issues. Sovereignty is a philosophical principle discussing the power of the state. Free trade and protectionism is two types of trade policy. No direc link exists.

He says I dont give proof of my turn

--> The proof is that if we philosophically justify sovereignty as the utmost value to evaluate, then nothing can come before that. Thus, the turn argues that state and national interest would always supersede human interest, e.g. the holocaust.

c1: Human Rights

He says he gives tons of warrants.

--> I argued that in his analysis he doesnt say how promotion of protectionist measures would help the issue in China. He ignores the status quo framework of China, namely a communist-authoritarian regime,and then says if they use protectionism then people will gain freedoms. There is no link here.

--> He drops the link turn I made in my last speech. Extend it and it stands for the round. FREE TRADE SOLVES CHINESE OPPRESSION (refer to last speech)

C2: Alternatives

He says I offer no evidence

--> He drops the Historical Japanese Analysis. Thus, his contention lacks any concrete example

--> He drops the link turn again. FREE TRADE SOLVES THE ECONOMY.

=General=

1. He ignores all the substantive parts of the evidence in the AC. As the evidence indicates, Free Trade Solves Enviornmental Destruction.

2. His case has been mitigated by analytical kicks and empirical turns.

.
Debate Round No. 2
19146md

Con

Screw You. Thank you

P.S: Your mom! :D

Vote con!
CiRrK

Pro

Extend all AC arguments. He de facto forfeited.

GL in your tournament dude.

P.S.: YOUR MOM! :D
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Policy debate is where its at :P
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
Policy kids need to be taken out back and shot. I quit cold turkey. Haven't touched the stuff in 14 months.

Still, Pro did a good job :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
19146mdCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
19146mdCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clearly winning before the Forfeit.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
19146mdCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dominated on the flow. Con, saying that the other side doesn't have any evidence in LD sounds like whining. Respond to the logic anyway. If you want evidence heavy debate, do policy. Also, saying that a source should not be looked to without a date also seems like whining. Good job pro, although I don't understand why your burden is necessary. It seems kind of obvious. Oh well. Whatever floats your boat. Good job anyway.