The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

President Trump is strong on fair trade.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
YeshuaIsTheOneTrueGod has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 265 times Debate No: 104660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Acceptance only. Fair trade is the government deiding not to trade withe nations that are unfair withe human rights abuses.


I accept your terms to this debate. I all I need to prove is that the US has trade with any nation that abuses human rights- for say using the UN charter as reference. Thus, I win if I prove that Trump is still trading with countries that are also human right abusers.
Debate Round No. 1


I should specify that I'm a moderate, not a conservative. Anyway, Mexico is a mess of a country that takes more than she gives. We should refuse to trade with them until they pusue better economic and other policies for their people. Why do you think Mexicans come here all the time? I also don't want to trade with ommunist Cuba.


My opponent attempts an argument about to impose an embargo on member states like Cuba and Mexico he stated. But what my opponent fails to realise are the impacts of such decisions and how they will impact micro and macro economically.

I like to remind the house of the motion before us today. "President Trump is strong on fair trade". No. It doesn't matter when it comes to words when there are NO impacts. Look, according to the own executive of office (1). Mexico is currently our 3rd LARGEST trading partner. Right now, what my opponent doesn't realise is that there's $579.7 Billion Dollars of two way trade between these nations last year. Making Mexico America's 3rd largest goods trading partner.

So Mexico and the US share a lot of trade. The arguments that our president makes and just mere instances of almost 600 billion dollars of capitol trade. Accidents always happen. And by what my opponent attempts to purpose a "logical" solution to call of trade with this NAFTA partner. When the US has a 18.5 Trillion dollar economy, and Mexican-US trade has almost 600billion tied with it, the effects of an embargo is detrimental.

When the US is nearly receiving 300 Billion from Mexican imports (also according to 1). And considering that some top exports from the US includes things like Tech and Furniture and that Mexican trade supplies many of America's cities.

My opponent is going to attempt to maker the assertion of that this embargo guarantees more jobs into the US. However, this is foolish for the following reasons:

When Mexico and the US are tied within so many deals, its detrimental to the people who depend on Mexican imports and many utilise them daily.

Thus, an embargo would be detrimental.

Secondly, Pro tells us wait pressuring them will encourage them to improve human rights.


As universal measurement, lets refer to the UN charter for human rights. What Pro fails to realise is that many nations whom the US trades with violate human rights. Even America's largest importer, China, who totals more that 600 Billion dollars in trade. China has no freedom of speech and it does persecute religion like the Falun Dong.

On Con, I've proved how detrimental it is to embargo trade as Pro suggests

Thus for the sake of resources and the American people

This motion will fall
Debate Round No. 2


Adress me personally, thanks. You have no proof that fair trade will have negative implications. Answer my question: Why should we trade with a nation that has human rights abuses? When will liberals realize this?


My opponent has already lost this debate. If he did read my previous points of contention I've answered about why we should trade with nations like China, Mexico and so on even though they have violations of the UN charter.

He also attempts to tell us that "fair trade will not have negative impacts".... In the next round first of all, my opponent must adress this reso again. He tells us in the first round that oh, no, we're not debating about Trump or fair trade-> He gave me a case full of human rights, and I rebutted that fully. Thus, he must frame this reso once again as he provides no definitions.

As that is the situation in today's debate. I'll just assume that we'll be debating the reso written as it is. Whats fraudulent about anything my opponent claims about human rights is not accurate. What he needs to understand is that Trump has little statistics in backing anything he says. When he tells us "we need to start winning again" he doesn't tell us how we're losing when we're turning the biggest profit on China as we've ever been (refer to round 1 source linked in comments). Thus it can be justified that Trump has little understanding and stating his remarks for proof would be statistically incorrect.

So then begs the question of the status quo trading system. As I've touched on earlier Trump campaigns is way up by getting the votes of the people who have been lost by globaliziation and the people on the "iron rust belt". He is merely scapegoating the jobs being lost by China.

Oh wait, Trump says, I'll lower tax rates so the jobs come back.


He has been trying this and no single major enterprise is coming back. All he is doing is sacrificing welfare funds for nothing.

Thus, actions rise over words. And the quality of something when it comes to macro policy is measured by the effects of it. Countries like China and Mexico's trade has not been reduced at all.

For all stated above

this motion will fall
Debate Round No. 3


China has a one child policy with forced abotion. Why the **** should we trade with them. Why should we trade with Saudi Arabia, which sexually mutilates women, murders rape victims and so on? Why should we trade with Mexico when they have drug gangs? The failures of the liberal movement on this are many.


Sadly, my opponent has given me nothing to rebut to.

His only concern has already been answered in my previous contentions. As follow up, I would like to ask a few points of concern to side Proposition.

When you do stop trading with these nations like China and Mexico, how is the US going to sustain itself when (China) it's largest importer is gone?

By calling an embargo like for what pro stands for. It is illogical and harmful to America itself to embargo on such trade routes.

As I already stated in my previous contentions, which pro ignores. The broader logic behind trading, not to mention many of my opponent's claims are absurd.

By embargo Mexico because they have gangs, this is illogical

1. The Mexican government doesn't even support them- you wanna fight the gangs, fight them, that would be contents of another debate. Calling an embargo on them harms America as well.

Then you talk about Saudi. Look.

Where is America gonna get their oil when you embargo them?

How the hell are you going to get the majority of the goods on your shelf when you embargo China?

How is America gonna sustain by literally embargoing everybody?

Anyways, as my opponent has given me little to rebut to.

I'll just end it off here
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Bamboo_Shoot 8 months ago
Very deplorable. Pro bought 0 arguments, rebuttals and forfeited this debate. I strongly suggest other members to avoid debating with him in the future for his poor acts.
Posted by Debatwinnerpro 8 months ago
but Mexican cola has REAL SUGAR none of that high fructose corn syrup bullcrap
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.