The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

RESOLVED: 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,834 times Debate No: 15501
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I offer the following debate, in context of the resolution, "RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism." I would like this debate to take place in LD format, and for my opponent to start her case in her first speech. In the last speech, I will merely write "Negate," seeing as how any argumentation in said speech would exceed the preferred Lincoln-Douglas format.


"It is very important for you to know that free trade leads to better roads, better health and better lives" -- Rosario Castellon. I think that Rosario Castellon is exactly right free trade does lead to a better road. Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. And yes it should before I begin this debate I would like to offer the following definitions.

Free Trade: trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods
Protectionism: Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade.

All as defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary

My value for this debate is societal welfare or the total well being of an entire society. My value criterion for this debate is free trade and I will prove that free trade upholds the well being of our society with three points first Free trade enhances competition, second competition is good for the economy, and third having a good economy promotes societal welfare.

Free Trade Enhances Competition

Free Trade brings competition to a global scale it brings companies that might not have competed with each other together to create products that are beneficial to us the consumers. Ok let's think for a minute, we have only one company in the United States that has a known gaming system and that's Microsoft with the Xbox, now with out free trade this would be the only gaming system creating a monopoly, they could raise prices to larger amounts for lower quality products but because we have free trade we have competition between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo each creates a well known product by having this by having free trade we enhance competition, so that there aren't monopolies. We create this competition with Free Trade which in turn is better for the consumer and the economy.

Free trade is beneficial to the Economy.

The one thing that just about every American has on their mind is the economy. Some things that come to my mind when I think of the economy are unemployment and the prices of products that I need. Free Trade enhances competition, and Free trade is beneficial to the economy first it decreases unemployment and second it is beneficial to consumers.

Free trade decreases unemployment.

According to Professor Andrew Bernard of Dartmouth College , "about 40% of American workers work for firms that export. These exporting firms are vital for American jobs, especially at a time of slowing job creation. � The falling dollar makes American goods more desirable abroad, creating more jobs for Americans. � And foreign firms have headquarters here, employing 5.3 million American workers." May 2009. According to Organization for international investment this year currently foreign companies have 5.6 million people employed. This is jobs that are being created and with out free trade we wouldn't have more and more foreign companies are employing Americans to work for them and for good pensions and wages.

Free Trade is beneficial for the consumers.
In contention one I gave an example of how free trade is beneficial, it helps make prices lower and gives us the consumer's better products. According to the bureau of labor statistics a free trade economy pays 4.9% less than a protectionist economy. Doesn't that say it all right there that free trade lowers prices so there for it's beneficial to society. But not only does it bring lower prices but better products as well. Its common sense that if you have varieties of the same product that a consumer is going to choose the product that is the cheapest but best product so with a free trade economy companies can not afford to make bad products where if there wasn't those varieties and there wasn't that competition then companies wouldn't be as innovative. And that wouldn't be beneficial to the economy free trade is in the best interest of the economy and what's in the best interest of the economy should be in the best interest of society.

Free trade upholds societal welfare.
Societal welfare is the well being of society as a whole. It is common knowledge that the economy affects the welfare of society. When unemployment goes up people stop buying products and more people apply for social programs, like food stamps, and unemployment. So since I have proven that free trade is beneficial to the economy then isn't beneficial to society, doesn't it uphold societal welfare. Even according to the American Heritage Foundation free trade promotes a higher standard of living. Meaning that it does promote society as a whole and if it promotes societal welfare than it should be valued and you must vote for the affirmative.

In my case I have proven that free trade enhances competition which prevents monopolies and creates better products that free trade is beneficial to the economy by lowering unemployment, and being beneficial to consumers, and that free trade upholds societal welfare by promoting a higher standard of living. Free trade does lead to a better road and I have proven this so vote for the affirmative Resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.
Debate Round No. 1


Feminist critiques of liberalism address the economic inequalities inherent to free trade, which disproportionately affect women.”

It’s because I agree with Tricia Ruiz that I negate the resolution, “RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.”

I provide the following definitions for a fair debate:

Protectionism: policy of protecting domestic industries against foreign competition by means of tariffs, subsidies, import quotas, or other restrictions or handicaps placed on the imports of foreign competitors. (Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed December 7, 2010,

Free Trade: also called laissez-faire, a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports).
(Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed December 7, 2010,

The value I advocate today is that of equality.
Since this resolution puts each debater in an executive political position, we are forced to look through a generic governmental lens of what economic policy best benefits citizens worldwide. Any economic policy that causes inequality is automatically unjust, putting some citizens below others, which in turn undermines that very same economic system by ensuring unequal opportunity. Even if that isn’t enough to urge a Negative ballot, we can see that any government that allows an economic policy which causes inequality is undoubtedly unjust. At the point where governmental righteousness is called into question, you must vote for the debater who guarantees a just government policy. As I will show throughout my case, the Negative is the only one who can ensure a just government.

The proper criterion for today’s round is feminism
, as I will explain in my contention-level analysis.

Contention 1: Gendered lenses are the only way to diminish oppressive hierarchies. Peterson and Runyan explain:

Peterson and Runyan 99—Peterson is a Professor in the School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona with courtesy appointments in the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies and Runyan is a Professor and former Head, Department of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of Cincinnati (V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues, p. 14-15, JB)

Finally, gender-sensitive studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interactions, and the possibilities of moving beyond them. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against economic, epidemic, nuclear, or ecological threats; crises of maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and impoverish most; and crises of environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources continues in unsustainable fashion. These global crises cannot be understood or addressed without acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system, inequalities that extend well beyond gender issues: They are embodied in interacting hierarchies of race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, and religious identification. In this text, we focus on how the structural inequalities of gender work in the world: how the hierarchical dichotomy of masculinity-femininity is institutionalized, legitimated, and re produced, and how these processes differentially affect men's and women's lives. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy interacts with other structural inequalities. The dichotomy of masculinity and femininity is not separate from racism, classism, ageism, nationalism; and so on. Rather, gender both structures arid is structured by these hierarchies to render complex social identities, locations, responsibilities, and social practices. Gender shapes, and is shaped by, all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suffer its costs-in multiple ways. By learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about intersecting structures of inequality and how they are intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to transform global gender inequality by also transforming other oppressive hierarchies at work in the world.

Contention 2: Free trade excludes women while supporting and spreading patriarchal systems.

Ruiz 04 (Tricia Ruiz, BS Geography and International Studies, California State University-Hayward 2004 Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism) AK

Feminist critiques of liberalism address the economic inequalities inherent to free trade, which disproportionately affect women. Jacqui True argues that male-centered macroeconomic indicators, such as the Gross National Product undervalue the work of women. True also reports that on a world scale, women are a disadvantaged group: they own one percent of the world’s property and resources, perform sixty percent of the labour, [and] are the majority of refugees, illiterate and poor persons. (Ibid) This suggests that the capitalist structure is a patriarchal one, effectively marginalizing the participation and contributions of women in the economy, since much of their work is reflected in unpaid illegal or domestic settings that are not included in economic assessments. Indeed, liberalist institutions such as the WTO and multinational corporations have tended to create free trade agreements that weaken state protections on labor rights19 and public social funds, which has served to negatively affect the large proportion of women in the labor force. This in turn camouflages issues of female exploitation, such as the gendered division of labor and the increase in sex trafficking worldwide. Feminists also challenge liberalism’s claim that international institutions provide for ways in which women can be become more politically and socially acknowledged and empowered. Since the leaders and the processes of formal international organizations come from patriarchal systems, their work can keep women at a disadvantage. Hilary Charlesworth critiques some of the recent formal international conferences, such as the Beijing Declaration and Agenda 21 in Rio. She notes that the wording in the documents shows that while some consensus was achieved in progressing issues critical to women, not enough was achieved to arrive at the real changes proposed by feminists.

Let's move on to the AC.
First, my value precludes hers because equality is necessary to achieve societal welfare.
My opponent doesn't link her value to the resolution.
Next, my opponent's criterion is exclsuive to the Aff, eliminating equal ground. Prefer an eqully-accessible framework for fairness.
C1: Competition
First, link this back to my value. The only reason the U.S. doesn't have more than one game console company is because Xbox made it on the market first and shadowed all other consoles. With protectionism, every company has equal chance of success with equal access to subsidies.

C2: Economy
No warrant here, thus a bare assertion fallacy. Opponent merely asserts "decreases unemployment and beneficial." Reject b/c it's fallacious.

C3: Employment
First, turn: outsourcing means less American jobs.
Second, this says "falling American dollar" is good. Only protectionism can cause inflation or deflation. This is a Neg argument.

C4: Consumers
My opponent doesn't clarify what we pay 4.9% more for, so reject b/c its vague.
Second, I can access this solvency b/c I proved in my attack on her C1 that I still allows for equal competition.

C5: Societal Welfare
This contention is based on the assumption htat all her past arguments are true. SInce I have destroyed them, you can ignore this contention.

Judges, since I value equality, and I'm winning the flow, negate.



Amethist17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Amethist17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Amethist17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SuperCapitalist 7 years ago
Oh wow I'm sorry. I hate cheaters. You have my assurance that I will not steal anything of yours. But I guess it doesn't matter much now that some idiot took what isn't his. I'm sorry.
Posted by Amethist17 7 years ago
im so peeved at this topic i quit im so pist at this site some numb skull stole my case from here then debated me with it im so done with this site will be my last comments and my last debates.
Posted by SuperCapitalist 7 years ago
But if you really want to read the small words, copy all of it into a Microsoft Word document.
Posted by SuperCapitalist 7 years ago
You're only supposed to read the underlined stuff. In round, it's for efficiency. So the small-fonted words aren't as important.
Posted by SuperCapitalist 7 years ago
The underlined part? It's called cutting a card.
Posted by Amethist17 7 years ago
i cant read it....
Posted by Amethist17 7 years ago
wow u made tht rly rly hard to read
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only got the spelling and grammar simply because the formatting used by Con was horrendous.