Resolved: free trade ought to be valued above protectionism
Debate Rounds (3)
A depression is a large-scale decline in production and trade... there is nothing in the nature of a free-market economy to cause such an event. Nathaniel Branden Psychotherapist. Free trade is a principal that positively effects the economy and should be put into practice. Protectionism influences a global recession because without free trade, there is a lessening in demand for foreign items. This leads to layoffs, and eventually a depression. The is nothing in the nature of free trade to cause this. Because I agree with Nathaniel Branden, I stand firmly resolved that free trade ought to be valued above protectionism.
In order to set the parameters for today's debate, I offer the following definitions from Merriam Websters online, Google definitions, and Black law dictionary's.
Free Trade: the open and unrestricted import and export of goods without government interference.
Protectionism: the protection of domestic businesses and industries against foreign competition by imposing high tariffs or quotas.
The value for today's debate is quality of life defined as the general welfare of individuals and society's. I chose this value because there is a better quality of life for individual's around the globe when free trade is practiced rather than protectionism.
The criterion for today's debate is majority rule defined as the government reflecting the wishes of the majority of people. I chose this criterion because a better quality of life reflects the wishes of individual's. In order to give the people a better quality of the government must act upon the majority's wishes.
Observation: whomever can prove that either protectionism or free trade better improves quality of life by reflecting the wishes of the majority will set the standard to win today's debate.
Contention 1: free trade prevents war
Sub-point A: The Classical Liberals of the nineteenth century were certain that the end of the old Mercantilist system--with its government control of trade and commerce, its bounties (subsidies) and prohibitions on exports and imports--would open wide vistas for improving the material conditions of man through the internationalization of the system of division of labor.�They also believed that the elimination of barriers to trade and the free intercourse among men would help to significantly reduce if not end the causes of war among nations.
The economists of that earlier era had demonstrated the mutual gains from trade that would develop and be reinforced from specialization in productive activities among the people of the world.�No longer would the material improvements of one nation be viewed as the inevitable cause of the poverty and economic hardships of other countries. Richard M Ebeling
Contention 2: Free trade improves the the quality of life
Sub-point A: Thousand Villages, is a good example of what we strive to accomplish through alternative fair trade. She said this to Anita Fieguth, an MCC volunteer living and working in Bangladesh at the time:
"We are poor distressed women working at Keya Palm to build our lives. By working together we are able to overcome our problems. We become united in one mind. We will send our children to school with our earnings. Also, we are able to purchase our food and clothing. From our profits, we plow our gardens and cultivate crops, we repair our houses and plant trees."
At Ten Thousand Villages we want our fair trade to enable artisans like Maya Halder to overcome their problems, to send their children to school, to afford adequate food and clothing and to improve the quality of their lives and their communities. Fair trade gives Maya hope for the future.
Contention 3: free trade is in the best interest for the majority
Sub-point A: For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy. Despite this intellectual barrage, many "practical" men and women continue to view the case for free trade skeptically, as an abstract argument made by ivory tower economists with, at most, one foot on terra firma. These practical people "know" that our vital industries must be protected from foreign competition.
The divergence between economists' beliefs and those of (even well-educated) men and women on the street seems to arise in making the leap from individuals to nations. In running our personal affairs, virtually all of us exploit the advantages of free trade and comparative advantage without thinking twice. For example, many of us have our shirts laundered at professional cleaners rather than wash and iron them ourselves. Anyone who advised us to "protect" ourselves from the "unfair competition" of low-paid laundry workers by doing our own wash would be thought looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work, paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standard of living. Alan Blinder
to conclude my arguments free trade ought to be valued above protectionism because free trade prevents war, free trade improves quality of life, and because free trade is in the best interest for the majority.
my opponet has accepted my value and criterion and has made note of the fact that i have the burden to prove free trade is good and that he dosent have to prove protectionism is good only that free trade is bad, therefore whomever proves that quality of life and majority rule is or is not better upheld by free trade will provide the framework to win the debate.
as for my contentions, my opponet attacks saying my contentions dont uphold quality of life and majority rule because of human trafficikng. first of all this is irrelevant. as quoted from my case in which my opponet has excepted all of my definitions free trade is defined as "the open and unrestricted import and export of goods without government interference." the key word in this is goods. human trafficking isn't a good, its a service. weather or not its a willing service dosent matter, all that matters for this debate is the fact that human trafficking is in no way relevant to the resolution or my case, but if you don't want to buy that i will continue on anyways. my opponent complety ignores my first contention. sure he wants to talk about a different type of war than actual bloodshed because my opponet is disregaurding majority rule. he say's free trade dosent uphold human worth because human trafficking demoralizes it. but lets think about the big picture. human trafficking is estimated to account for 30 million victims, http://necrometrics.com..., which seems like a lot, but actual war estimates for over 1 billion victims over the last hundred years. http://necrometrics.com..., so what is really not holding up human worth, quality of life, and majority rule. valuing free trade or not. free trade is saving lives. we cant stop free trade and let countless soldiers die. to uphold majority rule which my opponet agreed to you must look at the 1 billion number of people dying over the 30 million in human trafficking. in addition my opponet offers no attacks to the fact that free trade prevents war, so my first contention must stand.
on to my second contention, my opponet ignores my evidence of free trade upholding quality of life from maya halder. countless number of people are getting to eat food, wear clothes, and have the basic neccesities of life upheld because of free trade. this proves that without free trade life in these third world countries like kenya ceaces to exist not to mention the qualtiy of the surviors. my opponet offers no attacks against this besides the fact of human trafficking. i reiterate that is an irrelevant point that has no consideration of majority rule because it dosent take war victims or these people in third world countrys into consideration, and my opponet agreed to this criterion so this attack cannot be taken seriously. my second contention stands
and finally my third contention is also ignored on the fact that for the majority free trade is better than no free trade. there is a much larger number of people that die from war, and depend upon free trade in third world country's than victims of human trafficking, so my third contention also stands.
and now to my opponets case
my opponet offers the same value and criterion as me, and as proven in the defense of my case is better upheld by free trade so he has no framework to win the debate.
my opponets sole contention is sex trafficking, and as proven earlier in my rebutal sextrafficking is both irrelevant and miniscule to this topic. we cannot let billions die in war and people in third world country's starve because of this miniscule number, so niether quality of life nor majority rule is upheld by his contention.
in conclusion my opponets case is based on an irrelevant and miniscule topic that cant be taken seriously in the overall decision of this debate, in addition to the fact that he has established no framework to win the debate, therefore you must take and affirmative ballot in deciding the winner of this debate.
thank you and i look forward to my opponets rebutal's.
my opponet has failed in this round to relate any part of this debate to the criterion, majority rule, this is because the negative viewpoint is based on a minority of people. these people being human trafficking victims. the first problem with this is that human trafficking is irrelevant. my opponet attempts in his last rebutal to say that human trafficking is a direct cause of free trade, but provides no evidence to this. free trade and human trafficking are completly different subjects. free trade is the import and export of GOODS without government interferance. free trade is in no way linked to services, and therefore human trafficking cannot be a valid reason to not value free trade. human trafficking CAN NOT BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE TRADE UNTIL EVIDENCE OF FREE TRADE AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS PROVIDED. my opponet simply saying that human trafficking is because of free trade isnt enough. my opponet must provide evidence to support his case, and since he has failed to do that his positison cannot be taken seriously. the second problem with my opponet using human trafficing as the basis for his case is that majority rule is not upheld. my opponet has failed to attack, or even mention the fact that majority rule is upheld by free trade being valued above protectionism, and because my opponet has conceded the criterion to me you must vote affirmative for this debate.
i move on to the value of quality of life. i agree with my opponet that allowing human trafficking dose not give quality to life, but human trafficking is in no way linked to free trade, so this argument is useless. in addition to that valuing free trade better upholds quality of life because more people are getting a better quality of life than when not valuing free trade. i say this because both people in third world country's and people being saved from war are getting better quality of life. there is evidence to this in my first and second contentions. so people are getting a better quality of life from free trade not only from this, but foreign products that are neccisary for people to have a good life. several medicines are imported daily to the united states from china that allow people to walk, talk, and have a normal life. without free trade none of this is possible. my opponet combats this saying that both must be used equally. there are two major problems with this. first of all saying this in his rebutal is providing a new argument which isnt allowed in LD. second of all quotas are a major part of protectionsm. would we really limit the import of a neccisary medicine? quotas are not upholding quality of life.
then to his contention. ive stated numerous times that human trafficking isnt linked to free trade, and is therefore irrelevant to the topic. i agree on abolishment of human trafficking, but free trade has nothing to do with it. even though all of this is true, his contention of human trafficking still dosent uphold majority rule. the fact of the matter is that human trafficking is miniscule in the overall realm of things. there are 7 billion people on earth, and less than 1% are victims to human trafficking. this is an increadibly small number, and its in the best intrest for the majority to value free trade because a better quality of life is given to a greater number of people.
in conclusion, human trafficking dosent relate to free trade, quality of life is better upheld by free trade, and free trade is in the best interest for the majority.
now to my case. my opponet has failed in proving that valuing free trade above protectionism isnt better upholding quality of life or that valuing free trade above protectionism isnt in the best interest for the majority, therefore you must vote for the affirmative.
my opponet offers no attack to the fact the free trade prevents war, so my first contention stands forcing an affirmative ballot.
my opponet attempts to attack my contention of quality of life by saying that free trade degrades human worth by allowing human trafficking, but this is not true because human trafficking isnt linked to free trade, and because countless lives are saved by free trade thus enhancing human worth and upholding quality of life. leaving my second contention as a third voter
and my opponet fails to mention majority rule, so to not vote affirmative wouldnt hold to LD style of debate.
in conclusion, my opponet has failed to attack my case in any way, both the value of quality of life and the criterion of majority rule support free trade being valued above protectionism, all my contentions stand, and my opponets case is both irrelevant and played toward the minotity which is a direct contradiciton of his own criterion of majority rule. therefore you cannot vote for the negative and you have to vote for the affirmative.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the arguments I think
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.