The Instigator
Amethist17
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,092 times Debate No: 15413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Amethist17

Pro

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.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for her argument. However, I think that it is worth noting, that based on the provided definitions, she has not described a free trade system, but a system with open trade.

As she stated, free trade is " trade based on the unrestricted international exchange of goods" and that protectionism is "Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade."

I would like to add a definition for "restrict," from the princeton dictionary.

Restrict - "•place limits on (extent or access)"

Restrict does not mean to prevent altogether, but merely to have limits or rules on. Therefore, protectionism includes government actions which put restrictions on international trade, while not flat out preventing it. That means that even in a protectionist market, we can still have playstations and nintendos (though I prefer computer games).

Common restrictions are basic safety requirements, and proper labeling. In a free market, with no governmental protection, companies are free to send whatever products that they wish to sell. This includes (but is not limited to), toys with lead based paint (without informing the customers that the toys have such paint), foods that may have come in contact with nuts or other ingredients which people may be deathly allergic to (without informing the public of those risks), or even untested medical drugs that god only knows what the side-effects are.

It is also worth while to note, that customers can only make decisions based upon information that they know, which is why another protectionist policy, requiring product info to be available (like nutrition charts for foods) actually helps people figure out what they really want, so that competition is more consumer driver (as it is suppose to be in theory).

So, all in all, are there some bad protectionist policies? Of course. Does that mean that all of them are bad? Of course not (that would be a logical fallacy).

Since there are some cases where free trades is not valued above protectionism, the resolution should be rejected.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 1
Amethist17

Pro

Amethist17 forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

I'm sorry that my opponent has missed her round. Traditionally, I would skip to allow the debate to remain even, but I will go ahead and restate my last round in a more LD format (one must forgive me, I've never done LD, and so I'm not too familiar with the format, if you must, you can cite that conduct point against me for not knowing the proper format of which was agreed).

My opponent says that "free trade is benefitial for the customers," but I have to ask. How is allowing untested mediciene in come into the hands of our people benefiting them? How is allowing foods with no ingredent list so that customers can make an informed decision benefiting them? How is allowing toys that may not be safe, and have no warning about not being safe, benefiting parents (the customers)?

I will just add these as my questions (which apparently I need for an LD debate, according to Wiki) and use my last round as my negative construct. Though I am probably still doing something wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
Amethist17

Pro

ok so I'm going go over my value and my points then go on to address what my opponit said again sorry for missing a round. alright my value for this debate was societal welfare and my value criterion was free trade. my points were competition economy and societal welfare.

ok so in my opponits first rebuttal he started with definitions so let me go ahead and clarify here when I said unrestricted I meant free from tariffs not from health and safety regulations. I do agree that health and safety regulations are important but not necessarily the point in this debate. That was his first argument.

His second argument was much of the same saying that free trade is not beneficial to consumers merely on the health standards but as I stated above the unrestricted were talking about here if to be free from tariffs.
now he hasn't directly attacked my points in total. when I said that free trade was beneficial to consumers I meant on an economic scale.
he did not attack my competition contention nor my economy contention with sub points on unemployment and prices.
and those contentions cross over and are dropped. thanks for taking my debate and again sorry for for fitting last round.
Ore_Ele

Con

There is not really anything more that can be done on this. Based on the definitions originally provided, protectionism includes more than just tariffs as it states "Government actions or Policies that restrict international trade." In my opponent's opening quote, "...free trade leads to better roads, better health and better lives." My opponent also states, "My value for this debate is societal welfare or the total well being of an entire society." Meaning that all aspects of society need to be weighed, not just one (like the economic aspect).

"I do agree that health and safety regulations are important but not necessarily the point in this debate." It seems to me that if one is going to be considering the entire effects on society of free trade vs protectionism, than safety and health restrictions are key elements to look at.

But even if we agree to ignore the safety aspects and short fallings of free trade, it would not be fair for me to present a new arguement now, as my opponent would have no chance to rebuttal.

As for that, I'm going to have to just let this go to the voters as-is.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
NICE VOTE BOMB a
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
first i wanna say sorries bout the lost round i went out of town and thanks for taking my debate :}
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Oh, that it was. I will have to adjust for next round.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Comments OreEle.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
It was never mentioned in the opening round that this was LD.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
You didn't have to redo it.lol
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@cobo Blegh, I misspelled my last post horribly @-@. I'm going to re-do it okay?

That's not necessarily true; if you have an extremely conservative judges then yes. But the loss is only by a technicality.

LD is a value debate right? Meaning it's not actually completely necessary for each debater to present a unique value alongside their case; the practice is just canon and accepted as proper.

As long he weighs the round through a value premise (it could even be Amethist17's) he's good. He doesn't need to throw a random tag out there that just says "Value".
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
True that.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Cobo That's not necessarily true; if you have an extremely conservative judges then yes. But it only b by a technicality.

LD is a value debate right? Meaning it's actually completely necessary for each debater to present a unique value alongside their case; the practice is just canon and accepted as proper.

As long he weighs the round through a value premise (it could even be Amethist17's) he's good.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
That Means youv'e basically lost in LD.
Unless you plan to post case round 2.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Amethist17Ore_EleTied
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: forfiet
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Amethist17Ore_EleTied
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: Via forfeit.