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

Should the US protect services from foreign competition?

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: 9/17/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 61846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Should the US protect (certain) services from foreign competition? Which services would you say should be protected, which are succeeding and why?


I accept, and will be arguing that the U.S. should not engage in protectionist policies in an attempt to combat foreign competition.
Debate Round No. 1


MonetaryOffset, debate says "certain" not all. Assuming you are to total unprotection, would you allow foreign institutions to run security and surveillance services? Would you outsource that?


I thank Pro for instigating this debate.


The burden of proof naturally falls on Pro to demonstrate to us that certain services should receive protection from the U.S. government from foreign competition. He must not only prove why we should do this, but explain which industries he believes ought to be protected. If I manage to rebut his arguments such that he doesn't fulfill his burden of proof, you vote negative.


Pro begins by reminding me that he specified certain, not all, industries would be subject to the protection he seeks. Surely I acknowledged this upon my acceptance, but I think this is incumbent upon Pro to demonstrate why some industires, but not others, ought to receive protection. Could it be that there are unintended, negative welfare effects associated with protectionism which he seeks to preempt? If so, how does he reconcile these in advocating for some degree of protection?

He then asks me if I would allow foreign institutions to run security and surveillance services. Note that this is completely outside the scope of our resolution. For the government to intervene in order to protect a certain service from competition, that competition must actually exist. The services and surveillance he mentions are serivces provided by the United States Government, funded by U.S. tax dollars. There is no foreign competition, nor would it be rational to say that the government could "protect itself." Unless Pro can demonstrate that there is actually a foreign threat to services provided by the U.S. government, this is a non-topical contention.

To examine this further, let's examine a definition of outsourcing:

"A practice used by different companies to reduce costs by transferring portions of work to outside suppliers rather than completing it internally [1]."

This is a very loose definition, surely, but consider the implications. The rationale behind this is that a company could cut costs by employing outside labor or materials to produce certain goods. The U.S. government, first, is not a company. Second, it doesn't bear the same onus of cutting costs because it collects tax dollars -- which other services are incapable of doing.

In conclusion, Pro attempts to shift the goalposts quite significantly in his first round, suggesting that the U.S. government running national security is a matter of "protecting services from foreign competition" when no such competitione exists. Moreover, the resolutions suggests a shift from the status quo -- that is, that the government would intervene via tariffs, quotas, et al. in order to protect an industry. Note that this would have no bearing whatsoever on the government conducting security because it isn't a privately-priced service.

[1] -
Debate Round No. 2


tspence forfeited this round.


My arguments go unrebuted and my adversary hasn't uphold his burden of proof. He hasn't provided a single constructive argument demonstrating that U.S. services should be protected from foreign competition. His one remark was non-topical an irrelevant, nor did he provide a reason as to why the service he noted would require protection or how in fact he would hope to protect it.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
The best way for government to protect any business is to get the h#ll out of the way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.