Should the US protect services from foreign competition?
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept, and will be arguing that the U.S. should not engage in protectionist policies in an attempt to combat foreign competition.
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 ."
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.
 - http://www.investopedia.com...
tspence forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
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.