The Instigator
Amethist17
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Cobo
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,117 times Debate No: 15416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

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.
Cobo

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the challenge of debating her.

Let me start with this basic point: no one is against trade. Trade has taken place since the beginning of human history. The only question is what RULES we put in place to manage trade. The issue of so-called "free trade" and, by extension, how one views the power of corporate America to shape our economic lives is, from my little vantage point, THE deep, systemic change question on the economic vision side.

RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism

Now before I Get into today's debate I realise some definitions need Clarification.

Free Trade : Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Protectionism : Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports and prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies.(I would like to note that the key difference in definitions is Two Words, RESTRICT and RESTRAINING)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now the highest value for today's round should be that of Societal Welfare. (Note: it is the same definition as my opponent)
And the only Criterion that upholds this value is Maximizing Domestic standard of living.
The relation will be proven later on in my case, but basically I'm going to show that When you maximize the Domestic standard of living that it leads to Societal Welfare, And that's why I'm urging a negative vote.

BUT First lets go into "What is a Resolution, Value and a Criterion?" For those who are not familiar with the LD debate format.
RESOLUTION-To basically Sum it up a Resolution is a Statement that you affirm or negate. It is the side you are trying to prove With you Value and Criterion pair
VALUE-The basic overlying idea.
"It's kind of like a pair of tinted glasses, it's what you use to look at the round, and how you look at it." Hello Orange
CRITERION-What measures your value, usually an action of some kind

Now to My arguments

1-Infant Industry
This argument maintains that in order to grow and compete in the future, new industries need temporary protection from foreign competition. A critical need, protectionism allows these industries to establish themselves in the key beginning stages shielded from foreign competition from established firms. Protection gives these industries and companies a chance to progress and develop a competitive advantage in the future. If this protection is not given, new industries will never develop in a country as they are killed off by mature foreign competitors before they are even given a chance to take root. Protection in the form of tariffs for competitors or tax credits for companies would allow the government to establish and grow industries which would benefit the public good such as technology, solar, and green industries which have the potential to create millions of jobs. For emerging countries, this form of infant industry protection would allow less developed countries to start their own industries which can eventually compete on the global market alongside industries from developed countries.
Now Maximizing the domestic standard of living(Criterion) is applied here with the infant industries argument leading to a better society or Societal Welfare(Value).

2.Diversify the Economy

This Argument maintains that in times of trouble(War, Natural Disasters, etc.) some Countries need important economic factors like(Agriculture and steel).
In addition to being a vital industry, agriculture has important cultural significance. A country may want to maintain a domestic food supply for the sake of security as well as preserving agricultural interests and farmer's lifestyles. Agriculture also has a unique exposure to price fluctuations as environmental factors can have major impacts on prices. As vital interest, agricultural products are often shielded from foreign competition. In the European Union, for example, agricultural subsidies compose over 47 percent of the EU's budget.
Another vital industry is heavy industry such as the production of steel and coal. In the event of war, it is vital for a country to have the ability to produce steel and other resources for military manufacturing. If a country did not protect this vital industry and other countries produced the steel needed, it would be at the whim of other countries in a matter of vital national security.

Now on to My opponents Case.
If the judge has observed the round in full you'll notice That I put down definitions of RESOLUTION,VALUE and CRITERION.

My opponents Criterion is the same as the Resolution side she is affirming, In LD Debate this is not allowed. But I'm going to show you that even if it was allowed it wouldn't work. I'll show you that Free Trade is So Destructive to Societal Welfare that the two terms should never go together.

Most industrialized governments have long held that laissez-faire capitalism creates social evils that harm its citizens. To protect those citizens, these governments have enacted laws that restrict what companies can and can not do in pursuit of profit. Examples are laws regarding:
Child Labor
Environmental Protection Laws
Competition
Anti trust
Equal Opportunity
Collective Bargaining
Occupational Safety and Health

The main goal of free trade is to maximize profits not welfare. There are two ways to maximize profit, either to increase sales or to cut costs. The easier one to do is cut costs because increased sales is ultimately dictated by the laws of supply and demand. The biggest cost to most multinationals and large corporations is salary pay or wages, so to cut that cost jobs are sent overseas(Outsourcing) to developing countries where real wages are much lower(Child Labor) and the price of doing business is adequately cheaper. In turn that deteriorates the number of existing jobs domestically.

So You See Free Trade definently does not uphold Societal Welfare. It has lead to the creating of many laws Regarding the Free trade Monster.

Now to Her Arguments

Free Trade Enhances Competition + Free Trade is beneficial to the Economy

Dumping-http://en.wikipedia.org...(pricing_policy)
You See There is a Company tactic Called Dumping that is started by This Competition between Mature Foreign Companies and small domestic companies. I will Use an example of dumping, that uses simple Economics and Relates to drugs.

1.Drug Dealer A has a drug Cartel that goes around the entire US. But he wants to expand into someone's area.
2.Drug Dealer B has a small Drug Organization, based out of Dallas, Texas(One of the places Drug Dealer A wants to expand.
3.Drug Dealer A goes in a purposely lowers prices on his "goods". So then people turn to him a Not Drug Dealer B.
4.Drug Dealer A has now eliminated Drug Dealer B(B cannot make any profit)
5.Drug Dealer A has B eliminated, literally(JK!)

As I've shown this Competition is bad, an eliminates most companies. How can this(Free Trade) be beneficial to the Economy when it eliminates Any Jobs and Businesses. How can this eliminate Monopolies when it's what starts them. This a key reason we need protectionism

Free Trade decreases unemployment
Outsourcing and Child labor
This is why the has been a huge Job loss In America. It's Simple Really. Why Pay Americans this 8.25 and hour when you can pay a child nothing but bread and some water? This is what free trade creates.

Free Trade is beneficial to the consumes
Only If you want Cheap Products, made from Child labor, Environmental abuses and You loss of Job(It's everything I've proved)

So I have Proved how free trade is disastrous for Societal Welfare.
Debate Round No. 1
Amethist17

Pro

Amethist17 forfeited this round.
Cobo

Con

Extend All my agruments

I Await the Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Amethist17

Pro

first I wanna say both of your arguments are plagiarised and that it is completely wrong and unjustified, now that I've said that I will begin by first arguing "your" points then go over my own.

In cobos argument he says that free trade harms developing countries industries however protectionism first creates misunderstandings of international trade and second encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth

I. protectionism creates a misunderstanding of international trade.
"Another variation of the cheap labor theme is level playing field wail. If by level the playing field critics of free trade mean cost differences, then what are they really calling for is and abolition of international trade because trade of any kind only takes place because of cost differences." "the Australian Economy, the case for free trade restated" Brooke's news, April 30 2007 (btw that's a cited source) protectionism is in all terms just a way of leveling the playing field how ever like in my cited source with out competition their can not be any international trade if we were a developing country who raised all imported goods then there would be no international trade with in our country and how is a country's over all society benefited when no trade is going on with in the country?
II. Protectionism encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth
this is from the same article above no need to recite it.
"The aim of tariffs is to raise imports to sufficiently high level as to encourage the production of more expensive domestic substitutes. In short living standards are lowered because tariffs cause an irrational allocation of resources; instead of resources being directed to their most valued use they are directed into less valued lines of production causing a net loss of economic welfare." In other words protectionism lowers living standards and causes the loss of a good economy in my case I showed how free trade benefits the economy and that a sound economy benefits societal welfare wit his case he is harming the standard of living and harms the economy and that in no way benefits societal welfare.

I would like to tie his second arguments into my previous arguments, fist with protectionism we end up wasting vital resources like steel and coal second Frederic bastiat once said when goods do not cross borders soldiers will his second argument is that in times of war a country will need steel and coal in my opinion war is a waste of these resources and it protectionism leads to violence between countries so with it, there is more of a chance for war which is absolutely not beneficial to a society.

First for all you debaters out there it is absolutely legal to run part of the resolution as your value criterion. and second my criterion is free trade and im saying that it upholds societal welfare and that is why it should be valued above protectionism. im not running free trade should be valued above protectionism as my vc no im just proving it with my case.
with his argument against my criterion he says that the main goal of free trade is to maximize profits but its the same with protectionism. Protectionism makes it so much easier for monopolies to exist in this country, and all countries free trade creates competition and this prevents monopolies. monopolies are bad. that's is in the most simplest terms I can put it. monopolies mean that a ceo/company can control one industry in a country, meaning that it can raise prices for lower quality products.
he says that fee trade begins monopolies but its not what starts them its protectionism by protecting a company in this case a domestic company it takes away the choices of citizens of that country to varieties simply because they can not afford them of their are plain and simply not allowed this creates a monopoly with in the country. so let me use his analogy here
drug dealer a is a Mexican company, drug dealer b bases his operation in Houston
drug dealer a use to have to lower prices to compete with drug dealer b for costumers but with protectionism isn't allowed to sell in Houston
drug dealer b no longer worrying about drug dealer a lowers the quality of his um products? and then raises prices
BING BANG BOOM MONOPOLY
btw your analogy is so not beneficial to society (drugs are bad)
any way you see that's how a monopoly begins
now he says that free trade takes away jobs but as I proved in my case 5.6 million people are employed in this country by firms from a different country meaning that with out free trade 5.6 million people would be out of work here in the united sates I also said that another 40% of the population work for an exporting firm protectionism would make the cost of importing items skyrocket and that will harm the economy.

protectionism is not in any way beneficial to society and I have proven this with my case that is why you should vote for the affirmative you should also vote that my case had the most reliable resources because I have not plagiarised a single word and have cited all of my sources vote for the affirmative if you value the total well being of an entire society. :}
Cobo

Con

First of all I would like to apologize to the judges for my illegal conduct in the round.
I did something very un-ethical and would like to apologize to my Opponent for doing so.
If my judges would like to penalize me for doing so then I will accept the defeat.
I will continue on with my Case and only go by my taglines.

Now for some clarification

I would like to bring in some LD definitions this round, So anyone can understand it better.
These are from http://debate-central.ncpa.org...
It is a site used to teach debate.

Affirmative: The side that supports the resolution is affirmative. The affirmative case explains why the resolution is correct and is presented during the affirmative constructive (AC)-Pro Basically

Constructive: Constructive speeches are speeches in which debaters introduce their position and advocacy. In Lincoln-Douglas debate the first two speeches are constructive-All Evidence is Presented in the Constructive

Resolution: The topic of the debate. The resolution sets forth the issues to be discussed in the debate and the respective sides affirmative and negative teams will take.-AKA Free Trade should be valued above Protectionism

Criterion: A criterion is a necessary or sufficient standard by which to measure the competing values. It is a conceptual tool used to decide which value should be upheld.-Something to achieve or measure your value

Evidence: Evidence refers to published literature introduced into the debate to provide support for an argument.-I would like to make note that under this definition that my original arguments would not be counted as evidence

These will all be referenced later in My Case.

Now, My Opponent has a very biased definition from, supposedly Merriam Webster.
Using the definition (With no source only a claim).
I tried to look up Protectionism on Merriam Webster Online Dictionary but to no avail.

Now you might of noticed if you read round one that the main difference in our definitions is restrict and restrain, but if you look at these definitions from Merriam Websites Online Dictionary, you'll find that protectionism does not STOP people from going to Anywhere they want.

Restrict-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
to place under restrictions as to use or distribution

Restrain-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Definition-to limit, restrict, or keep under control

As you can See in neither of our definition say Protectionism has Stopped people from moving in an out.
This is my main Opposition to my opponents case.

Now onto my opponents Case.
First I would like to point out that she forfeited and then brought in new evidence and Contentions which is very abusive going by LD rules.
In LD you are suppose to fight of your original arguments no matter what.
But Since I used an plagiarised argument then I will attack her new arguments as well, and putting my self in a disadvantage

I. protectionism creates a misunderstanding of international trade.
First of all we only raise taxes on items that are also domestically produced, meaning that if a country has something we need then sure we will take it. But if we already have enough the we Must LIMIT trading a bit, to help our country.
Trading will always happen, we just have to put in rules to manage it.
Other Country understand that we might not need their product that bad.

II. Protectionism encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth
No Protectionism decreases these.
Using My Earlier arguments when your Diversify your economy then you are creating more jobs with all your resources and not just focusing on one resource of your Country(Aka Free Trade Specialization)

Now to her original Arguments and rebuttals

Free Trade Enhances Competition + Free Trade is beneficial to the Economy
First of All, Using the definitions of Protectionism, Noyone is stopping anyone from going anywhere.
If it is a good enough foreign Product then People will Buy it. They will just have to pay a little more so they can keep their jobs.
This way my opponents example is debunked simply because she does not go by her own definition of Protectionism.
And I would Like to note I was using simple economics and a Economic Tactics rather than a made up example.

Free Trade decreases unemployment
Now even though my opponent has address my Outsourcing argument she has not refuted child labor.
Now lets looks up child labor
Child Labor-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Child labour refers to the employment of children at regular and sustained labour. This practice is considered exploitative by many international organizations and is illegal in many countries.

As you can see many International Free Trade Organizations use this child labor.
But being Protectionist we can hop up their prices in order to show the companies that children should not have to work and that only adults should be employed in a certain dangerous sector(Mining, Farming etc.

Free Trade is beneficial to the consumes
My Opponent has not rebutted this point.

Now to my case.

Infant industry-I will restate without the plagiarism
Basically, a TEMPORARY tariff in a developing industry, is good, because it allows the domestics companies to mature and become competitive with foreign Companies.
When this is achieved then, the tariff can be removed
Even though this arguments context was plagiarised, I still expected my opponent to attack the Tagline but she did not

Diversify Economy-
Some countries rely on one product in which they have a slight advantage.
But with protectionism you can expand your economy to broader Economies, and not just focus on one.
And Some businesses are needed like agriculture or Coal.
With free trade you are at the whims of other countries.

Now my opponents rebuttal to this was that Using Steel and Coal is a waste of resources and ultimately leads to war.
Now First of All this is all False Dilemma based upon my Opponents general Assumption that Protectionism stops trade.
No It does not. She is not even using her own definition again judge.
And Secondly, Noyone can foresee any kind of war. War is sometimes sudden and sometimes planned

Now to the V + C Debate.
For all Experienced debaters on this site who are familiar with LD Debate, It is not legal to run part of the Resolution as your criterion.
If you Look back at the definitions, You will notice that using these definitions her Value Criterion Relationship has many problems.

1.She is using the Resolution Side she is supporting as her Criterion leading to a Circular Context.
This is what my opponent is saying-"Im Using Free Trade to achieve societal Welfare which will show why Free Trade should be valued above protectionism"
2.A Criterion is usually and action, Since only actions can measure. My Opponents Criterion is a Flawed Economical Policy.

My Value Criterion Relationship should be valued highest this round because.
1.I did not use the resolution
2.I have proved how Free Trade detrigates Society
3.My Value Criterion Relationship actually work together.

Now for some voters.
Now Even though I have plagiarised arguments, my opponent has not acted highly in this round, either.
1.She is abusive in using part of the resolution as her Criterion.
2.She Has brought in new arguments which I have attacked, thoroughly putting myself at a disadvantage.
3.She does not have and online source for her definitions and I do.
4.Does not abide by her own definitions and thinks Protectionism Stops trade.
5.Forfeited the second round

Now Again Judges I am extremely sorry for Plagiarising an Argument.
I would like to apologize to my opponent for making this debate unfair.
But, If the judges would be so kind as to first take a look at my arguments.
I see no other vote than a Con.
I would like to say thank you to my opponent and jugdes for their time
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
hilarious just gotta say that I wouldn't care if I lost but the fact I won cuz im cute thats just well funny
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
WHOA WHAT?
The AFF agrued better when she brought in new agruements?
P.S. The AFF is Cute?!?!?
WTF?!?!
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
My Opponent has verbally forfieted aswell.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Amethist17
How on earth are you going to be mad at some-one for using what you put on the internet?
You had to have known that there would those debaters lazy enough that they wouldn't bother to write their own cases and would just take whatever they could find online.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Okay Judges ignore Anything I have just said.
I will debate with the same taglines and not use the cards i have. And summarize the agruments without using anything for 1NC
The Two main reasons for this are:
1.My opponent released new agruments the last round
2.My Opponent has verbally given me the chance to use new ones
So my two contentions aren't dropped they are just going to be defined differently.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
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 Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
I made these agruments Without citing sources so these agruments are plagairised. I would also like to aknowlegde that my oponent
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Any Jugdes that read this debate, have the right to take in the fact that I plagarised an Agrument.
I will now null an viod my agruments but continue on with the debate, by going by my value and Criterion.
Posted by Amethist17 5 years ago
Amethist17
sure the arguement is popular but its wrong to use another site.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Like how I only attack the basis. of Your Case.
Every little details is annoying.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 5 years ago
Awed
Amethist17CoboTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was just plain bad. Regardless, I'm giving the points to PRO to tie it up; plagiarizing by the con is unacceptable in LD without sources, and you'll get called out on it every debate.
Vote Placed by burnbird14 5 years ago
burnbird14
Amethist17CoboTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: So here's my issue with this debate. Aff, you clearly haven't been in LD for very long, because there was the issue of simple conduct and professionalism. You had some good arguments, and I continue to stand by this side of the resolution personally, but your case needs some strengthening. Neg, your case is well structured, but too simple for me. INfant industries is very easy to defeat - having said that, I'd enjoy debating you sometime. Further, don't make theory arguments; not needed. Good!
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Amethist17CoboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I completely dislike this round; honestly I wish there was some-one way to count this round as a double loss. Pro didn't source, claimed early on that she didn't care about putting her case out here on the internet and then complained when some-one used it. Con plagiarized and didn't admit it until Pro called him out on it. My vote will just be an equalizer.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Amethist17CoboTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting exchange, Pro had several LD issues, Con did not source a C