The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Donald trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Kelisitaan has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 98518
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will argue that Donald Trump threatening to impose a 35% tariff on US companies who leave the USA and ship their products back is beneficial for the United States.

My opponent will argue that it is not.

May the best argument win

No new arguments in R4. Forfeiting a round=autoloss


The collectivist ideals of protectionism, represent a threat to some of the basic principles indoctrinated in our constitution. It is a socialist sentiment, disgiused as "patriotism", with the intent of controling the means of prodution. The constitution garuantees us our right to private property, and it extends that right to private business ownership, because it views our business to be private property as well. You, as an entrepreneur, possess the right to higher or fire who ever you feel fit, that means, without consequence, or reguard to the labor force. A tariff on American companies, is just a case of treating the symtom, but neglecting the underlyng problem of high labor costs. If labor is cheaper elsewhere, than as a competitive labor force, we should ease or even get rid of minimum wage restrictions, to make our labor force a more competetive prospect. Yes, my heart goes out to those who lose thier jobs to other countries, but when the price of goods go up, my concern falls drastically. My hard earned money is for me to support my family with, not for spending on overpriced goods for the benefit of those who refuse to work for lower wages. Protectionism, communism, socialism, national socialism, are all born of the same eggs of the same collectivist insect. This is unacceptable for our individualist society, and is better suited for stalinist russia or nazi germany.
Debate Round No. 1


What con fails to understand is that a free market solution does not work for labor, especially in the effort of unskilled labor. That's why we have a government; to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich, and to protect the rich from crimes against them by the poor. Having no minimum wage is one of the examples of protecting the poor from the rich.

One of the reasons "labor" is cheaper in other places is because people are so desperate that they are willing to be exploited for pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but a lot of the labor laws here that protect workers from unsafe worker situations do not exist there. is one of MANY news articles describing the situations abroad.

Con argues he doesn't want the price of his goods to go up, but ignores the fact that if people lose their jobs, more of his tax money will be used to subsidize their living. Moreover, as poverty increases, crime increases as well. This should be obvious, but to people who need sources:

Con also doesn't understand that it's the president's job to look after the interest of ALL americans, not just to look after him. He also ignores the negative externalities of outsourcing jobs and merely focuses on how it affects him, when that was never the argument. The argument is how it affects america as a whole, and that is clearly negative.


That was an impressive, eloquent post, damming the ideals of our civil liberties, and arguing instead, for a tribal, national consciousness, disreegarding our freedom for the sake of "protection". Trotsky would be proud!!! Sorry, I wasn't aware that the job of our president is to look after the interest of all Americans, and the job of our government is to protect the poor from being exploited by the rich. How daft of me to think that the true job of the President, and our government is to protect our CIVIL LIBERTIES, not protect us from mean, nasty business savages with golden fangs. My bad!!! Boy, have I been barking up the wrong tree. There is one question I have with this new found collectivist bandwagon we're all on now, like:

Does a tariff on American companies actually help manufacturing jobs from disappearing?

in 1980, on average it took 25 manufacture workers to make a million dollars in a quarter, whereas now it only takes 5 workers to make a million in that same time frame. LIke it or not, automation is more of a threat to American manufacturing jobs than outsourcing is. Good ol Ronnie Trump has no policy propositions for domestic companies who layoff workers in place of machines, and if he were to impose regulations on said companies, not only would it further infringe on our civil liberties, but it would stiffle technological progress. And what of the companies who make the manufacturing machines, do we just tell them to go out of business? Perhaps, a better option for the unskilled workers, would be to further thier education. i'm not against government loans to help poeple not only gain skills, better suited for todays economy, but also increase the quality of thier lives. My opponent fails to see the problem with any depth or logic and oppts instead for a reactionary policy that only covers one aspect of a larger issue. A policy that burdens us all with higher prices for the sake of a portion of the population, and tramples our freedom as well.
Debate Round No. 2


Con provides extremely lackluster rebuttals. First, he goes on to say that the government's job is to protect our civil liberties, not from "mean nasty business savages." Actually, the government's job is to do both; con assumes that protecting civil liberties and workers' rights are mutually exclusive, which of course they aren't.

Then con brings up the point about automated machines replacing unskilled labor and how tariffs can't save jobs from outsourcing. What con fails to understand is that this argument isn't about whether or not tariffs can save manufacturing jobs; rather, it's about whether or not threatening to impose a tariff is BETTER or WORSE than doing nothing at all.

What con fails to realize is that automated machines will replace jobs in BOTH scenarios, thus making it an irrelevant point overall. He criticizes Donald Trump for not having a policy. What con doesn't understand is even IF trump DID have a policy, he would be absolutely stupid to talk about it in his campaign.

Anyone who is even minorly educated in politics would know that is a major faux-pas. Why would a candidate bring up something which is doom and gloom if he doesn't have to when he is projecting a message of hope and change?

Con then goes on to say that unskilled workers should just "further their education." What con fails to grasp is that there are only a limited number of jobs available and that this number is only going DOWN due to automation.

Unskilled labor is unskilled for a reason. Sure, some may be unskilled due to lack of education, but most are unskilled because they just aren't smart enough to get a GOOD education. There is a HUGE difference between a diploma mill 4th tier college and a respected university.

To close, con brings up a point that was already rebutted, which either indicates a lack of reading comprehension or logic. Con fails to realize that having american's lose their jobs also burdens us with having to pay for their social welfare paymen


Oh, the irony, I can almost swim in it. Pro extols the "rights of the worker", while simultaneously chastising those workers for not being "smart enough". So, lets boil pro's argument down.*Pro, does not agree with a free market solution.*Pro, has little concern for higher prices, just a concern for jobs lost from outsourcing.*Pro, feels it's the job of the government to protect the poor from the rich, and vice versa.*Pro thinks the workers "aren't smart enough" for a good education.*Pro thinks " there are only a limited number of jobs".*Pro thinks a 35% tariff will keep jobs here!! Well, that's the perfect set up for an American caste society. Manufacturing jobs stay here, producing at a higher cost than foreign companies, and higher costs only further entrench us into our respective earning brackets, especially those "not smart enough" workers, who will keep thier mouths shut because they got thier meager jobs, while the white collar workers will be safe from competition for thier limited number of jobs, and from blue collar criminals, and everybody just falls in line, and knows their roll in society! I'm surprised you don't come right out and say that we belong to our jobs, and the jobs belong to the country. It's a modern day Serfdom scenario.

I fail to see how the United States will benefit from this twisted idealism. Only those in the highest earning brackets (who will now become the ruling class) will benefit, while any hope of climbing the economic ladder will disappear!
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.