Affirmative: Free Trade
Note to the debater: Bold and Underlined words should be read during the affirmative constructive
case. The underlined words can be used in the rebuttals to fortify your case.
Introduction:
Judge, do you ever think about the history of the world? Do you ever wonder how it reached the
point it is at? Free trade is responsible for the successes, and protectionalism is responsible for the
failures.
According to Douglas Irwin, who is a professor of economics, from his 2010 “Protectionalism vs.
Free Trade”, “[s]ince the end of World War II, most developed countries have agreed to set a
course of reducing tariffs, duties, trade quotas and other explicit obstacles to free trade. And, for
the most part, the world economy has prospered over the last 60 years as trade barriers have come
down.” [Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free
Trade,” CoBank Outlook: Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.] As the
affirmative team I affirm the resolution. RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above
protectionism. My value for this is societal welfare and my criterion is justice .
[Definitions]
For the purpose of this debate I give the following definitions to define my case:
Free Trade: “the buying and selling of goods, without limits on the amount of goods that one country
can sell to another, and without special taxes on the goods bought from a foreign country” which is
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
4
Affirmative: Free Trade
from Cambridge Dictionary of American English, second edition, Cambridge University Press, New
York, 2008, p. 342.
Protectionalism: “the use of government policy to determine the prices of foreign manufactured
goods on domestic markets; a policy of high tariffs or low import quotas to protect domestic
industries; protectionism is the opposite of free trade policy” from Jay M. Shafritz (professor of public
and international affairs), The Harper Collins American Government & Politics Dictionary, Harper
Collins Publishers, New York, 1993, p. 395.
Societal welfare is defined by the economics-dictionary as “the welfare of the society as a whole.”
http://www.economics-dictionary.com/definition/social-welfare.html
Lastly Justice is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as “[t]he constant and perpetual
disposition to render everyman his due”
The link between my value and criterion is that we can reach societal welfare through justice.
Contention I: Free trade has been successful in the past
A. Free trade is historically meaningful and has benefited the United States, as well
as other nations.
According to Douglas A. Irwin, who, let me state again, is a professor of Economics and was a
member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and Federal Reserve Board.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
5
Affirmative: Free Trade
Irwin, 2008 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics; former member, President’s Council of
Economic Advisers and Federal Reserve Board), “International Trade Agreements,” The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008.]
Ever since Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, the vast majority of
economists have accepted the proposition that free trade among nations improves overall economic
welfare. Free trade, usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental
impediments to international trade, allows each country to specialize in the goods it can produce
cheaply and efficiently relative to other countries. Such specialization enables all countries to achieve
higher real incomes.
Judge, this shows free trade has a positive effect, it’s a mutual relationship, both parties benefit.
B. Since the 1990’s and beyond, free trade has increased, directly helping economies
According to the World Civilizations: The Global Experience Advance Placement Edition,
Sterns, Peter N.. "Period III: The 1990s and Beyond." World Civilizations: The Global Experience
Advanced Placement Edition. Ed. Peter N. Stearns. United States: Longman, 2003. Print. (703-704).
“…spurred by the economic success of the United States and western Europe, most major societies in
all regions moved towards more common commercial policies. Countries from Mexico to India to
China reduce state-run enterprises in a favor of greater competition and freer market forces,
believing the reform would promote economic growth. China. . . made an early commitment to the
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
6
Affirmative: Free Trade
new policies in 1978. . . Development of this sort reflected the steady growth in importance of
international economic contacts …”
Judge, from this, we can conclude trade is accepted globally and beneficial. Once China
started free trade, it rose in the economy and is now a powerhouse.
C. An example of a free trade success: South Korea
According to John Steele Gordon, and author, he writes in 2008
Gordon, 2008 [John Steele Gordon (author), “Look Who’s Afraid of Free Trade,” Commentary 125:2,
February, 2008.]
South Korea is a good example... In 1960, it was one of the most underdeveloped countries on
earth. A single generation later, it had achieved first-world status and now has the twelfth largest
economy in the world. Nor is Korea an isolated instance: the global economy is growing strongly
almost everywhere. The number of "working poor" in East Asia has been cut in half in just the last
ten years, and nearly everywhere else the numbers are falling as well. But intellectuals and historians
can afford to take such medium-or long-term views.
Based on this example, we can see free trade works. It has increased South Korea’s economy and
is a policy we should value.
D. Free trade is accepted internationally
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
7
Affirmative: Free Trade
According to Aleah Borghard in 2006. . .
Borghard, 2006 [Aleah Borghard (staff writer; attorney), “Free Trade, Economic Rights, and Displaced
Workers: It Works if you Work it,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32:161, 2006, p. 161.]
Although Bangladesh and nations like it are suffering, the international community has
increasingly supported the movement towards free trade. Free trade provides nations access to
formerly unavailable markets, and greater diversity in the market helps economic integration
accelerate on a global scale. Therefore, despite the international community's initial hesitation, the
incipient growth free trade has encouraged confirms that collective global economic growth will
persist if nations continue to apply free trade principles to the market. An open market is now a
widely supported initiative.
Nevertheless, support for free trade endures. The majority of the international community
supports the fundamental proposition that the [There are]"substantial benefits [that] arise from the free
exchange of goods between countries . . . ha[ve] not been overshadowed by the limited scope of various
qualifications and exceptions." The commonly held belief is that the net gains to the global economy are
a substantial benefit and justify any losses from the pursuit of trade liberalization. Advocates assert that
affected nations, which experience economic loss, will only temporarily decline and will eventually find
an industry in which they can efficiently produce. Advocates also argue that the economic process of
liberalization will ultimately aid the economic stability of nations, such as Bangladesh, which are
presently experiencing detrimental economic effects from the movement towards free trade.
With the expectation that all nations will ultimately benefit, the United States and many other
nations recognize and embrace the elimination of quotas and the movement towards trade liberalization
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
8
Affirmative: Free Trade
as the most effective way to stimulate both the global economy and the economies of individual nations.
Currently, over 140 WTO member nations are actively engaged in the movement towards liberalization
This, judge, depicts other nations’ feelings towards trade. They like it, they want it. We should
utilize that want for a mutual gain.
E. Free trade is universally beneficial
According to Matthew Lopez in 2010…
Lopez, 2010 [Matthew L. Lopez (attorney, staff writer), “The Effects of Free Trade on the Environment:
Conserving the Environment While Maintaining Increased Levels of Economic Prosperity for
Developing Countries,” Phoenix Law Review 3:701, Summer, 2010, p. 701.]
To gain an understanding of how globalization affects the environment, one must become
familiar with international free trade, and more specifically, with the opportunities that developed
countries have to use free trade for furthering international environmental policies. There is a broad
consensus among economists that free trade, the elimination of trade barriers such as tariffs and
import restrictions between nations, is beneficial to both parties.
A free market provides developing countries with equal opportunity to export their goods and
services without being encumbered by discriminatory trade barriers established by foreign countries.
Calvin Terbeek, a journalist, also writes in 2004 of his “Love in the Time of Free Trade:
NAFTA’s Economic Effects Ten Years Later states. . .
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
9
Affirmative: Free Trade
Terbeek, 2004 [Calvin Terbeek (staff writer), “Love in the Time of Free Trade: NAFTA’s Economic
Effects Ten Years Later,” Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 12:487, Spring, 2004,
p. 487.]
Further benefits economists connect to free trade include undermining anticompetitive practices,
lowering prices, increasing consumer choice, and increasing national efficiency. Free trade also
provides for the dissemination of technology and "know-how" from developed to less developed
countries (LDCs), therefore allowing those countries that lag behind to "catch up in income and
productivity with more advanced economies."
To sum those to two sources, trade benefits the importer as well as the exporter. The importer
gets the supplies it needs and the exporter gets money. It also provides a way for underdeveloped
countries to develop.
F. Free trade advocates competence and generates new, original ideas
According to Arnold Kling, an economist with the Federal Reserve, in 2008…
Kling, 2008 [Arnold Kling (author; economist with Federal Reserve), “International Trade,” The
Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008.]
All of the economic theories of international trade suggest that it enhances efficiency. In this
regard, international trade is like a new technology. It adds to the productive capacity of all countries
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
10
Affirmative: Free Trade
that engage in trade. Some of the efficiency is due to comparative advantage, as in the Ricardo and
Heckscher-Ohlin theories. In addition, some efficiency comes from taking advantage of increasing
returns . . .
Another benefit from trade is that it promotes dynamism and innovation within an economy.
Improvements in manufacturing quality and productivity in the United States in recent decades have
been credited, in part, to the pressure of competition from Japan and elsewhere.
According to a World Bank study, twenty-four developing countries that became more
integrated into the world economy in the 1980s and 1990s had higher income growth, longer life
expectancy, and better schooling. Per capita income in these countries, home to half the world’s
population, grew by an average of 5 percent in the 1990s compared with only 2 percent in rich
countries. China, India, Hungary, and Mexico are among the countries that adopted policies that
allowed their people to take advantage of global markets. As a result, they sharply increased the
amount of their GDP accounted for by trade. Real wages in these countries rose and the number of
poor people fell.
The study also points out that two billion people—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle
East, and the former Soviet Union—are in countries being left behind. These countries’ integration into
the world economy has not increased, and their ratio of trade to GDP has stagnated or fallen. Their
economies have generally contracted, poverty has increased, and education levels have risen less
rapidly than in the more globalized countries.
Another report notes that exports plus imports as a share of output among the richest countries
rose from 32.3 percent to 37.9 percent between 1990 and 2001. Moreover, among developing countries,
that share rose from 33.8 percent to 48.9 percent over that period. The success of India and China
recently, and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and other countries in the 1970s and 1980s, is due in large
part to trade.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
11
Affirmative: Free Trade
The OECD countries, which together have more than $25 trillion in GDP, account for most of
world trade. Poor countries account for less than $300 billion in GDP, which is less than one-tenth of
world output, and thus account for only a miniscule fraction of world trade.
Economic theory indicates that international trade raises the standard of living. A comparison
between the performance of open and closed economies confirms that the benefits of trade in practice
are significant.
Judge, this says that the benefits to free trading are increase efficiency of productivity,
improvement in quality of goods, increase GDP’s as well as others.
Judge, based on these statistics, countries that do not engage significantly in free trade do not develop as
well as the countries that do.
Contention II: Free trade is an unalienable right
The 9th amendment of the United State’s Bill of Right, states our individual rights. It defines it as
rights not specifically listed in the Constitution or other amendments.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX] : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Trade is one of them, therefore it is a liberty granted to the people. With protectionalism, it is
against the ninth amendment of our Constitution and should be considered inferior to free trade.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
12
Affirmative: Free Trade
Again, Borghard asserts. . .
Borghard, 2006 [Aleah Borghard (staff writer; attorney), “Free Trade, Economic Rights, and Displaced
Workers: It Works if you Work it,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32:161, 2006, p. 161.]
Whether nations are permitted to ignore the immediate welfare of their citizens depends in large
part on whether there is an enforceable right to work under the international framework. Economic
rights developed under the human rights agenda, and an international covenant, guarantees the right
to work as well as other economic rights. Even so, implementation of economic rights is difficult, and
enforcement has not been pursued extensively. Despite the struggles with implementation and
enforcement, the international community now publicly recognizes economic rights as human rights,
and the economic right to work is directly applicable to the struggle of displaced workers.
So in summary, free trade is an unalienable right. With protectionalism, that goes against the
Constitution, against the wills of our founding fathers.
Contention III: Now judge, I will attack why protectionalism is
subordinate to free trade:
A. Protectionism is undesirable
Again, from a previous source listed, Lopez asserts. . .
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
13
Affirmative: Free Trade
Lopez, 2010 [Matthew L. Lopez (attorney, staff writer), “The Effects of Free Trade on the Environment:
Conserving the Environment While Maintaining Increased Levels of Economic Prosperity for
Developing Countries,” Phoenix Law Review 3:701, Summer, 2010, p. 701.]
There is also a broad consensus that protectionist policies such as high tariffs, subsidies,
quotas, and other restrictive trade regulations are detrimental to economic welfare and should be
eliminated. The benefits of free trade are due largely to the concept of comparative advantage.
He expressed restricted trade, or protectionalism, hinders the economy and should be abolished.
B. Protectionalism was a cause of the Great Depression
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,”
CoBank Outlook: Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
First of all, not only did protectionism not work during the 1930s in terms of bringing
countries out of the Great Depression, but it made matters worse. What’s happened since World War II
is that world incomes have risen tremendously, and expanding world trade, which has been encouraged
by the GATT and trade liberalization, has allowed that process to take place. World commerce is pretty
open and there is a lot of world trade, but there is still quite a bit of government intervention.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “No nation was ever ruined by trade.” Thank you, I am now
open for Cross Examination.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
14
Affirmative: Free Trade
CX Questions
1. Would you say protectionalism decreases the average individual’s want to buy other goods sold by
foreign countries?
Yes
No
2. Would you say this, directly, decreases the amount of goods exported as well?
Yes
No
3. Wouldn’t this hurt the United States’ economy as well as other economies that export goods?
Yes
No
4. Would goods from China, Thailand and other trading partners be high priced for the consumers, with
protectionalism?
Yes
No
5. Don’t you think that’s wrong for the common person that the United States would increase the prices
of other goods?
Yes
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
No
Spring 2011
15
Affirmative: Free Trade
6. Wouldn’t you say it’s wrong for the government to make other countries’ good’s expensive especially
since we’re in a recession? Do you think it is right?
Yes
No
7. In World War II, why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?
[The United States’ stopped trading with Japan; it was practicing isolationalism, or not trading
with anyone. Chapter 28]
8. Please define utilitarianism in your own words.
9. May I have a copy of your case for the remainder of this debate?
10.
11.
12.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
16
Affirmative: Free Trade
Rebuttal
Utilitarianism: Judge, the negative’s value/criterion is utilitarianism. Having said that, through free
trade we can reach utilitarianism. Overall, more people would benefit from free trade. Where as
protectionalism is only detrimental to the countries that import and export. Why? Simply because the
countries that export will no longer getting money and the countries that import will no longer be able to
receive the goods they need. Free trade has not only a short term advantage, but a long term one as well.
Quality of Life: Judge, with the affirmative’s value, we can reach an increased quality of life as well.
With free trade countries are able to get items that they wouldn’t have otherwise. The United State
utilizes China’s production and allows for its citizen to buy Chinese goods. This is moral and valuable
to the common person. Judge, this is what the debate’s about, being moral, what’s better? From the
arguments I have given you, protectionalism is not greater then free trade. If anything, it is harmful to
the economy as well as the population at large. Is that what you want? A decline in the economy? A
decline in products available to the consumers? With this in mind, judge, I implore you to vote
affirmative. Thank you.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
Spring 2011
17