homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:41 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Let's talk tariffs
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2885
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Literally 75% of the cases at one of the practice tournaments were about trade, in part because almost all of the preseason neg strats were ineffective.

Three ideas:
1. Significance T: the rez asks you to reform policy towards China and you're talking about a few million dollars of tires/finished goods/solar panels/steel. -_- Really? Vote aff and you get more insignificant cases, vote neg and teams will start caring about really studying the topic.

2. Trade leakage: woooo I love this argument so much that I wrote my (unfinished) undergrad thesis on it. Trade leakage refers to the idea that firms will move manufacturing overseas to prefer the developing country, because of the lower cost. But, when it moves, the developing country has fewer regulations, which increases negative externalities (unintended consequences) like pollution and human rights violations. This has two impacts:
A: Labor abuse. Plenty of evidence that china abuses laborers and has weak protections. Reducing tariffs *will* increase offshoring, which will be lower labor standards, probably abusively so.
B: Environmental destruction. Offshoring to china empirically (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1509007083) increases carbon emissions by ~1% per year (.4884/35.7) (among other environmental dangers). Impact this to ocean acidification since we're in NCFCA and can't run climate change.

3. Throw away our only leverage. Aff's plan has no provisions that allow it to be repealed. if we need to respond in a trade war, or if we need to, say, sanction China per a WTO finding.

There are plenty of responses to all of these arguments, but this could be a good starting place for research.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Let's talk tariffs
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
4. Nat security.

5. CHINA IS BAD

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Let's talk tariffs
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2885
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
_idontknow_ wrote:
4. Nat security.

5. CHINA IS BAD

National security? That's quite a long set of links.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Let's talk tariffs
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:
_idontknow_ wrote:
4. Nat security.

5. CHINA IS BAD

National security? That's quite a long set of links.


Nah man. We really need tariffs on certain items to maintain a strong domestic industry for materials needed to defend national security. Steel is a perfect example.

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Let's talk tariffs
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1391
Home Schooled: Yes
Tariffs are one of the few debate issues I haven't really researched that much, because frankly the issue bores me. So my opinion on them is somewhat uninformed.

That said, I can't really understand how an Aff can decisively demonstrate that their free trade plan (whatever it is) will cause more good than harm. Lowering tariffs just causes too many unquantifiable advantages and disadvantages. For instance:

1. Lowering tariffs leads to lower consumer prices, which encourages investment in other areas and can lead to more jobs - an advantage.

2. Lowering tariffs inevitably harms a US industry and those people are unemployed, which also hurts the entire US economy - a disadvantage.

3. Lowering tariffs encourages constant innovation - an advantage.

4. Lowering tariffs decreases government tariff revenue, which means US consumers are taxed more - a disadvantage.

I don't know much about economics, so maybe I'm wrong about this , but...it doesn't seem possible to me that you could really prove DAs outweigh the advantages or vise versa. It sort of seems like an issue that we can't really know is good or bad. That's what bugs me about free trade cases, and it's also why I never ran one (except Pakistan, but that was a very special case where free trade made sense).

I don't know why arguing that Aff can't prove comp-ad would fail in a debate round (you said existing strategies haven't been working). All I know is, it has worked perfectly whenever I've run it against a free trade case. I've never lost a round Neg against free trade (except Pakistan, but again, special case :P).

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited