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
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014