Free trade should be a norm

1. This is the matter of free trade vs protectionism and the number one issue in whole debate. Brazil's president specifically said, it was the free trade and the continuing of exports flooding that caused Brazil to look towards protectionism policies. Once again I would like to point out President Rousseff said it was loose economic policies, which does not include subsidies, that has caused the turn towards protectionism policies. So in summary unrestricted free trade will continue to ruin smaller economies, and make them turn to alternative methods such as protectionism. 2. Your accusations said it was a liberal institution so we shouldn't use the study. That is ad hominum when you provide no facts to discredit the study, but only use rhetoric that they are a liberal institution. Your study says since the US GDP was growing is must have been NAFTA that created all these jobs. I will stand by that the United States loss a total of 1 million net jobs because of NAFTA. Onto the manufacturing jobs and capitalism, this will be covered in the poverty section 3. Concession was made here 4. 1st on Mexico: Mexico's poverty has been on rise recently, even when US and Mexico have continued to have a healthy trade. When 20 million of the Mexican people or 17% of the population can't afford food then you can see the fault in free trade. Free trade doesn't liberate the poor it liberates big corporations and hurts the poor. 2nd Peru: Peru loses 70% of its revenue to American farmers when it trades asparagus with the United States. Then out of the 30% only 5% goes back the farmers, sounds like the big corporations are once again winning, while the producers are suffering. 3rd will be the manufacturing and jobs: My opponent makes a big mistake with this argument because it insures that free trade will create poverty. In my first speech I talk about how free trade devastate developing countries, and my opponent built upon it on his last speech. He said capitalism is about profit; and countries who can not keep up with this capitalism cycle will lose. This proves that countries with bigger industries will continue to dominate the free market era, and will continue to flood the market just like the US is doing in Brazil. Bigger nations will always win in free trade while smaller countries will continue to be impoverished by free trade. 5. My opponent makes a costly concession here too. He concedes that Latin America has tried free trade, and they are now moving away from it. He doesn't contend my point about economic nationalism but attacks political hurdles, that have no relevance what so ever in the round. Latin America stands as the number one source of empirical evidence in this debate as why free trade should be rejected. In conclusion my opponent tries to hide behind economic theories, and avoid the facts that happened because of free trade. He failed to show the Latin America is moving away from free trade because it doesn't have the economic benefit that is suppose to come with free trade. He fails to comprehend and provide reasonable analysis on the Brazil example of what free trade actually does to the nation. Finally in the last speech he says capitalism is all about profit, which means developing nation will continue to suffer under the free trade era.