Resolved: that, on balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the US

I would like to first address my opponent's numerous counter-arguments. They began by stating "The BRIC countries are rising economically and our GDP has actually increased over the years the BRIC has been in service (2003-2009)." I will reiterate - I do not refute any of this. However I still maintain that it is irrelevant. First, it is quite obvious that the BRIC countries are "rising economically," as this is the basis for this debate. Second, indeed GDP has risen over the years that the "BRIC has been in service," but this is irrelevant because GDP has in fact been rising since around the beginning of World War II (http://www.bea.gov...). It is a logical fallacy to contest that the BRIC has caused GDP to increase, as this does not demonstrate a plausible cause-effect relationship. My opponent has presented no sufficient evidence to prove that the rise of the BRIC has caused GDP growth. My opponent then goes on to once again claim that "not only do they need us for our exports to them, but do they need us for the money we send them," claiming that these countries holding our debt is a good thing for the US. I will once again reiterate: the US depends much more heavily on foreign exports, then these foreign countries depend on our exports. I have presented reputable data to support this. As for the argument about borrowing from these countries as a good thing, I will remind you that I merely presented this data to illustrate that these countries do, indeed, have a great deal of leverage over the United States. Whether or not this borrowing is good for the US is, in and of itself, debatable. Let's just assume for the sake of this debate, that this borrowing is positive. There is no evidence to suggest that the rise of the BRIC has had anything to do with this. The national debt has existed since the 1930's, and the US has been borrowing from foreign countries long before the BRIC had begun to rise(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Thus, the fact that the BRIC has risen does not suggest that there has been any impact on the USA's borrowing from these foreign countries. My opponent has claimed that the USA was "part of the BRIC's rise." I again argue that this is irrelevant, because it does not prove that the rise of the BRIC has had a positive impact on the US. It is inevitable that the USA would be part of any country's economic rise. The USA is an economic leader in the world and provides an immense market in which to sell goods. It is fairly obvious that the USA would play a role in the rise of the BRIC economies, or of any economy, for that matter. This does not suggest that the rise of the BRIC has positively impacted the US, however. My opponent went on to claim that these countries save US consumers "millions of dollars because the products and goods in these foreign countries are much cheaper than they would be here." They then go on to reiterate their point that China and India "do not have a monopoly on cheap labor." I will not refute that cheap imports benefit domestic consumers. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the rise of the BRIC has had any positive impact on this. In fact, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have been amongst the top fifteen sources of US imports long before the the time frame that my opponent presented in which this rise of the BRIC has occurred. My opponent states that "BRIC countries are reportedly in need of more transportation and our goods because of their economic rise." First, no sources have yet been cited, I would question the origin of this, and all other reports that my opponent has mentioned. Second, irregardless of validity, this statement is vague and broad, not suggestive of any positive impact. Foreign countries have been in need of transportation and US exports for quite some time. How does this serve as evidence for a positive impact? In claiming that "pollution levels will decrease if BRIC nations and America can cooperate on how to switch our sources of energy to cleaner energy," I must once again assert that my opponent has employed faulty logic. Pollution levels will decrease if any countries can cooperate to come up with cleaner sources of energy. But this is all hypothetical. Where has a positive impact ACTUALLY occured, and how can this be concretely linked to the rise of the BRIC? I will once again reiterate my previous argument that pollution levels in industrializing nations will undoubtedly increase, regardless of environmental protection efforts, because these countries will simply have more sources of pollution as they grow (i.e. more cars, factories, trash, etc.). My opponent has attempted to refute my previous arguments, however there is not one instance in which they have provided a convincing counter-argument. I will address each counter argument that my opponent has given proceeding where he has written "Now, onto refuting my opponents." : 1) My opponent claims that as these countries grow, their labor costs will increase, which will mean US labor will ultimately not be threatened. This is not necessarily true. It all depends on the regulations these foreign governments implement regarding labor. In the US, we have numerous labor laws, which makes domestic labor more expensive and altogether less appealing for businesses. Hypothetically, even if these foreign labor costs do increase, how will this positively impact the US? 2) I will reiterate that the lower costs of work has EVERYTHING to do with the "economic RISE." The whole reason that these economies have risen is because businesses have been willing to invest in these lower costs. This means, if a US business puts a factory in a third-world developing country, that factory will not be subject to the same environmental restrictions, nor its workers protected by the same labor laws, as would be found in the US. This means an altogether more efficient means of production for this business, that is ultimately much cheaper. This is why US businesses invest in foreign economies. It is this business investment that has allowed these economies to grow. 3) My opponent has made virtually the same argument - that the rise in these economies will ultimately cause a rise in their labor costs - three times in a row. As I have already illustrated, the logic to this is faulty, though nevertheless irrelevant. 4) GDP has been increasing for over half a century. I will clarify that when I argued that GDP will be lowered, it was intended that the rate of GDP GROWTH will decrease. There is no evidence to support that the BRIC has positively impacted GDP. 5) It is difficult to understand how diversification of the US economy is unimportant. As of now the US specializes in high priced goods and agricultural products. While agricultural products have a high and inelastic demand worldwide, uncontrollable factors such as weather patterns and infertility can drastically alter the production of this. Meanwhile, high priced computer technology has a relatively low, and elastic demand worldwide. What if these two main exports become unreliable? Then the US is left to depend on its domestic service industries, and these are not exported. As more and more foreign economies grow, this phenomenon of specialization will become more prominent, especially in the US. With an economy that lacks diversity, a small number of factors could have tremendous adverse effects. I question the basis of facts where my opponent has argued "computer technology sales are nothing short of increasing." There is no connection that links the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, or China's economies to a positive impact on the US. As it stands now, the US economy is far worse off than it was in 2003 (the year in which my opponent has stated this "rise" began). How does this indicate that the US has been positively affected by anything?