free trade should be valued above protectionism

First of all I would like to apologize to the judges for my illegal conduct in the round. I did something very un-ethical and would like to apologize to my Opponent for doing so. If my judges would like to penalize me for doing so then I will accept the defeat. I will continue on with my Case and only go by my taglines. Now for some clarification I would like to bring in some LD definitions this round, So anyone can understand it better. These are from . http://debate-central.ncpa.org... It is a site used to teach debate. Affirmative: The side that supports the resolution is affirmative. The affirmative case explains why the resolution is correct and is presented during the affirmative constructive (AC)-Pro Basically Constructive: Constructive speeches are speeches in which debaters introduce their position and advocacy. In Lincoln-Douglas debate the first two speeches are constructive-All Evidence is Presented in the Constructive Resolution: The topic of the debate. The resolution sets forth the issues to be discussed in the debate and the respective sides affirmative and negative teams will take. -AKA Free Trade should be valued above Protectionism Criterion: A criterion is a necessary or sufficient standard by which to measure the competing values. It is a conceptual tool used to decide which value should be upheld. -Something to achieve or measure your value Evidence: Evidence refers to published literature introduced into the debate to provide support for an argument. -I would like to make note that under this definition that my original arguments would not be counted as evidence These will all be referenced later in My Case. Now, My Opponent has a very biased definition from, supposedly Merriam Webster. Using the definition (With no source only a claim). I tried to look up Protectionism on Merriam Webster Online Dictionary but to no avail. Now you might of noticed if you read round one that the main difference in our definitions is restrict and restrain, but if you look at these definitions from Merriam Websites Online Dictionary, you'll find that protectionism does not STOP people from going to Anywhere they want. Restrict-. http://www.merriam-webster.com... to place under restrictions as to use or distribution Restrain-. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Definition-to limit, restrict, or keep under control As you can See in neither of our definition say Protectionism has Stopped people from moving in an out. This is my main Opposition to my opponents case. Now onto my opponents Case. First I would like to point out that she forfeited and then brought in new evidence and Contentions which is very abusive going by LD rules. In LD you are suppose to fight of your original arguments no matter what. But Since I used an plagiarised argument then I will attack her new arguments as well, and putting my self in a disadvantage I. protectionism creates a misunderstanding of international trade. First of all we only raise taxes on items that are also domestically produced, meaning that if a country has something we need then sure we will take it. But if we already have enough the we Must LIMIT trading a bit, to help our country. Trading will always happen, we just have to put in rules to manage it. Other Country understand that we might not need their product that bad. II. Protectionism encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth No Protectionism decreases these. Using My Earlier arguments when your Diversify your economy then you are creating more jobs with all your resources and not just focusing on one resource of your Country(Aka Free Trade Specialization) Now to her original Arguments and rebuttals Free Trade Enhances Competition + Free Trade is beneficial to the Economy First of All, Using the definitions of Protectionism, Noyone is stopping anyone from going anywhere. If it is a good enough foreign Product then People will Buy it. They will just have to pay a little more so they can keep their jobs. This way my opponents example is debunked simply because she does not go by her own definition of Protectionism. And I would Like to note I was using simple economics and a Economic Tactics rather than a made up example. Free Trade decreases unemployment Now even though my opponent has address my Outsourcing argument she has not refuted child labor. Now lets looks up child labor Child Labor-. http://en.wikipedia.org... Child labour refers to the employment of children at regular and sustained labour. This practice is considered exploitative by many international organizations and is illegal in many countries. As you can see many International Free Trade Organizations use this child labor. But being Protectionist we can hop up their prices in order to show the companies that children should not have to work and that only adults should be employed in a certain dangerous sector(Mining, Farming etc. Free Trade is beneficial to the consumes My Opponent has not rebutted this point. Now to my case. Infant industry-I will restate without the plagiarism Basically, a TEMPORARY tariff in a developing industry, is good, because it allows the domestics companies to mature and become competitive with foreign Companies. When this is achieved then, the tariff can be removed Even though this arguments context was plagiarised, I still expected my opponent to attack the Tagline but she did not Diversify Economy- Some countries rely on one product in which they have a slight advantage. But with protectionism you can expand your economy to broader Economies, and not just focus on one. And Some businesses are needed like agriculture or Coal. With free trade you are at the whims of other countries. Now my opponents rebuttal to this was that Using Steel and Coal is a waste of resources and ultimately leads to war. Now First of All this is all False Dilemma based upon my Opponents general Assumption that Protectionism stops trade. No It does not. She is not even using her own definition again judge. And Secondly, Noyone can foresee any kind of war. War is sometimes sudden and sometimes planned Now to the V + C Debate. For all Experienced debaters on this site who are familiar with LD Debate, It is not legal to run part of the Resolution as your criterion. If you Look back at the definitions, You will notice that using these definitions her Value Criterion Relationship has many problems. 1. She is using the Resolution Side she is supporting as her Criterion leading to a Circular Context. This is what my opponent is saying-"Im Using Free Trade to achieve societal Welfare which will show why Free Trade should be valued above protectionism" 2. A Criterion is usually and action, Since only actions can measure. My Opponents Criterion is a Flawed Economical Policy. My Value Criterion Relationship should be valued highest this round because. 1. I did not use the resolution 2. I have proved how Free Trade detrigates Society 3. My Value Criterion Relationship actually work together. Now for some voters. Now Even though I have plagiarised arguments, my opponent has not acted highly in this round, either. 1. She is abusive in using part of the resolution as her Criterion. 2. She Has brought in new arguments which I have attacked, thoroughly putting myself at a disadvantage. 3. She does not have and online source for her definitions and I do. 4. Does not abide by her own definitions and thinks Protectionism Stops trade. 5. Forfeited the second round Now Again Judges I am extremely sorry for Plagiarising an Argument. I would like to apologize to my opponent for making this debate unfair. But, If the judges would be so kind as to first take a look at my arguments.