RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.

“Feminist critiques of liberalism address the economic inequalities inherent to free trade, which disproportionately affect women.” It’s because I agree with Tricia Ruiz that I negate the resolution, “RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism.” I provide the following definitions for a fair debate: Protectionism: policy of protecting domestic industries against foreign competition by means of tariffs, subsidies, import quotas, or other restrictions or handicaps placed on the imports of foreign competitors. (Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed December 7, 2010, http://www.britannica.com... ) Free Trade: also called laissez-faire, a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports). (Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed December 7, 2010, http://www.britannica.com...) The value I advocate today is that of equality. Since this resolution puts each debater in an executive political position, we are forced to look through a generic governmental lens of what economic policy best benefits citizens worldwide. Any economic policy that causes inequality is automatically unjust, putting some citizens below others, which in turn undermines that very same economic system by ensuring unequal opportunity. Even if that isn’t enough to urge a Negative ballot, we can see that any government that allows an economic policy which causes inequality is undoubtedly unjust. At the point where governmental righteousness is called into question, you must vote for the debater who guarantees a just government policy. As I will show throughout my case, the Negative is the only one who can ensure a just government. The proper criterion for today’s round is feminism, as I will explain in my contention-level analysis. Contention 1: Gendered lenses are the only way to diminish oppressive hierarchies. Peterson and Runyan explain: Peterson and Runyan 99—Peterson is a Professor in the School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona with courtesy appointments in the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies and Runyan is a Professor and former Head, Department of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University of Cincinnati (V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues, p. 14-15, JB) Finally, gender-sensitive studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interactions, and the possibilities of moving beyond them. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against economic, epidemic, nuclear, or ecological threats; crises of maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and impoverish most; and crises of environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources continues in unsustainable fashion. These global crises cannot be understood or addressed without acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system, inequalities that extend well beyond gender issues: They are embodied in interacting hierarchies of race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, and religious identification. In this text, we focus on how the structural inequalities of gender work in the world: how the hierarchical dichotomy of masculinity-femininity is institutionalized, legitimated, and re produced, and how these processes differentially affect men's and women's lives. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy interacts with other structural inequalities. The dichotomy of masculinity and femininity is not separate from racism, classism, ageism, nationalism; and so on . Rather, gender both structures arid is structured by these hierarchies to render complex social identities, locations, responsibilities, and social practices. Gender shapes, and is shaped by, all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics-and suffer its costs-in multiple ways. By learning how gender works, we learn a great deal about intersecting structures of inequality and how they are intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to transform global gender inequality by also transforming other oppressive hierarchies at work in the world. Contention 2: Free trade excludes women while supporting and spreading patriarchal systems. Ruiz 04 (Tricia Ruiz, BS Geography and International Studies, California State University-Hayward 2004 Feminist Theory and International Relations: The Feminist Challenge to Realism and Liberalism) AK Feminist critiques of liberalism address the economic inequalities inherent to free trade, which disproportionately affect women. Jacqui True argues that male-centered macroeconomic indicators, such as the Gross National Product undervalue the work of women. True also reports that on a world scale, women are a disadvantaged group: they own one percent of the world’s property and resources, perform sixty percent of the labour, [and] are the majority of refugees, illiterate and poor persons. (Ibid) This suggests that the capitalist structure is a patriarchal one, effectively marginalizing the participation and contributions of women in the economy, since much of their work is reflected in unpaid illegal or domestic settings that are not included in economic assessments. Indeed, liberalist institutions such as the WTO and multinational corporations have tended to create free trade agreements that weaken state protections on labor rights19 and public social funds, which has served to negatively affect the large proportion of women in the labor force. This in turn camouflages issues of female exploitation, such as the gendered division of labor and the increase in sex trafficking worldwide . Feminists also challenge liberalism’s claim that international institutions provide for ways in which women can be become more politically and socially acknowledged and empowered. Since the leaders and the processes of formal international organizations come from patriarchal systems, their work can keep women at a disadvantage. Hilary Charlesworth critiques some of the recent formal international conferences, such as the Beijing Declaration and Agenda 21 in Rio. She notes that the wording in the documents shows that while some consensus was achieved in progressing issues critical to women, not enough was achieved to arrive at the real changes proposed by feminists. Let's move on to the AC. First, my value precludes hers because equality is necessary to achieve societal welfare. My opponent doesn't link her value to the resolution. Next, my opponent's criterion is exclsuive to the Aff, eliminating equal ground. Prefer an eqully-accessible framework for fairness. C1: Competition First, link this back to my value. The only reason the U.S. doesn't have more than one game console company is because Xbox made it on the market first and shadowed all other consoles. With protectionism, every company has equal chance of success with equal access to subsidies. C2: Economy No warrant here, thus a bare assertion fallacy. Opponent merely asserts "decreases unemployment and beneficial." Reject b/c it's fallacious. C3: Employment First, turn: outsourcing means less American jobs. Second, this says "falling American dollar" is good. Only protectionism can cause inflation or deflation. This is a Neg argument. C4: Consumers My opponent doesn't clarify what we pay 4.9% more for, so reject b/c its vague. Second, I can access this solvency b/c I proved in my attack on her C1 that I still allows for equal competition. C5: Societal Welfare This contention is based on the assumption htat all her past arguments are true. SInce I have destroyed them, you can ignore this contention. Judges, since I value equality, and I'm winning the flow, negate.