American Isolation is a Good Thing

HAITIMy opponent quotes me on Haiti and Cuba, but only responds to my statements on Haiti, so we can assume he concedes my points about how Cuba would be better off today if they were with us.But anyways, the rebuttal to Haiti comes in two parts. First, that we were doing shady stuff early 20th century. Second, the aid we're giving right now is actually bad because it hurts farmers and because the funds provided weren't as effective as we would've liked due to corruption in Haiti.To the first contention, again, this does not mean we need to turn to Isolationism. My opponent has the BoP to show that Isolationism is good, or perhaps a better way to put it, based on how the debate has gone so far, he has the BoP to show that Isolationism is what America needs to adopt. The example in this contention shows only that our current imperialistic system is harmful, it does not show that we need to turn to Isolationism. Why? Because there is a third option, which is a reformed foreign policy. As I have been showing, the third option can ditch the negative aspects of our current policies, but also avoid the negative aspects of Isolationism.To the second contention, my opponent first makes the statement that we're racking up money that Haiti owes us. I read the entire article that he sourced this statement from, and could not find a single instance of that being stated. Next my opponent talks about the poor quality of the aid distribution. Some of the rice rotted in the ports, and some rice was stolen by looters. So the donation of rice didn't go as well as imagined. That does not mean it should not have been done. It's like turning in your homework late. You'll lose points for turning it in late, but you'll earn more than if you didn't turn it in. Same with this. Maybe we didn't get as much rice out there as we wanted, but we got out more than none, which is what would've happened if we'd simply sat on our hands. But of course, that begs the question about whether or not our donation of rice is overall good for the country. Basically the contention is that farmers are hurt by the donation of rice. My response is two-fold.First, what farmers? Most farms in Haiti are getting wrecked by natural disaster after natural disaster[1]. So if we stopped donating rice to help the farmers, the now farm-less farmers wouldn't be able to help out their fellow countrymen. Second, this issue does not mean we must turn to Isolationism. A third option is provided by Marc Cohen, seen in the quote my opponent used from him. Marc says we should help them build farms, instead of just giving them the rice. But if we were to practice Isolationism, as my opponent argues for, we wouldn't be able to employ what Marc wants. Essentially Marc Cohen is supporting me in my support of a reformed, non-Isolationist foreign policy.OUTSOURCED JOBSMy opponent says that US Corp. around the world shouldn't practice child labor. Sure, why not? If we were to make laws to prevent this, that wouldn't be Isolationism, that'd be the third choice I've been touting. But back to my overall point, it is a lesser evil to allow these corporations to do this. As my opponent has demonstrated, these jobs suck. So the only reason to take this jobs is because they absolutely need to. If we took these jobs away, they would have to do something even worse to acquire the necessary money to survive.IRAQObama says we're not putting boots on the ground, and that short-term military intervention isn't going to solve anything in the region[2]. Therefore, I think we can say I win this petty squabble over military funding.IMPORT/EXPORTIn response to my shpeal on America's need to stay connected, and questioning why my opponent thinks we can produce so much, he says:"We produce so much because the average American worker produced more than the average worker elsewhere in the world." Yes, but why is it that we produced more? Are Americans just genetically superior when it comes to producing a high GDP? Here's the deal, much of that GDP comes from products manufactured from imports, or comes from Americans outright selling imports. We are using imports to produce our GDP, both through cheap goods, and cheap oil that leaves us with money leftover to spend, thus further boosting our GDP. My opponent likes talking about how much oil we can produce, but the fact remains that it is still less than half of what we are running on now. The epic crash America would experience could very well be irreparable. Next my opponent challenges an economic professor on the long-term effects of cutting ourselves off from world trade. First my opponent says that since there is a middle man, imports are more expensive. This doesn't make sense based on three factors. The first is what my opponent has been talking about all along, which is big corporations giving dirt pay jobs in other countries. So even if there is a middle man, he can sell his product for cheap because that's how his employees are paid. Second, as Mark Perry (again, an economic professor, can't stress that enough) says, the goods we import from other countries are very cheap. Third, according to laws of economics, cheaper imports is one of the major reasons for importing[2]."Second, that worker that makes the good is of lower quality than an American worker and will produce less, meaning that even though he gets paid less money the product he produces is also considerably less making him less efficient."This is not sourced, and it doesn't make sense. What about something being made in another country means it won't be as good as if it were made in America? You can find just as many awesome foreign made products as you can crappy foreign made products, and ditto for American made products. The difference is the price, and the effect they have on our economy. "Third, America has the best innovation, as shown by its superior universities. I have gotten to meet college students from across the world being a student at University of Delaware, Delaware has students from 89 different countries (http://www.udel.edu...... )."This claim is not properly sourced. The source is a link to the Univ. of Delaware website. All it really shows is that Delaware is a popular destination for foreign students. So this stands as a completely subjective statement. While we're on the subject of education, even if it was making us the 'most innovative in the world', it is consistently getting more and more expensive[3], making this 'innovation' less and less attainable.My opponent says that Americans have plenty of room to grow. The Federation for American Immigration Reform disagrees, and does so with some pretty good points that talk about more than just how much space we have available."Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations."[4]CONCLUSIONSame as last round, I say that Isolationism is full of Pros and Cons, just like our current policy. Given that there is a third option, one that takes the best of both worlds, Isolationism really isn't a good choice for us.Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.cnn.com...[3] http://www.aidemocracy.org...[4] http://www.fairus.org...