President Obama's free trade agreement with Columbia will hurt the US.

Rebuttals: Let us examine pro's arguments. First, my opponent mentions NAFTA, an agreement signed over 20 years ago. Not only is this an outdated example, as the rules and regulations for free trade have changed, but it is also irrelevant. The United States was in a severely different condition in 1992-- and however rash the decision was, this was the first major trade agreement established by them. Going into this with no experience, it is almost inevitable that certain drawbacks would have came from it. With experience, as my opponent says, from learning from this mistake, it is sure that the U.S. going into the TPA will not make the same mistakes as it did. In addition, the circumstances of this historical argument are vastly different. Having the complications of three countries, Mexico and Canada were largely responsible for any drawbacks the States may have experienced due to NAFTA. However, with Columbia being 1. more experienced in international trade and 2. being interdependent with the United States for certain trade goods, the TPA will prove only to be beneficial. My opponent additionally claims, with merely the same historical speculation, that our companies due to this will go overseas for workers. However, this is just not true and merely speculative. Under the TPA, the main focus is for the trading of raw goods. Not only did we have certain agreements with Columbia previously established for years, without any issues of unemployment, but President Obama actually does prove himself that employment for middle class Americans, and the American economy as a whole, will only benefit from this agreement. It will open up jobs in the sectors of business that the agreement involves, such as financers and trade analysts in foreign fields. Pro also argues, again with the same groundwork, that the trade and budget deficit will increase. My opponent argues that the trade tariffs being removed will cut revenue in the US government. Though true to a minimal extent, what we have to look at is that fact that this works both ways, and actually proves to be an argument for the con side. With the U.S. importing from Columbia more than it exports, the lack of tariff on the trade that we will import regardless of the agreement actually decreases governmental spending on trade with one of our biggest suppliers of certain products, Columbia. And though my opponent argues that this will also increase our trade deficit with Columbia, what we need to look at again is the fact that Columbia and US are interdependent. Being in much worse shape economically than the U.S, Columbia, if anything, would be losing money through lack of tariffs from the U.S, and, though disbeneficial for Columbia, is irrelevant to this debate and only proves the stability of the agreement. Finally, pro argues that the TPA will negatively impact the environment. However, the trade that we are doing with them regardless of the agreement obviously has the same environmental effects. But with the TPA, though minimal, even my opponent admits that some new regulations have been placed with the agreement and thus, though still not the best scenario, this agreement is actually benefitting the environment by placing a few regulations on pollution if made. Conclusively, though my opponent raises some good and logical arguments, they are all speculative and have nothing but a historically irrelevant basis, and thus I encourage you all to vote con in this round of the benefits and lack of drawbacks of the United States-Columbia free trade agreement.