Free trade should be a norm

I will now rebut these arguments:" 1. Free trade causes the flooding of exports which turns countries to protectionism methods " This is not a coherent sentence. " The United States has had problems in the past with free trade, dealing mainly with Latin American countries. In 2012 Brazil's economy started to struggle as the United States began to flood exports to their country which was deflating the Brazilian coinage. When the United States floods another countries market the country has to close off free trade, or leave their economy to be cannibalized. So my opponent by advocating for free trade is also advocating for protectionism which makes his economic thinking circular."Circular reasoning? "Floods [of] another countries market [Sic]," can easily be balanced with more exports by Brazil. And actually, I used Brazil in my examples of why trade barriers and protectionism are bad - the 2012 import flood was likely caused by US subsidies.And free trade does not "cause protectionism;" that is as fallacious as it is ridiculous. "2. Trade kills jobs NAFTA proves https://www.citizen.org......Lets just looks at a great example of free trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement or (NAFTA). Over the 20 years NAFTA has been in place the United States has loss over 1 million net jobs because of the increasing of trade. NAFTA also destroyed 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs over the time period were the United States loss 5 millions manufacturing jobs in a 20 year span. Now my opponent tries to make a claim about how its okay if we lose jobs because they will be replaced with something better, three answers to this. A. Trade will never replace the 1 million net jobs we lost. B. Jobs replacing the jobs we loss in manufacturing aren't as key to the economy like manufacturing jobs, plus continuing globalization means technology will soon replace these jobs. C. Outsourcing jobs usually occur because the company believes they can do something cheaper, which means the inequality gap will continue to widen."So many issues. First, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which contrived that "1 million jobs number," is significantly liberally biased (as revealed by even a cursory glance at Wikipedia). A biased estimate is none at all. As a student of economics and econometrics, I can assure you that modeling these phenomena is a notoriously difficult task. And even if there were a credible fall in jobs, it is a. not necessarily attributable to NAFTA, and b. as I explained, not only temporary, but beneficial in the long run. And, this is only one data point, and NAFTA is only one example of a FTA (free trade agreement). Trade will replace the lost jobs. I've explained the economic benefits of trade; jobs loss is ephemeral and in the long run productive."3. Regulations provide the best for competition http://www.oft.gov.uk......Key part of the economy is consumer confidence in business and in the government. Without regulations there are no guarantees business will maintain consumer confidence. If consumer confidence goes down then, currency flow goes down, and if currency flow goes down then trade goes down. Regulations are key to maintain the economy, this is why we have never seen a free capitalism system yet, and why free trade shouldn't be the norm."Wait what? I smell some grammatical and logical crimes... I am not advocating the abolition of regulation, simply the encouragement of trade. Regulation does not help consumer confidence; a strong economy does. And my argument, at its core, is not about regulation."4. Free trade causes poverty http://www.huffingtonpost.com......Free trade could offer some decent advantages to already seasoned economy's but what about the economies, that are trying to develop or are underdeveloped? Free trade makes sure to destroy any and all chances of a developing nation because their lack of technology, or lack of industry. Larger economies can swallow up the smaller economies forcing more people to go into poverty"No no no no no! Free trade empowers the poor! As I pointed out, protectionism hurts exports in all countries, especially poor and developing ones. Look at my discussion of Brazil. Protectionism hurt the country, and free trade has helped the farms. In addition, the "article" you cite fails to take into account the massive success of trade. Look at China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Turkey, Poland, South Korea and others - they all share a similar story of a poor country turned (or turning) into a rich one. Due. To. Trade.In fact, free trade seeks to empower the poor and the farmers by giving them trade opportunities."5. Latin America is moving away from free trade. http://www.coha.org......The expansion of free trade was suppose to bring prosperity to Latin American countries, now after review more and more countries are moving away from free trade. The question you must ask is why? It's simply because free trade hasn't worked and this is one of the main reasons why free trade shouldn't be the norm. Not only has NAFTA failed but other attempts of free trade implementation in Latin American has caused poverty, social dumping, and other extreme impactshttp://pdfs.postprefix.com...... Like Latin America the best option is to move away from free trade and embrace systems which advance economic nationalism."Economic nationalism is a horrible idea. The biggest reasons for the world's success over the past 200 years have been technological innovation, intellectual innovation, capitalism, democracy, and trade and openness between countries.In conclusion, I've shown that these arguments are full of holes, and are poorly crafted - in both grammar and logic.