American Isolation is a Good Thing

HAITI AND CUBAI apologize for missing my opponent's tacked on statistic about how great Cuba is. Before I get into what my opponent said in favor of Cuba, keep in mind the fact that he has not commented at all on the fact that there is serious political and civil rights repression going on there. Nor does he comment on the fact that we as Americans would never tolerate this if they were one of our satellites in this day and age.First my opponent says that Newsweek Magazine says they have the best quality of life. My opponent does not source this however, and so whether or not there is anything to this opinion expressed by Newsweek is unknowable. Then my opponent construes a report from an 'independent reporter' (blogger) as a sign that the Cuban people are happy. The fact that the blogger found that 100 people supported socialism doesn't really say anything, except that they like socialism. In fact, it could mean these people are not satisfied with the way things are in Cuba right now. The aim of socialism is to provide adequately for all members of society, after all.After his comments on Cuba, my opponent sets his sights on Haiti, responding to my questioning the idea that Haiti owes us money by confirming my doubt. America is not racking up Haiti's debt, rather the Duvaliers are. But then my opponent starts going on to use language to suggest that they owe us money, and not the Duvaliers. However his source takes me to a wiki page which merely tells me the name of the author and the title. Then my opponent responds to my statement about the effect of natural disasters on farms by ignoring the fact and throwing out more statistics and statements. I take my opponent's ignoring as a sign that he concedes. Therefore it stands that if we stopped donating rice, there wouldn't be enough farms surviving natural disasters to support the country.And as I conclude with this section, I'd like to say that even if I am wrong about these particular countries, does not mean that turning our backs on countries with Isolationism is the right move. Just because we have a problem doesn't mean we quit entirely, it means we should implement reforms so we can do as much good as possible (for acts of good we could commit refer to Marc's suggestion).LESSER EVIL OF OUTSOURCED JOBSSo in response to my statements about how allowing people in other countries to work outsourced jobs is the lesser evil, my opponent says:"You do not have any evidence to support this. I have consistently shown you examples, like Nepal and Indonesia, where every human right imaginable is ignored by these multi-national organizations. America doesn't need and doesn't want them."First I'd like to say that my opponent completely nit-picked my arguments about outsourced jobs. For instance, he ignored the fact we can stop subsidizing these corporations with American tax dollars without practicing Isolationism. We can also enforce higher working standards in outsourced jobs without practicing Isolationism. All of this is ignored.But onto the above statement, I shall try to clarify what I mean by lesser evil. Sh*tty job vs no job, or an even sh*ttier job, or illegal activityThat's the option that we are giving these people when we talk about taking away their jobs. As my opponent has made very clear, these jobs suck. Since people are taking these jobs regardless, we can assume that their only other option is something worse, like no job, or illegal activity. So if we practiced Isolationism, we'd be condemning people to death, illegal activity like robbery, murder, prostitution (regardless of age too), or a job that is possessing even worse working conditions. Whereas in America, the unemployed are taken care of fairly well (comparatively) by our welfare system.BOOTS ON THE GROUNDI'd like to say first that the 275 are being used as protection for the US Embassy and other US personnel in the area. Additionally, it has been made clear by Obama that troops will not be sent in for combat. All of this comes from the article my opponent uses.Regardless of the outcome here, it does not change the fact that Isolationism is not a good thing. As I have shown over and over again, there are instances where a new foreign policy tactic could be extremely helpful to the people of the world (i.e. outsourcing and reformed foreign aid). This argument is about whether or not our military funding will be going up. We can cut military funding (as my opponent complains about the amount we spend) and still practice a reformed foreign policy."In case you haven't learned yet politicians lie."Note the unnecessary sarcasm here, voters. I think it is worth considering docking him a conduct point. ECONOMYMy opponent still does not answer why our GDP is so high. He says it's because we earn more per hour, but I ask again, why are we able to do that? I can guarantee that if we started practicing Isolationism, that would not be the case. People would be spending more on gas, which means they'd have less to spend on products from other businesses, which in turn leads said businesses to either make salary cuts or lay people off en masse. The fact that my opponent is ignoring is that America's economy needs to stay interconnected, lest it collapse. Then my opponent challenges me on the validity of my statements that over half our oil is imported, and that we owe much of our GDP to imports. To the oil, I have already sourced that fact in previous rounds, and I simply assume the readers will be alert enough to realize this, as to avoid repeating sources when they don't need to be. As for the imports claim, over half our trade is imports[1]. 60% of these are goods (non-capital)[1], so that gets back to my statements about cheap imported products allowing us to have more spending money which leads to more productive businesses and in turn a higher GDP.Then my opponent says I don't source the fact that America would crash hard if it shut off trade and went Isolationist. I've already shown that it would, both with a professor's analysis, and the statements in the most recent paragraphs. My opponent says that we started out Isolationist, so we should be able to suddenly revert to it now. This is not logical. Back then, we were not interconnected with the world. If we shut ourselves out now, it'd be like ripping out the tubes that connect you to life support.Next my opponent challenges me on the middle man concept. Look, everyone knows that we import cheap goods, and if you didn't, economics professor has told you. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. If imports were more expensive as my opponent says, why would we import so much? A) My opponent is wrong, or B) We cannot get these things from America so we import. He also tries to say that we shouldn't listen to an economics professor about the price of imports, because the prof. doesn't provide evidence. This is funny because my opponent isn't providing evidence to the contrary of the prof.'s claim, he's merely saying you should take his word over an economic expert's. Then my opponent tries to explain why we have a GDP, but really only succeeds in saying that we're more productive. Why are we more productive? Because we import cheap goods that can be sold for cheap, so there's tons of money left sitting around after purchase to make more purchases and raise demand. Then my opponent waives away rising prices with the word 'inflation'. (source 3 from previous round)My opponent finds four articles that say we're innovative or whatever, but as I show, it's getting harder and harder to reach that 'innovation'. And yeah sure, I agree to summarization, but I hope you realize that if you choose to summarize, you can't respond to my arguments this round. That would be refuting, and there is a difference between summarizing and refuting. Source:[1] http://useconomy.about.com...