Resolved: free trade ought to be valued above protectionism

Im going to start with attacking my opponets case then preceed in defending my own. my opponet has failed in this round to relate any part of this debate to the criterion, majority rule, this is because the negative viewpoint is based on a minority of people. these people being human trafficking victims. the first problem with this is that human trafficking is irrelevant. my opponet attempts in his last rebutal to say that human trafficking is a direct cause of free trade, but provides no evidence to this. free trade and human trafficking are completly different subjects. free trade is the import and export of GOODS without government interferance. free trade is in no way linked to services, and therefore human trafficking cannot be a valid reason to not value free trade. human trafficking CAN NOT BE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE TRADE UNTIL EVIDENCE OF FREE TRADE AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS PROVIDED. my opponet simply saying that human trafficking is because of free trade isnt enough. my opponet must provide evidence to support his case, and since he has failed to do that his positison cannot be taken seriously. the second problem with my opponet using human trafficing as the basis for his case is that majority rule is not upheld. my opponet has failed to attack, or even mention the fact that majority rule is upheld by free trade being valued above protectionism, and because my opponet has conceded the criterion to me you must vote affirmative for this debate. i move on to the value of quality of life. i agree with my opponet that allowing human trafficking dose not give quality to life, but human trafficking is in no way linked to free trade, so this argument is useless. in addition to that valuing free trade better upholds quality of life because more people are getting a better quality of life than when not valuing free trade. i say this because both people in third world country's and people being saved from war are getting better quality of life. there is evidence to this in my first and second contentions. so people are getting a better quality of life from free trade not only from this, but foreign products that are neccisary for people to have a good life. several medicines are imported daily to the united states from china that allow people to walk, talk, and have a normal life. without free trade none of this is possible. my opponet combats this saying that both must be used equally. there are two major problems with this. first of all saying this in his rebutal is providing a new argument which isnt allowed in LD. second of all quotas are a major part of protectionsm. would we really limit the import of a neccisary medicine? quotas are not upholding quality of life. then to his contention. ive stated numerous times that human trafficking isnt linked to free trade, and is therefore irrelevant to the topic. i agree on abolishment of human trafficking, but free trade has nothing to do with it. even though all of this is true, his contention of human trafficking still dosent uphold majority rule. the fact of the matter is that human trafficking is miniscule in the overall realm of things. there are 7 billion people on earth, and less than 1% are victims to human trafficking. this is an increadibly small number, and its in the best intrest for the majority to value free trade because a better quality of life is given to a greater number of people. in conclusion, human trafficking dosent relate to free trade, quality of life is better upheld by free trade, and free trade is in the best interest for the majority. now to my case. my opponet has failed in proving that valuing free trade above protectionism isnt better upholding quality of life or that valuing free trade above protectionism isnt in the best interest for the majority, therefore you must vote for the affirmative. my opponet offers no attack to the fact the free trade prevents war, so my first contention stands forcing an affirmative ballot. my opponet attempts to attack my contention of quality of life by saying that free trade degrades human worth by allowing human trafficking, but this is not true because human trafficking isnt linked to free trade, and because countless lives are saved by free trade thus enhancing human worth and upholding quality of life. leaving my second contention as a third voter and my opponet fails to mention majority rule, so to not vote affirmative wouldnt hold to LD style of debate. in conclusion, my opponet has failed to attack my case in any way, both the value of quality of life and the criterion of majority rule support free trade being valued above protectionism, all my contentions stand, and my opponets case is both irrelevant and played toward the minotity which is a direct contradiciton of his own criterion of majority rule. therefore you cannot vote for the negative and you have to vote for the affirmative. thank you