free trade should be valued above protectionism

first I wanna say both of your arguments are plagiarised and that it is completely wrong and unjustified, now that I've said that I will begin by first arguing "your" points then go over my own. In cobos argument he says that free trade harms developing countries industries however protectionism first creates misunderstandings of international trade and second encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth I. protectionism creates a misunderstanding of international trade. "Another variation of the cheap labor theme is level playing field wail. If by level the playing field critics of free trade mean cost differences, then what are they really calling for is and abolition of international trade because trade of any kind only takes place because of cost differences." "the Australian Economy, the case for free trade restated" Brooke's news, April 30 2007 (btw that's a cited source) protectionism is in all terms just a way of leveling the playing field how ever like in my cited source with out competition their can not be any international trade if we were a developing country who raised all imported goods then there would be no international trade with in our country and how is a country's over all society benefited when no trade is going on with in the country? II. Protectionism encourages waste of resources corruption and sloth this is from the same article above no need to recite it. "The aim of tariffs is to raise imports to sufficiently high level as to encourage the production of more expensive domestic substitutes. In short living standards are lowered because tariffs cause an irrational allocation of resources; instead of resources being directed to their most valued use they are directed into less valued lines of production causing a net loss of economic welfare." In other words protectionism lowers living standards and causes the loss of a good economy in my case I showed how free trade benefits the economy and that a sound economy benefits societal welfare wit his case he is harming the standard of living and harms the economy and that in no way benefits societal welfare. I would like to tie his second arguments into my previous arguments, fist with protectionism we end up wasting vital resources like steel and coal second Frederic bastiat once said when goods do not cross borders soldiers will his second argument is that in times of war a country will need steel and coal in my opinion war is a waste of these resources and it protectionism leads to violence between countries so with it, there is more of a chance for war which is absolutely not beneficial to a society. First for all you debaters out there it is absolutely legal to run part of the resolution as your value criterion. and second my criterion is free trade and im saying that it upholds societal welfare and that is why it should be valued above protectionism. im not running free trade should be valued above protectionism as my vc no im just proving it with my case. with his argument against my criterion he says that the main goal of free trade is to maximize profits but its the same with protectionism. Protectionism makes it so much easier for monopolies to exist in this country, and all countries free trade creates competition and this prevents monopolies. monopolies are bad. that's is in the most simplest terms I can put it. monopolies mean that a ceo/company can control one industry in a country, meaning that it can raise prices for lower quality products. he says that fee trade begins monopolies but its not what starts them its protectionism by protecting a company in this case a domestic company it takes away the choices of citizens of that country to varieties simply because they can not afford them of their are plain and simply not allowed this creates a monopoly with in the country. so let me use his analogy here drug dealer a is a Mexican company, drug dealer b bases his operation in Houston drug dealer a use to have to lower prices to compete with drug dealer b for costumers but with protectionism isn't allowed to sell in Houston drug dealer b no longer worrying about drug dealer a lowers the quality of his um products? and then raises prices BING BANG BOOM MONOPOLY btw your analogy is so not beneficial to society (drugs are bad) any way you see that's how a monopoly begins now he says that free trade takes away jobs but as I proved in my case 5.6 million people are employed in this country by firms from a different country meaning that with out free trade 5.6 million people would be out of work here in the united sates I also said that another 40% of the population work for an exporting firm protectionism would make the cost of importing items skyrocket and that will harm the economy. protectionism is not in any way beneficial to society and I have proven this with my case that is why you should vote for the affirmative you should also vote that my case had the most reliable resources because I have not plagiarised a single word and have cited all of my sources vote for the affirmative if you value the total well being of an entire society. :}