Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

Definitions My opponent essentially claims a good cannot be defined so broadly because he has never heard it be defined that way. However, I assure him the basic definition of a good *can* encompass a person. A good, as broadly defined, is “a material that satisfies human wants and provides utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase. ”[1] The definition could encompass a human, as a human could be treated as a good. A person could satisfy what a human wants, provide utility, etc. In fact, humans were considered goods for most of human history, via slavery. They were bought, sold, satisfied their owners, and provided utility. Now, I will not cite slavery in the historical context, but this still occurs in the form of sex-slaves. Human trafficking is a serious problem. And, sex-slaves do, in fact, fulfill the broad definition. Therefore, as a person *can* be considered a good. As my opponent is arguing that *all* goods should be allowed to become imports into the country, he then must support human trafficking. I will now provide a case of various exceptions to my opponent’s argument. All I have to prove is that one good should not be allowed to enter the country, as any exception would mean that PRO’s premise—that all goods should be allowed to enter the country—would be negated. 1. Human trafficking As noted above, a person could be considered a ‘good’, meaning sex slaves could be an import. I will argue that sex-slaves should not be allowed to enter the country. Human trafficking is, sadly, a thriving business. It represents 31.6 billion dollars in international trade in 2010. It is considered one of the fastest growing markets in the world. The most common use for these slaves is sex, however they can also be used for manual labor and other strenuous tasks. 35% of those trafficked are children, and children are generally exploited for sexual use. Children are also sometimes drafted into guerilla groups in order to fight other militants or the governments in said country. This is a growing problem [2]. Indeed, if *all* goods were allowed to enter the country, human trafficking would have to be legalized, as people count as goods. If my opponent opposes human trafficking, then he concedes the debate, as not all goods would be allowed to enter the country. 2. Drugs This one is more debatable, as many people support drug use, its legalization, or are apathetic towards the issue. I hope to demonstrate that drugs would be an exception. According to the International Narcotics Control Board, drug use is “one of the greatest challenges that the world is facing today”. Indeed, when drug economies grow to large levels, they often displace other, more productive industries [3]. Under the current law, legalizing drug imports would severely inhibit DEA enforcement of the current prohibitory laws. My opponent, therefore, would have to argue for a total change in drug law—regardless of the fact that it would increase drug use and harm local communities. Again, drugs are a ‘good’. This is another exception to legal imports, meaning the resolution is again negated. 3. Child pornography This one is obviously a ‘good’. And the reasons for prohibiting its imports are obvious. Allowing its import would, again, require its legalization. This means that there would be increased child pornography usage. This would lead to more child abuse, those either in the films or increased rape as pedophiles may want to ‘live out’ their fantasy. The reasons this should not be allowed to become a legal import is fairly obvious. This is another exception, meaning not *all* imports should be allowed, again negating the resolution. 4. Nuclear weapons Again, another self-explanatory exception. We should not allow other countries to ‘ship in’ nuclear weapons, as allowing citizens to have nuclear weapons is not in the best interest of the country. It could be argued that what if another country was giving its weapons to the US. But I do not see this occurring, as the US has a capacity to make its own nuclear weapons. Further, if another country wished to reduce its own stockpile, they would not need to send it to the US, as they could dispose of it on their own land—and even if they didn’t, they could detonate their weapons in underground facilities or unoccupied areas in an ocean. Regardless, I don’t see why nuclear weapons should be allowed to be imported into the US. 5. Poisons Again, self-explanatory. In WW2, the UK had a covert misson in order to send anthrax cakes into Germany. This would kill off the food supply, poison the water, etc. This would bring Germany to its knees. It was known as ‘Operation Vegetarian’ [4]. The plan was never brought to fruition, as it would lead to the deaths of millions. But again, this merely highlights why we should not allow poisons, such as anthrax, into the country. It would endanger thousands, if not millions, of people. This is another ‘good’ which would harm the world. 6. Invasive species A dog is a good. A cat is a good. A turtle is a good. And so are. . . Pythons. Ferrell hogs. All of these invasive species could, in fact, be considered ‘goods’. Why, then, should these exotic pets be prohibited imports? In Florida, many people began bringing invasive pets to their homes. Over time, these began to escape. Now, 25% of the fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals in southern Florida are considered exotic. Many of the things, such as weather or natural predators, do not effect invasive species. This allows them to flourish and destroy the local habitats. Attempts to control invasive species in the region costs $500 million per year, and still these invasive species still occupy a huge amount of land in Florida [5]. As can be seen, the environmental impact and economic impact of these invasive species are enormous. This is another example of imports which should be illegal. 7. Counterfeit This, as money, is considered ‘capital’—though, with further thought, sex slaves could be considered capital too. Regardless, this is another exception which must be accounted for. Low estimates of counterfeit in the US is 70 million, or 1 in 10,000 bills are fake. Higher estimates of 200 million also are often cited, or about 2.5 notes out of 10,000 are fake [6]. Counterfeit obviously harms the economy, via enforcement costs, increased inflation, and money people get from it which is not earned (they make ‘money’, but do not produce anything, meaning potential economic growth is inhibited). Again, another exception. 8. Items with military or proliferation applications To define this, “Classified and Unclassified Items that have military application that are considered defense articles . . . blueprints, design plans, and retail software packages and technical information” [7]. Again, weapons and classified items which could be used for terrorism should be prohibited as imports, as it threatens national security. 9. Restricted weapons Explosives, automatic weapons, etc. These are other obvious ‘goods’, which threaten national security and the well-being of innocent civilians. Another exception. Free trade? I support free trade. But I support sensible measures to prevent, among other things, the items listed above as illegal. PRO must prove that *all* goods and capital should be allowed into the US. I have provoked 9—but I could have done more—exceptions. Conclusion PRO must prove that *all* capital and goods should be allowed to enter the country. All I have to do is prove that at least *one* example of a good or capital should not be allowed to enter the country. I have provided 9. Unless my opponent refutes them all, he loses the debate. I have provided 9 things which should not be allowed into the country—so, not all goods or capital goods should be allowed as imports. Which means, as of now, the resolution is negated. Back to you, Pro. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . https://www.incb.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://www.cbp.gov...