Free trade should be a norm

Rebuttal:1:The subsidies caused US crops to be cheaper than Brazilian ones (see Brazil vs. USA, in the WTO in 2012). This caused Brazil to suffer. Protectionism promotes suffering. Also, FYI, a devalued currency makes exports more competitive, not less. This is common knowledge. Brazil easily could have exported more to balance this trade deficit. As I said, American protectionism caused Brazil to suffer. Brazil enacted protectionist measures because the US did.2:Accusations of bias are now ad hominum? That is laughable. An ad hominum attack is a personal attack, like "the EPI is a neo-Nazi club that hates non-protestant non-whites," or "the head of the EPI is a misogynist," not "the estimate is untrustworthy because of the EPI's bias." And not providing numbers for NAFTA does not mean that I concede that no jobs were created. That is equally ridiculous. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_effect_on_United_States_employment#Job_creation) are some numbers. From 1993 to 2007, 700,000 jobs were created, or 100,000 annually, in NAFTA's first five years. If a million jobs were destroyed, wouldn't jobs have fallen by 300,000?That study was absurd. It was produced by a biased institution, without detailed methodology, and attempted to calculate a phenomenon which can't be calculated. And lost jobs, if there were any, could be recovered. Since the US manufacturing industry was not as efficient as foreign manufacturing industries, it failed. It should have failed, and, because of capitalism, it deserved to fail. Capitalism is about profit and loss, and if loss leads to greater efficiency, than we need loss.3:Thanks for your easy concession.4:Your argument about Brazil was just torn to shreds, so there is no contradiction here. And yes, of course Mexico has poverty. But shouldn't a bigger economy, due to trade, help that? And your 70 cent statistic sounds staggering, but examine the value chain for Peruvian asparagus. In addition to Peruvian farmers, there were US distributors and retailers. This study should really have examines what fraction of the asparagus stays in Peru when the asparagus is sold by the Peruvian farmers to shipping and distribution companies. This is the statistic that should have been used instead, which is the money that the Peruvian earns. In other words, this argument is a joke.Also, your guardian article cites higher food prices as hurting the poor. I agree that higher prices hurt the poor, and that is why I oppose tariffs, which by definition raise prices.5:From your arguments, we see that free trade in Latin America has "failed" due to political hurdles, not economic ones.In conclusion, your arguments are contrived and ridiculous. You cited a study without checking the authenticity of its publishers, and continued to brandish it around. You failed to accept that tariffs raise prices and hurt the poor. You failed to understand that subsidies are uncompetitive, and that they fundamentally harm developing nations. You cherry picked evidence about the failure of trade, and ignored evidence pointing to it's success. And you failed to comprehend simple supply and demand diagrams that point to the inherent inefficiency and unfairness of subsidies and tariffs. Most of your rebuttals were a hastily developed chewbacca defense (a string of bizarre non-sequiters).I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. I learned a lot, and good luck.