if illegal immigration causes job losses, so does free trade

The order is: Disad, then case. First, DA outweighs case. DA outweighs on probability, as this was not contested. Similarly, DA outweighs on magnitude, as nuclear war was not contested. Lastly, DA outweighs on timeframe, since there is a given timeframe (it's hinted at), whereas there isn't even a timeframe in the pro's case. The only thing the pro contests about the TPP Disad is that the link isn't clear. Yes, it is. The link is that Obama's attempts to pass immigration reform (along with convincing conservatives that it won't cause jobs (this phrase was said in the pro's first speech, thus yes link)), but he will have to use lots of Political Capital to do so, thus having an insuff amount for TPP. Aside from that, the pro has not contested any other part of the DA-- uniqueness, internal link, and impact. Next, case. First, the pro's advocacy was slightly unclear to me, given that the pro questions if immigration causes job loss, while the pro questions the conservatives' claims that job loss does. This would explain why my points appeared to the pro to be unoriented, because the pro's arguments were just as unoriented. This also answers the last point. Second, the pro claims that he has shown immigration and free trade are similar. This is blatantly not true, primarily because there is no evidence to back up this "correlation." He uses mere analytics to back up his claim, analytics which are also illogically used. Third, the pro contests how immigrants have 10% of jobs, citing that those jobs could go to Americans. First, keep in mind these jobs aren't exclusive to illegal immigrants; Americans also take this role. Second, keep in mind this particular job market is completely insignificant next to the rest of America's job market, which is barred to Americans. Third, the pro tries to claim that wages would probably go up if Americans in particular were vying for the job. This is not true at all, particularly because the pro ignores that if Americans were vying for these jobs, they are just as desperate as illegal immigrants are, so wages would not change. Fourth, the con claims I said there were no developments of free trade at all. I never said that. I said there were no developments of the IMPACT of free trade on job loss, and I cited an article which says the exact same thing. Even if NAFTA is in place, it's not enough to judge based on it alone the correlation of free trade and job loss. NAFTA is merely an agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico. [1] A free trade agreement that can truly be used to determine the correlation is one that involves countries from all around the world, one big example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which incidentally is the topic of my Disadvantage). Next, the pro tries to use an analytic to justify his claim, but this analytic has nothing to do with the topic, as it doesn't have to do with trade; it has to do with job loss. Lastly, for the con to claim this argument is completely "wrong" is unwarranted, considering he uses analytic to back up his arguments, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, whereas I used citations from theGuardian. Not only is the con claiming I am wrong, he is claiming theGuardian is wrong. This he does, despite theGuardian being so many times more experienced than he. Clearly, the pro is in the wrong. Lastly, the pro claims most of my arguments are jibber jabber, but that's because his own arguments were just as messy, unwarranted, and unaccredited (more on that in my first point on case) https://ustr.gov...