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

1. Definitions PRO’s argument is that in R1 he noted that the items must be within current legal codes. However, his definition did not specify ‘current’. Indeed, laws are changed all the time. To get to the core of the definition, “allowing that the domestic laws of the U. S. (such as regulations, finance laws etc. ) are followed. ” Meaning, it does not mean that *current* laws must be followed, but that *any* laws must be followed. As laws can be changed, it means anything that is currently illegal can *still* work under his vague definition. 2. My previous arguments PRO dismisses them based upon his ‘legality’ argument. However, in some states, drugs are becoming legalized [1]. So even if we *assume* that his statement is correct, there is at least on exception to the resolution—meaning the resolution has been negated. Further, the importation of many animals are also legal with a permit [2]. Overall, we can see how legality isn’t a card Blanche rebuttal. However, even if it was, drugs should definitely be responded to by my opponent. 3. Economics In order to not have a fully semantical debate, I will have a separate argument for which voters can review and vote based off of merits as well. In order for *all* goods to be imported, PRO must support a free-trade regime. I will argue that a free-trade regime is not in the best interest of the US and the world. Free trade is actually associated with decreased economic output. Free trade agreements always promise huge gains in employment, but generally reduces the amount of American workers becoming employed. Using the Korean free trade agreement as an example, the White House promised 70,000 new jobs and increased imports and exports. What occurred? Increased exports generally mean more American jobs, and more imports lead to… fewer jobs. Therefore, allowing *all* goods to enter the country would actually harm the American worker. The trade agreement led to more imports but did not increase exports. Trade deficits were incurred, and the net effect on the economy was significantly negative [3]. NAFTA is another good example of a free trade deal gone wrong. The US incurred 700,000 job losses due to the law. The law made trade easier, imports and exports became less regulated. More imports entered the US. Overall, the manufacturing industry lost 400,000 jobs. What occurred was other countries gained jobs, whereas the US was harmed significantly [4]. It is not in the US’s best interests to supports laws which strengthen its neighbors and weaken itself. As can be seen, free trade would mean more imports, or what Pro wants. However, it has been demonstrated that more imports cost US jobs and harm the economy [3]. Therefore, economically speaking, it would be beneficial to prevent *some* goods from entering the country. Indeed, I am not in opposition to imports—they are needed. However, to say that *all* imports should be received is absurd. The economic impacts would be enormous, and would, on balance, harm the United States. Overall, on balance, free trade would harm the US. A tariff on all goods, could, as PRO noted, cause tensions. However I never argued that imports should be entirely regulated. I am merely stating that *some* imports must be regulated in order to ensure growth and prosperity in the United States. The resolution is negated. 1. . http://www.governing.com... 2. . http://www.aphis.usda.gov... 3. . http://www.epi.org... 4. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...