Resolved: free trade ought to be valued above protectionism

my opponet has accepted my value and criterion and has made note of the fact that i have the burden to prove free trade is good and that he dosent have to prove protectionism is good only that free trade is bad, therefore whomever proves that quality of life and majority rule is or is not better upheld by free trade will provide the framework to win the debate. as for my contentions, my opponet attacks saying my contentions dont uphold quality of life and majority rule because of human trafficikng. first of all this is irrelevant. as quoted from my case in which my opponet has excepted all of my definitions free trade is defined as "the open and unrestricted import and export of goods without government interference. " the key word in this is goods. human trafficking isn't a good, its a service. weather or not its a willing service dosent matter, all that matters for this debate is the fact that human trafficking is in no way relevant to the resolution or my case, but if you don't want to buy that i will continue on anyways. my opponent complety ignores my first contention. sure he wants to talk about a different type of war than actual bloodshed because my opponet is disregaurding majority rule. he say's free trade dosent uphold human worth because human trafficking demoralizes it. but lets think about the big picture. human trafficking is estimated to account for 30 million victims, . http://necrometrics.com..., which seems like a lot, but actual war estimates for over 1 billion victims over the last hundred years. . http://necrometrics.com..., so what is really not holding up human worth, quality of life, and majority rule. valuing free trade or not. free trade is saving lives. we cant stop free trade and let countless soldiers die. to uphold majority rule which my opponet agreed to you must look at the 1 billion number of people dying over the 30 million in human trafficking. in addition my opponet offers no attacks to the fact that free trade prevents war, so my first contention must stand. on to my second contention, my opponet ignores my evidence of free trade upholding quality of life from maya halder. countless number of people are getting to eat food, wear clothes, and have the basic neccesities of life upheld because of free trade. this proves that without free trade life in these third world countries like kenya ceaces to exist not to mention the qualtiy of the surviors. my opponet offers no attacks against this besides the fact of human trafficking. i reiterate that is an irrelevant point that has no consideration of majority rule because it dosent take war victims or these people in third world countrys into consideration, and my opponet agreed to this criterion so this attack cannot be taken seriously. my second contention stands and finally my third contention is also ignored on the fact that for the majority free trade is better than no free trade. there is a much larger number of people that die from war, and depend upon free trade in third world country's than victims of human trafficking, so my third contention also stands. and now to my opponets case my opponet offers the same value and criterion as me, and as proven in the defense of my case is better upheld by free trade so he has no framework to win the debate. my opponets sole contention is sex trafficking, and as proven earlier in my rebutal sextrafficking is both irrelevant and miniscule to this topic. we cannot let billions die in war and people in third world country's starve because of this miniscule number, so niether quality of life nor majority rule is upheld by his contention. in conclusion my opponets case is based on an irrelevant and miniscule topic that cant be taken seriously in the overall decision of this debate, in addition to the fact that he has established no framework to win the debate, therefore you must take and affirmative ballot in deciding the winner of this debate. thank you and i look forward to my opponets rebutal's.