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

I must remind the audience that PRO had the BOP throughout the debate, and as noted in R1 any exception to his rule would mean the resolution is negated. It is fairly obvious that, as a whole, my opponent has failed to fulfill his BOP and prove that *all* goods should be allowed importation into the US. PRO ignores my entire rebuttal to the semantical argument: That his legality argument is weak and does not provide a card Blanche. Therefore, he concedes it as true. Meaning his argument—that the resolution negates the argument—is not valid. Therefore, every single point I made in round 2 is essentially dropped, meaning the resolution is negated and PRO automatically loses the debate. Therefore, his arguments pertaining to legality are refuted based upon his concessions of the argument. He then argues past laws are override by current laws. This is irrelevant. You did *not* say that the laws had to either be in action or existing today—nor did you say they had to be functioning laws. As *laws* was not defined, it is open to interpretation. And, therefore, arguing that past laws are irrelevant does not work, as they were relevant in the past. And you never said this debate was about current law. As noted, the legality argument I made was dropped by my opponent, meaning he essentially concedes my opinions and loses the debate. PRO then goes on to claim that free trade is a straw man. No. His argument requires free trade. Allowing all imports would be a free trade system. By extensive evidence detailing how imports harm the USA is, by itself, enough to win the debate. I specifically noted how imports at all would harm the economy, and allowing all imports would be devastating. My opponent response, “if all free trade is bad, then why have any at all? ” is very flimsy. Historical evidence—contrary to the myth that prostitution was—indicates that slavery was the world’s oldest profession [1]. Slavery existed throughout most of human history, but almost universally was considered a ‘bad’ thing. Therefore, merely because something exists does not mean that it is good. PRO continues to make the red-herrings of both inflation and welfare. This debate is about neither of those things. Both exacerbate the issues of importation, but are not the cause of the issue. I honestly don’t see how the argument that inflation makes imports *worse* really applies. The fact is, his premise presupposes that imports are a bad thing, meaning he essentially concedes the debate. And the effects of welfare—as noted—have been decreasing during the period globalization has been occurring, therefore the negative effects cannot be attributed to welfare. Really, my opponent ignores the well supported statistical analysis of free trade leading to 100s of thousands of job losses because he cannot directly respond to it. He offers no reason as to why welfare and inflation are the sole causes of the economic issues caused by free trade. Inflation may *increase* the problem, but it is not the problem. Soda may increase obesity rates, but it is not the problem. My opponent claims I dropped the peace argument. This is untrue when you think about it. I noted how free trade increases unemployment, which leads to many risk factors, including poverty, which increases crime rates. Therefore, in relation to the domestic USA, it likely *increases* violence. Second, many wars (e. g. ISIS) are being fought by religious zealots who are not incentivized by money. Therefore, it is arguable whether or not free trade is applicable to the modern world. And finally, I am not in opposition to *some* free trade—as I noted early in the debate. I am opposed to *full* free trade. I have presented evidence that allowing *all* goods into the country would *harm* the US. Therefore, the resolution is negated, as *some* imports should be refused entry because of the deleterious economic impacts. Overall, I have proven how there are *some* exceptions, meaning the resolution has negated. I noted how, at least domestically, a free trade regime would *increase* violence and worsen the economic output of the US via job loss. Overall, PRO fails to offer convincing reasons as to why *all* goods should be allowed entry, whereas I provide multiple examples as to how his ideas would harm the US and examples of goods which should be restricted. Also, as noted, importing invasive species is NOT illegal under current law—meaning there is at least one exception—so I win the debate. I urge a CON vote. 1. . http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...