Closing Sweatshops will do More Harm Than Good

My responses will not be up to par with the kind of quality I normally aim for. This is due to me being occupied with the weather, and not havig time to deal with this until just now.Premise: What is a Sweatshop? A sweatshop isn't only about the wage, it is a workshop that imploys socially unaccaptible working conditions. This includes incredibly long hours and minimal (if any) safety procedures. {1}Rebuttal: Firstly, Pro uses a false dichotomy {2}, in implying that you either oppose $0.60 sweetshops and accept $0.30 farmers, or you accept $0.60 sweetshops. You should oppose both. And as I pointed out in the definition, it isn't all about the pay. Pro neglects to mention that sweatshops are abusive environments, as my first source shows. Pro then misrepresents what that quote meant... He isn't saying that sweatshops are good. He is saying we need to focus on all of the issues facing the working poor in the region. Pro goes on trying to say that S. Korea somehow justifies immoral treatment of workers because they have a strong economy today. It does not justify such action. Firstly, as economy is incredibly complicated, pro has to prove that sweatshops led to economic prosperity, as opposed to other factors such as international trade and military spending. In particular their success isn't from sweatshops, but rather from government policies that are made to promote economy. {3} Until then, his claim is simply false causation {4}. Other claims are pure false causation anyhow, such as saying that sweatshops led to higher education, when in fact it was government spending and efficiency of the school system.Case: If we allow ourselves to fall into a mentality where we just say "Hey, it's better then it could be", then we suddenly become trapped. We begin to accept anything, because 30 cents are better then nothing. But in truth, we must always look to better ourselves and the situations of others. Pro seems to assume that by closing sweatships, you hurt these people. In truth, you hurt them more by allowing them to be used like this. By allowing them to work in abusive conditions, we actually decrease the chance of them looking for a better job (especially since abuse tends to lead to lower self-esteem, which hurts chances at improvement). {5} Pro actually points out the First Worlders don't work in sweatshops because there are alternatives, but also, because there are laws against that kind of treatement. Pro believes that there are only two options here. Either we allow abusive sweatshops, or we allow these people to starve (which they already do at 60 cents an hour). Pro ignores the possibility of a third option: Shutting down abusive sweatshops due to inhumane treatment, and supporting the creations of shops that abide by carefully maintained laws on treatment of the workers. But now my strongest argument: If we allow such treatment, then there is no guarentee that they will ever improve. Instead of seeing a future where every worker has the treatment they deserve, we will see a future where many are still abused and underpayed, because we never fought them.1] http://en.wikipedia.org...2] http://en.wikipedia.org...3] https://faculty.washington.edu...4] http://en.wikipedia.org...5] http://www.asca.org.au...