Analyze and break down the debating style of the below transcript to create a guide to emulating it to win more debates

(3) Nsda Nationals 2018 - Public Forum Debate Final Round - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUnyLbeu7qU

Transcript:
(00:01) we started the week with 287 public forum teams and now I present to you the final two teams who will debate the resolution on balance the benefits of United States participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement outweigh the consequences representing the pro side is team number n39 speaking second and representing the con side is teen number n 290 speaking first good luck and congratulations to both of our teams so I think I should give some thank yous first I'd like to thank this kid Rajesh who gave me 100 dollars to be the first
(01:02) thank you in this speech so thank you yeah thank you thank you that was that was actually a lie but you guys laughed that means NAFTA sucks and you should vote for us but before we begin a defection I want to congratulate Chris and Ed in for making it here the four of us have always had the best rounds and I think I speak for the community as a whole when we say we can't think of better opponents more importantly better role models for this activity than the two of you but a few things are in order first we'd like to thank mr. Jay Scott
(01:38) one mr. Chris McDonald and the National Speech and Debate Association for coordinating this event which means so much to us would be remiss without expressing our gratitude to the author and rube foundation and the Broward County Schools whose local sponsors single-handedly made this incredible tournament possible ii would like to personally thank those who helped us reach this stage to our coach and school advisor jasmine liu and Thomas Thompson thank you for working to build our program from the ground up in just a few
(02:03) short years to our teammates past and present Lucas aren't of Maggie Apoorva rhythmic cache of Steven and Neha you guys are our family to our friends from all over the country from Texas to New Jersey you guys inspire us to be better competitors and people I love you Jasper Kelly and Brian just you three and to the judges and coaches from other schools who helped us a couple of kids coming from a program that hardly existed just a couple years ago we owe you all of our success and then some lastly some personal thank-yous I have
(02:32) to thank the figure that raised me and taught me everything I needed to know about growing through life they opened my eyes to the world and expose me to new ideas and creativity I never would have been able to experience before so thank you Kanye West yeah also my parents but uh a small part to to max whoo our former teammate and now coach even though you try to impose your communist agenda on our uber drivers and borrowed three plants from our hotel lobby we love you both in your genius and silliness never change and
(03:13) finally I have to thank my partner dvash you've been my best friend and the best partner I could ever have asked for this past year I know this is a lot that's been gone between us primarily your showering habits but um you've always been and had my back and been the most reliable friend I have you make me want to be a better debater and force me to reach heights of competitive ability I never thought were possible for myself not a single day goes by that I don't think about what happened on TOC is on
(03:40) April 30th and I'm sorry but I want you to know this means everything to me and I would not want to debate this round with anyone else alright that was a lot so let's get to it for the last time ever to Besh and I negate the resolution our sole contention is halting Mexico's development prior to NAFTA Mexico was on a path to sustainable long term development as Mark Weisbrot director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research fourteen explains Mexico's program of planned Industrial Development domestic enterprise and
(04:22) rigid social programs brought record levels of growth in the years before NAFTA from nineteen sixty to eighty Mexico's GDP per capita doubled and wanting to yoojin creases in living standards for the vast majority of Mexicans if the country had continued to grow up this rate as a nations like South Korea did it would be living in European standards today simultaneously Mexico use a gradual approach to open itself to the world market while protecting national industries as Cordova Brookings oh three explains
(04:49) following the 1982 debt crisis Mexico began gradually liberalizing its economy eventually eliminating trade licenses and simplifying tariffs during this period the lobby of Congress finds that Mexico diversified its exports move towards self-sufficiency and food and most consumer goods and expanded domestic production unfortunately NAFTA brought this development to a halt plunging Mexico to the global economy headfirst with no regulation or protection of domestic industry as we spur rights nafta brought mexico's
(05:18) industrial and developmental policies to an end enshrining rapidly deregulated trade and investment in a binding agreement specifically Rocha of the Institute for Policy Studies fourteen rights that under NAFTA corporations were granted the legal power to sue the Mexican government whenever it passed programs that can interfere with corporate profits this resulted in a chilling effect where the Mexican government was effectively blackmailed out of passing for the reforms that served the public interest instead nafta reverse progress and
(05:46) electrocuted the Mexican economy in two ways the first is destroying domestic industry without any domestic regulation nafta schrock shifted trade about American multinational corporations to quickly take over Mexico's key industries destroying jobs to the poor and working class as Rocha writes NAFTA has unequivocally been a net job destroyer for Mexico as companies like Walmart how display scores businesses causing more than 600,000 companies go bankrupt during the current administration alone for example in the
(06:16) agricultural sector Rhys Pro finds roughly five million permanent farm jobs were lost due to agricultural monopolies thus he concludes the Mexican unemployment rate has averaged roughly five percent under NAFTA or is in the pre NAFTA age it was only three second is creating financial dependency as we spur explains because Mexican Mexican institutions were still developing when NAFTA was enacted the deal increasingly tied the country to American investment meaning any recession would hit Mexico harder as the US would pull all its
(06:44) money out of the market indeed financial crises in 94 o 1 and O 8 all had a more severe impact on Mexico than any other country in the region Reuters 17 where verifies and Mexican dependence on America's economy pushed an additional 5 million people into poverty during the o 8 recession alone worst of all this dependence means that shocks in the prices of basic goods which used to be stable are now highly volatile Laura Coulson of New York times 17 finds that under NAFTA Mexican consumers now pay more for food in
(07:14) general our price bites on the international market have pushed millions of the poor and to starvation for these two reasons Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard University 17 concludes almost all of the world's developing country success stories China Taiwan Japan South Korea avoided rapid globalization and instead used a gradual approach to liberalisation with the government playing an active role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against volatile markets Lee SPRO furthers that since 2000 Mexico's
(07:42) economy has grown at less than half the rate as the rest of Latin America while most of its countries have lamented developmental policies that cut the overall rate of poverty in Latin America by one-third Mexico has made no progress whatsoever in other words given Mexico's roughly 60 million people under the poverty line NAFTA prevented the country from lifting tens of millions of people into the middle class it's for these reasons that we strongly negate the resolution thank you so like a Shawn before we get started
(08:21) we'd also like to extend some appreciation to a handful of people who are integral to our success at this tournament and over the past four years of our career first to our opponents for always motivating us to be better and always allow always allowing us to have competitive rounds let's hope we were better this round next to the NS da for creating this event and the Arthur n Roop foundation for sponsoring this event so that we would have the ability to compete on this stage and then next we would like to thank the Broward
(08:46) Initiative Broward County Schools the Broward School Board superintendent Runcie and our principal Miss cafard who made this all possible and continue to work so thousands more kids across the country are able to find their voices like Eden and I have next to my parents and my two sisters very constant love emotional and financial that's key support to be able to send me all over the country every weekend to participate in this activity a special shout-out also goes to my mother who has worked tirelessly before every tournament to
(09:13) make sure that we always had a flight on time or food to eat when we were too busy to care for ourselves next to miss McGraw second to my mother miss McGraw is by far the hardest working person I've ever met in six years she took a team that no one had ever heard of and turned it into a team with national recognition with literally no one else but herself all the while experiencing hardship that who have that would have discouraged anyone else from continuing on next to John Williamson while your knowledge helped us so much
(09:41) last year it was your open heart and constant encouragement which helped us the most next to everyone who has made this activity so enjoyable for me all of my camp lab mates the GHC the goat squad la Cucaracha the flabby Alliance and everyone around the South Florida area and all of my teammates you made me want to continue my participation even during times when I thought it would be too overwhelming next to Eddin it would be an understatement to say that over the past four years you have not there has been someone else that has had a bigger
(10:09) impact on my life inside debate and out you are not only an inspiration to me but to all women debaters across the country who can look to you as a model of strength and perseverance in an event that constantly isolates them [Applause] this isn't the first time you are one woman a miss three male debaters in a debate round but you never let this stop you from being the most powerful person in the room I'm so grateful to call you my partner and my friend lastly to the person who has had the most impact on
(10:46) our success this year I didn't forget you this time thank you to Matt Fang you are by far the sweetest smartest and most humble person I've ever met all the while maintaining a level of integrity that I have not seen in any single person ever I could go on and on thank you for your countless hours of discussions of arguments and insight into literally everything from debate to relationships to basketball but more importantly thank you for being one of my best friends I know I can speak for ed in and I want to be at both that when
(11:13) we both say that we love you immeasurably okay let's get started enough sappy are all the judge ready cool we affirm we believe that the resolution should be evaluated on two dimensions first the implications of continuing American involvement in NAFTA and second the impact that American participation in NAFTA has already brought the region our first contention is what American participation will continue to bring president Trump has turned a way from multilateral institutions since taking power and has demonstrated to resolve in following
(11:46) through on campaign promises for instance he has withdrawn from the trans-pacific partnership suspended military exercises with South Korea and has a long threatened to leave NAFTA these actions jeopardize American relations with our closest allies and risk plunging the world into disarray which would only allow rival powers like China to fill the void and global leadership that the United States has abdicated global Americans a thing take on Latin American issues with support from the Ford Foundation 17 writes that
(12:10) if the United States pulled out of NAFTA it would leave a large economic vacuum that China could fill this is problematic as they continue that they got a retreat by the United States is a serious risk to American influence they add that China sees economic influence as eventually leading to diplomatic influence the expansion of Chinese influence as a global leader would be disastrous as they have phorbol human rights records and emphasize leading countries govern themselves which is just a euphemism for turning a blind eye
(12:36) to authoritarianism in deal 17 of the Washington Post argues that Chinese global leadership would significantly curtail individual freedoms and encouraging cracking down on political dissidents our second contention is what NAFTA has already done for the region in 1994 the Mexican economy plunged into a recession because of an investor fears and political violence NAFTA prevented a protracted Mexican recession in three ways and the first buys enabling or export-oriented growth by export because exports are driven by demand in other countries they
(13:05) are resilient in times of recession in the home country when Mexico but not the u.s. experienced economic instability exports marine stable Lustig seventeen empirically finds that Mexico's economic recovery began in 1995 with the decline in GDP that year followed by 5.1 percent growth in 1996 the engine of Mexico's recovery he 17 of the 538 specifies that Mexican exports more than quadrupled since NAFTA went to into effect comparatively BER Fisher oh one of the journal of public economic perspectives
(13:32) concludes that NAFTA greatly reduce the harms the pace of crisis would have otherwise had concluding that without it Mexican exports would have fallen 52 percent more second is by boosting investor confidence BIR Fisher again writes that nafta's promise of sustained official economic relations reassured invest for investors about the prospects for recovery and growth of the Mexican economy in the aftermath of the peso crisis Lustig 97 of Brookings noted that NAFTA was crucial for Mexico's economic recovery by encouraging exports and
(13:58) foreign direct investment quantifying that FDI in Mexico would have been 40 percent lower without NAFTA because FDI is long-term capital investment telo 17 of the ERC explains that FDI is tied to regional long-term economic resilience third is by incentivizing US bailout if the US had left Mexico to face its crisis alone America would have experienced its own domestic financial crisis from the close linkages forged by NAFTA consequently lacunae 99 of the international journal of world peace emphasizes that there is no doubt that
(14:28) Mexico's recuperation was due to the united states which had no choice but to help mexico or suffer economic chaos itself additionally Humphrey of U Utah in 2000 documents that is the peso value plummeted devaluation hurt investors and the legitimacy of NAFTA itself President Bill Clinton could not afford inaction and jeopardize the success of a Louanne landmark trade deal instead the u.s.
(14:49) bailed out Mexico lending billions of dollars in stifling the crisis Mexico's GDP during the crisis reflected a disastrous economic downfall yet a year later Mexico recuperated thanks to the economic support of NAFTA the impact is preventing a peso pinata William or Mei in his 1998 book writes that nafta's kept the pesos slide from accelerating into a free fall and absent NAFTA Mexico's crash would have been instantaneous and far more severe we in 2007 furthers that the bailout left Mexico much better off than its
(15:18) counterparts who had experienced similar crises without us support like Argentina whose own peso crisis more than doubled the country's poverty rate vasquez o to of Cato emphasizes that the 1995 bailout of Mexico by restoring confidence and enabling quick economic recovery stemmed the outbreak of a global financial crisis thus we affirmed yep so in 1995 when Bill Clinton proposed the bailout for the US did he ever use the word NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement or anything it doesn't matter what this what the semantics are right
(16:08) we say that because that's certainly just no no it doesn't matter what the president says right because they say things that they don't necessarily argue so the administration the things in mind right our evidence says because of the close linkages that were only forged because of now if Mexico can you please let me understand what your Mexico slid under because of the close linkages forged by NAFTA the US would have suffered the same economic crisis so it didn't right understand no this is really important cuz you dodged what I
(16:34) was trying to say right so I understand what your evidence talks about when they were analyzing what you want it to say but if you look up what the administration went out and said the only the evidence with my argument oh you really the white house to morality the only good white house said that they want to prevent illegal aliens from spilling up across the border and they want to prevent a global crises yes you're a global crisis that would have only started because of the close linkages forged by negative that's what
(16:59) the evidence says it's you or you're just coming up here and just like a bigger impact is the more reason the US has to give the bailout if a global crisis is going to happen or if other countries are going to be affected so NAFTA doesn't matter because the US has an inherent reason to stop that from happening reason why the global economic crises would have happened is not the only reason is because of now that's not closely linked from Mexico as much as it was okay so if that's true please one
(17:28) last thing if that's true ads right of the US bailout Mexico in 1982 when we did not have NAFTA they took them a lot while along a lot longer to bail them out and also the recovery because of that because of the lack of investment and the lack of exports also took a lot longer right they recover in nineteen years tons of years the bailout can trigger your offense only the FDI does please okay cool so you say that 600 companies went bankrupt during the last administration hundred thousand yeah so the American evidence that gets that
(17:59) number when it looks to the actual article that was posted in Mexico why does it say that the 600 companies six hundred thousand companies went out of if you don't like that evidence I can read another piece of that no but why did those 600 specifically I would rather just engage with the warrants then like talk about useless numbers right like okay but I do I personally don't know the answer if your impact is only about those useless numbers then no if you don't like that number I can read another one I
(18:22) personally don't know the answer to your question maybe you do yeah so it says know what the administration would refuse to give tax credits to these companies so they had to go under it wasn't okay at all attributable to NAFTA you can have a question sure so when you talk about how we have to look at towards things that would happen if we pulled out right now let's say the resolution was the consequences of being inside high school or the benefits outweigh the consequences of being in high school would I have to defend
(18:47) dropping out of high school right now or never going to high school in the first place no yeah you would have to defend the continued participation of you being in high school because those benefits only come with you being in high school okay so as long as I was in high school but no no why would I have to it like what I have to drop out it's over time okay you guys ready you sure all right so each on got most of the thank yous out of the way in his own special way but I'm just gonna I'm just gonna get to a couple of specifics
(19:36) personal to myself so first of all I have to thank my friends and family the people who are watching this event live from different states and different parts of the country so obviously mom dad Sean avid Durga the whole gang I love all of you guys like thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting me in this activity this whole time a lot of people who know me well know that this activity means a lot to me I've been doing it for a long time it's where I found a lot of my friends and it's where I found my voice and so again I
(20:05) really have to thank you guys for giving me that support the only other thank-yous I have are obviously to Ishaan for coming into my life this year as my partner and coming from you know like an aspiring JV debater to being on the national stage in less than one year like that's crazy that's incredible and you improved on your own so I have to give you a huge props for the most improvement I've ever seen in any person at all and then the final person I have yeah can you guys clap again I cut and then
(20:41) the final person I have to thank and I promised them I would thank them is my old coach he coached me way back in like eighth grade and his name is Steven Brooks and he was the person who basically taught me how to talk and how to stop relying on ideas and numbers and facts and statistics and start relying on my voice and just a passion and the ideas I have logic right that's why I don't speak with a computer in front of me I speak with paper and that's why in some runs I speak without paper at all
(21:05) because he taught me that and he forced that down my throat and now I do it and I appreciate him a lot for that yeah sorry like again I didn't write that out wasn't that clear but thank you all anyways alright let's do it you guys ready let's start the time now the thesis of our case is that while trade might be a good idea equal rules for unequal players create unequal outcomes our argument is that when the u.s.
(21:34) entered into NAFTA they were or sorry when u.s. entered into NAFTA Mexico was gradually liberalizing its economy already opening itself up to the world economy but NAFTA took away all of the regulations and sped up the pace of trade so that Mexico could not acclimate to the trade that was already happening causing their economy to go into freefall and destroying the livelihoods of the poor in the country let's talk about their framework they tell you that we should look at continued participation and the impacts of
(21:59) participation in the past but as Sean points out in crossfire at the resolution was the benefits of a college education outweigh the harms we shouldn't be saying that a current college-educated student should drop out is that they never should have gone to college that's what the resolution doesn't use the word continued for example which is why we should look toward a world where Mexico never went into NAFTA really looks like let's deal with their first contention they tell you that if Trump pulled out of NAFTA
(22:21) bad things would happen we say two things first we say that again this isn't topical because we're talking about a world where the u.s. did not sign onto NAFTA and we stayed with the gradual increase in trade that was happening beforehand but the second big problem with this argument is that it misses the mark on Trump's current policy according to the hill in 2017 Trump actually wants to renegotiate NAFTA at best he's not going to pull out because there's far too much pressure in the government so you're never going to
(22:44) be seeing this scenario materialized which means we should focus on the far more probable scenario where the US never signed on to NAFTA and we saw in Mexico gradually developing let's deal with their second contention about the benefits of NAFTA they talked about this ninety-four recession that was prevented by NAFTA and they give you three reasons why the first reason they give you is that trade increased as a consequence of NAFTA but according to Professor Moore of Harvard University in 2016 economists are largely in agreement that
(23:08) with or without NAFTA Mexico and the u.s. without the same amount of trade virtually today because Mexico was already opening itself up to the world economy and lowering tariffs the difference is that a that trade increase would have happened a lot more gradually so Mexico could build itself up but be it would have had a reg you so America couldn't buy up Mexican land speculate on their markets and pushed the poor into starvation and poverty then their second warrant here they talk about how foreign investments cushion
(23:34) the impact of this recession but this argument is a historic because even before NAFTA knew one of the University of Houston finds that from 1982 to 1993 that decade Mexico was already number one in Latin America in terms of development because what they lacked in foreign investment they had in domestic investment and domestic enterprise but NAFTA stripped that away from them which on that pushed them to where today there are 18 that of 20 in Latin America you can see that they've fallen off but the second overall response to this comes
(24:02) from the Center for Policy Studies in 2015 which finds that there was an increase in FDI but there was a five times increase in volatile investment after NAFTA this is things that went to speculating on their stocks and buying up their land which actually increased the odds of a recession that's why every recession 94 oh 108 all hit Mexico harder than the rest of Latin America would use the gradual path finally they talk about how the u.s.
(24:26) bailed Mexico out but there are two problems with this the first of which is if that they can predict somehow that this recession would have led to a global crisis then by that same logic America has an interest in preventing a global crisis they're gonna come up and say that it only would have led to a global crisis under NAFTA but it's the reason to not have NAFTA so we never risk a global crisis but the second overall response to this is that the reason Clinton bailed them out is because they were south to the border that's what he said
(24:49) we're gonna bail out countries that are nearby because we don't want illegal immigrants fleeing there that's why for example America didn't bail out Chile even though we did have a free trade agreement with them but we did bail out Mexico and 82 when we didn't have a free-trade agreement with them finally the reason you turn this argument against their side is because nearly of Harvard University finds in 1997 that the reason this recession started in the first place is because NAFTA made the
(25:11) Mexico dependent on the United States investment then one year later when political events occurred in Mexico they were able to pull all that money out of the market dropping the pesos value by 50 percent but without NAFTA that dependency wouldn't exist they further that if NAFTA didn't exist Mexico going to stop the recession without American bailouts on its own that's we're very proud to negate first I want to thank all of Chris's
(26:53) thanks and extend some of my own first to email about buggy and Dan boon I love you all the majority and I'm so grateful for the opportunities you've empowered me to find through this activity and the unconditional support you provided along the way to the manatee district for hosting and running such an exceptional tournament I feel so lucky to be able to take the stage in my own district where I grew up with my family and friends in the audience I am so thankful for the Florida circuit specifically not only
(27:21) Nova to be Cypress st. Thomas Chiron and beau for being such good friends to me to Sonny for all of your help during this tournament and always for being the best friend I could ask for for always supporting me and believing in me this activity gave me a lot of great things but one of the best things it gave me as you to the rest of our friends around the circuit a pax F of K and everyone else thank you for all of your help and love to mr.
(27:47) Williamson for all the fruit snacks and driving tips and everything else they didn't help that much a still stuck her driving Tim miss McGraw duardo James and Eve's to the rest of Falcon Speech and Debate I remember being a freshman when getting to the second day a district seemed to be an impossibility and when breaking at a tournament like this one seemed to be a distant unattainable dream you make dreams come true thank you for making this happen Tim at there's nothing I can say here that will be enough to make up
(28:15) for everything that you've done for us when we didn't have a coach you believed in us you volunteered your time for us you're not only brilliant you're the smartest and kindest person I know and I will never forget your generosity to Chris this has been the most amazing ride and I could not have asked for a better partner or about her front and my career with I'm so proud of us and I'm so thankful for the chance to have gotten to know you through this activity and to gain all the lessons that we've
(28:43) learned together lastly I want to add it's been heartening to hear the discussions that have recently starting regarded regarding marginalization in this community but I want to say that it's important to focus not only on eliminating overt forms of marginalization but also on the implicit discrimination that is so pervasive in debate and in a positive attempt to dismantle systemic discrimination we often overlook that systems are made up of people and that individual behaviors comprise the larger time the trend that
(29:11) we see how many times have you experienced or witnessed marginalization or have your self silenced to perpetually perceptually disadvantaged person in competition judges when you explain your decisions do you look only to the boys in the room competitors do you actively include women and students from small programs out of your rounds this activity gives you a voice use it to better the world and the communities you're a part of we are both symptoms and drivers of the dislocation that we see to all the girls watching believe in
(29:39) yourself to everyone else things are changing and it starts with you so enjoy [Applause] so when everyone's ready it'll start on their case our second contention will be the first thing you evaluate in this round this is because prolonging a recession precludes the ability for a country to gradually develop independently even if their arguments are true that in Mexico booms it had the ability to develop it doesn't mean that in busts they can still develop this is because public spending and investment
(30:14) shrink during recessions and makes spending towards development virtually non-existent which is why in Argentina which experienced a peso crisis but no bailout because it did not have linkages to the US like in Mexico had with NAFTA it experienced incredibly volatile and near zero growth comparatively lower than that of Mexico's start on their first contention their narrative as both counterintuitive and counterfactual their wives' bro evidence says that Mexico was experiencing record levels of growth it was in 1962 80 before NAFTA
(30:40) and before liberalisation started but even that was seriously unsustainable this is important because it proves that NAFTA was not the main reason for Mexico slowing of growth it was a necessary move away from protectionism or the gradualism that they talked about then they say that Mexico experienced record levels of growth but in his book about NAFTA or Mayview T writes the GDP growth seen in the 90s would have been difficult to sustain absent NAFTA and this is because Salinas needed the efforts to lock in the momentum of
(31:05) liberalization because he faced significant opposition specifically he finds that it would have been far more difficult for a future Mexican government to pursue economic integration had enough have been rejected then they talk about ICS and corporations causing a chilling effect but Gertz 18 at Brookings finds that in light of the current impasse there's a real possibility that nafta's investment rules will be scrapped into nafta 22.
(31:25) 0 either by parties for maliq agreeing to exclude the stipulation altogether or by including an opt-out cause that all countries would take meaning that in either case this warrant would no longer apply then on the impact bubble they tell you 600,000 companies went bankrupt millenia find that this was due to a lack of small business credits in Mexico which the Nieto administration ended up reinstating but then they tell you that then they tell you that agricultural that people will displace in the agricultural sector
(31:48) Lederman finds the NAFTA actually included stipulations which would have allowed Mexico to in put in place tariffs to prevent this from happening but they just chose not to do so which means that this problem is a fault of Mexican government the Mexican government failing not a fault of American participation within NAFTA but even so we would say this is a non nut benefit this is because they're implicitly conceding that food prices in Mexico have decreased this is the case because Mexican because Mexican farmers
(32:13) if Mexican farms are losing their jobs it means they can no longer profitably work this necessarily means that prices have gone down because there's no way these farmers would be out of work if they could sell their produce at the same price as American farmers we therefore outweigh in two ways first on scope trice reductions massively benefit our larger section of the mark the Mexican population but second on magnitude price reductions help those in poverty even if wages have an increased lower wages still means that every
(32:36) dollar get stretched farther yes farmers might be unemployed as well but we say the lower prices benefit those in poverty and unemployed across Mexico lastly when they talk about nest severity of recessions and the frequency of recessions we would say that the frequency and severity risk of recessions is about the same as it was before that's because karo finds that actually having been like having the NAFTA because it increased investor confidence in terms of a long term trade relationship with Mexico decreased
(32:58) volatility of the Mexican economy by 40 percent to their arguments empirically false but second I would say the reason why Mexico was hit the hardest is because it's one of the most trick trade liberalized countries in the world Mexico has free trade agreements with 46 countries and only one of those is the United States meaning that they would have been hit really hard by recessions even in the absence of NAFTA and they had st
(33:16) rong ties to the u.s. even before NAFTA so they would still be hit by domestic by domestic downturn within the United States then they tell you that economic downturn and poverty reduction is a lot slower in Mexico than it is in the lot in the rest of Latin America we say that this happened because Mexico experienced the patient crisis but we say two things number one the peso crisis when it spilled over to the rest of Latin America had the u.s.
(33:34) not bailed them out and number two growth would have been a lot worse in Mexico had they not seen the bailout none on our case first he tells you that the bailout isn't it did not happen because of NAFTA but this is not true blogger claims enough to force Mexico to devalue the past the peso the Mexico would have had to devalue it anyway this is because they pegged the value of the peso to the American dollar in 1990 1988 before NAFTA talks even started and then experienced political violence in 1994 that caused investors to flee the region
(33:57) out of fear because the value of the peso was pegged it was overvalued compared to what investors saw which means the devaluation would have happened in either world not linked to NAFTA but NAFTA was the only way in which we saw a solution you ready let's go okay let's start ten now okay so you talked about how the peso crisis would have spilled over to the rest of the world right right so doesn't America have an interest in preventing a global recession either way so we would say that the reason they
(34:32) would not have they would not have I would say of course the US has an interest in preventing the global recession but I would say that they empirically have not stepped in to intervene in countries that they did not have dense trade ties with okay like Argentina what they experienced so let's talk about that though right because in 1982 when Mexico was south of their border they did but really what I was about to ask you about right it's in first crossfire Chris told each on that the reason they wouldn't have is because
(34:56) there was no risk of a global recession without NAFTA so why are you trying to solve a problem that NAFTA created so we would say that there definitely would have been a risk of a global recession absent after then you disagree with what Chris said in first crossfire no we would say no I think you're I think you're misunderstanding our argument our argument is that if the patient crisis had not been if like New Mexico had not been bailed out during the peso crisis there would have been a global economic
(35:20) crisis I do not think that that is the case with other countries that have been in recession because they do not have the same number of like economic linkages that Mexico does the rest will go back to this in a second but I think it's your-turn fair question sure so when you talk about when you when you talk about the fact that like when you talk about the fact that like volatility increased in Mexico after NAFTA why is that the case volatility increased yeah okay so we're doing comparative analysis
(35:42) so you talked about how in Mexico volatility dropped by 40% each one's gonna come up here and tell you that we agree because most countries that open up the trade gradually see reductions in volatility but the rest of Latin America so far greater reductions in volatility than Mexico which is why all the recipients were worse for Mexico than then I would say that number one the reason why Mexico experiences worse recessions and the rest of Latin America is because it's so liberalized it has free trade agreements with so many
(36:07) countries so of course it will be impacted more frequently and severely bit of pacifically specifically the the dense linkages to the u.s. forged by NAFTA are the uniqueness for our is the uniqueness for our two so our argument is that while all of the countries in Latin America are highly liberalized NAFTA as what uniquely took away the regulations on that liberalization which is why it's worse but I have a question go ahead you talked about how if they didn't fill them out they would go like Argentina and poverty
(36:31) in Argentina double right so Argentina and Brazil both saw worst recessions and both of them were not build out and we agree that these things happen but in the long term through gradual liberalisation what happened to those countries relative to Mexico so the problem is that we would say the gradual liberalisation would not have been a sustainable possibility from axis we understand that response but I'm talking particularly about if we won that point what did happen to Argentina and Brazil without an American a way to entertain
(36:56) that because I don't think that that point has like a valid premise in the round so I would say so we think it does which is why I asked well I mean once you'd like if you win that argument and like properly respond to the direct answer they outperformed Mexico by a factor of 2 and cut poverty by a third I would say that the reason why that happened was because they were not affected by the de l'eau right the de Keela pricess because specifically because
(37:18) the u.s. bailed them out and that crisis didn't spread to the rest of all Argentina was not bailed out all right
(39:17) is everyone good all right starts on their contention two moves to our case all right the first key extension on their contention to comes from Harvard telling to you that we have the same amount of trade in either world the two differences are one we have it through gradual praise the second difference is that we maintain regulations or to protect domestic industries regulations go all out on day one and a big con in a pro world I'll implicate that later the second thing to extend comes the University of Houston this is really
(39:51) important because it tells us and Mexico was the number one model for development pre NAFTA in 1993 now this is important because that means an influx is an investor capital would have been able to continue in future governmental generations the third is the CPS turn telling you that in reality because of NAFTA the change isn't in investment was to FBI foreign portfolio investment or things like stocks which are way more volatile but a key concession we get is that the only reason a global crisis was even possible it was because of NAFTA
(40:17) happening in the first place we argued that that risk is not good because if the clean extension of the Neeley card that Mexico would have been able to stabilize its economy of the national dependence was not created she just says that political violence was also a factor but if Esther takes us into account and our court is very specific in saying and after compromise 50% of the devaluation taking this into account more specifically on our case a couple things the first things that she says is that we didn't have sustainable
(40:40) Momentum's we would have caused a global crisis the HBR card is very specific here because of things like she says like signing on to other tree free trade agreements like in 1988 the g8 et we were already contractually locked not we Mexico was contracted Li locked into reforms that would have continued then she says oh that we have renegotiations happening right now once she doesn't prove poverty probability but second the damage is already done where we have five million or tens of millions of people displaced on our point about
(41:06) protecting the domestic industry she says then a chop put stipulations that we could go but because we became dependent on these foreign investors we could not rely on these stipulations and they were forced to ignore them then she says prices went down because of our warrant but our point is that short-term prices went down but the World Trade Organization specifically tells you when accounting for monopolization long term in 97 percent of the agricultural market prices without by 38% the impact that poverty was reduced by 1/3 in other
(41:32) Latin American countries that use this same type of a development path but in Mexico had nothing they push tens of millions of people into poverty per recession just because the foreign dependence is for these reasons that I strongly urge a negative ballot thank you you
(44:38) so for the judges can start off on their first contention is everyone ready yes let's start off with their first contention remember the second response from or May which says that the GDP growth that they talked about which was so good which would be difficult to sustain without NAFTA because they needed NAFTA to actually engage in the international market and to become integrated national internationally that's gonna be important later but then on their evidence about destroying of domestic industries we say from
(45:05) Letterman that NAFTA included provisions to protect the agricultural industry which is the only industry they talk about don't let them talk about more industries and final focus then they say that there was dependent and the dependency was the only reason why they were able to allow for the agriculture industry to be destroyed but this doesn't make sense because they say they want a gradual approach Letterman says that NAFTA included provisions to protect the agricultural industry and gradually reduce tariffs that means that
(45:28) is the is not the fault of us participation in NAFTA that destroyed these industries is rather the fault a Mexican participation in after that destroy these industries because they did it all on their own now let's go into our second contention about incentivizing a US bailout the main response here that they extend comes from nearly which explains that the reason that they started the bailout in the peso crisis was because of u.s.
(45:47) dependency and that they would have been able to recover from it recover from it on their own their evidence does not say that Mexico was able to recover from the peso crisis and clearly this isn't the case because the queeg evidence at the bottom of our case says that Argentina had a similar peso crisis but did not have the close economic linkages forged to the United States because of NAFTA and when they had that peso crisis and they didn't have the US need to bail them out with billions of dollars their
(46:10) poverty rate doubled they don't actually give you a quantified impact about how much poverty would have decreased through their gradual approach or what even their gradual approach would have Evan even meant because we say that NAFTA included those provisions for that gradual approach but we say from the Humphrey evidence that the devaluation and the peso that started in nineteen eighty eight years before NAFTA talks even began that hurt NAFTA and the Clinton had to act and that you and the lacunae evidence which explains that the u.s.
(46:35) had no choice but to bail out the actin out of Mexico or suffer the economic chaos itself they only impact to Mexican devalue the Mexican development being slowed but we say from the Basco at Vasquez evidence that the u.s. bail out prevented the impact of a global financial crisis that would have impact impacted a lot more countries in Mexico that means we outweigh on scope okay let's start okay so you talked about how there would have been a global crisis right so my question is did the 2008 global recession wipe out all of the
(47:20) improvements in living standards that we saw for developing countries both before hand and after so well that there was an evidence read in the roundabout that the 2008 recession was bad right but we say in the evidence and the response that doesn't get responded to which Eden brings up in the rebuttal says that because Mexico had free trade agreements with so many other countries they still would have probably been hit as hard if not harder without now yeah but those are criminals I find after NAFTA and we
(47:47) have its grand cross and there was no argument like maybe that's the reason for those other free trade agreements and I would also add that a lot of those free trade agreements were predated NAFTA so it is a case that Mexico still would have had a lot of linkages to other countries throughout the world clarified that's we're not trying to make a new response all we're asking you is that when we compare the impact of 25 years of development versus one recession that could have been really bad we would argue that those recessions
(48:16) we still recover from them and the development in the long term so it'll benefit was the words let's talk about the recovery process so Argentina is its growth higher than Mexico's or lower than Mexico higher by oh no no it is not yeah it is as of this year yeah no no okay well as of 2017 it's lower right over 1994 to 2017 it's per capita GDP growth per year has actually less than Mexico's right no that's a compared right I've had a peso crisis without a u.s. bailout their poverty rate more
(48:44) than doubled and their growth slowed to more than Mexico's if we have a question well I mean you've just said a lot of things I want to spawn okay I would say is that actually those numbers about low growth were only in the years after Argentina's recession on their broad trend not only as their growth been higher but even if we neglect growth their poverty reduction has been several times higher than Mexico oh pardon your worst PC as they are today doubled and average couple of years after NAFTA we
(49:10) read you the evidence in Mexico one from the number one developing model to post NAFTA eighteenth out right and our argument explains why that happens because we say that because a piece of crisis that's why they have lower development than the rest of Latin America we would say the space of crisis without the bailout would have been a lot worse and would have caught even lower rates of poverty reduction even lower rates of growth and number two that same impact would have been seen across Latin America had the US bailout
(49:32) not occurred narrative right so how much slower what did the Mexican economy liberalize without a NAFTA right so what we tell you is that while the tariffs were going away gradually under NAFTA all the protections for investment and all of the regulations were wiped out overnight wait we would argue that none of that weight of have the only industry that you talk about is the agricultural in it that's our exam until you have it's August things like that they had provisions in the agriculture industry
(50:02) so chair crowd out multinational corporation again but there's Mexican government did not follow these provisions as I said us in it those are not regulations and we point out that the only reason they went away was because American hedge funds threatened them and put pressure under NAFTA turn us down fam hello are you good now yeah okay cool we made it alright this is my last speech ever so let's do it time starts beginning what's the issue of recessions what we tell you is a couple of things first both of us agree
(50:58) that trade would have been the same with or without NAFTA they themselves talk about other agreements that were signed so it doesn't make a lot of sense when they say that NAFTA locked in the increase in trade Yun told you in 1988 Mexico signed on to the ga TT which is a binding agreement that would have made them increased trade in either world the difference was first you got rid of the protections for the domestic industries it happened a lot faster but second you got rid of regulation under NAFTA which
(51:22) is going to be the crucial reason why you sign your ballot for the con let's deal with the specific impact they talk about they tell you that when you have an American bailout and more investment they recover from 94 we tell you that first of all by 1993 they were already leading Latin America so they did not need this American investment and more importantly the type of investment changed to being five times more volatile under NAFTA so on the whole the odds were session increased we tell you that the reason this recession happened
(51:47) was first by becoming dependent on American investment under NAFTA when America pulled out the peso fell an additional 50 percent but second they say that Mexico could not have recovered on their own and we agree what our evidence tells you is that without NAFTA Mexico could have stopped it before it even started but under NAFTA they had no ability to do so they were solving a problem that they only create it at the end of the day even if you buy that Argentina and other had the trace of hit recessions we say
(52:12) two things one America has bailed out in Mexico even before free trade agreements so you don't need NAFTA but to the rest of Latin America have all seen similar recessions and all of them despite global financial crises alike have bounced back they've been hit less hard and they have reduced poverty by one-third while growing twice as fast we showed that a recession is not the end-all be-all finally on our case the only two things they say is that we locked in increasing free trade and we respond to this by showing you that it
(52:37) was already locked in they tell you that they had the ability to protect their corn industry and even if that's true regulations on the hole still went away which is why on balance it was a net job destroyer on balance every Mexico harder than the rest of Latin America and on balance every latin-american country cut poverty by 1/3 while Mexico made no progress whatsoever on balance you're voting on when everyone's ready Weisberg explains that all the growth that they talked about happened during protectionism but second of all or may
(53:40) explains that without and after the growth that they talked about would not have been sustainable they say that Mexico was already involved in the gap but they dropped the warrant behind the or me evidence but they never interact with throughout the round he explains that he explains that the party that was in power faced serious opposition during that during that election when the elections the election that year was threatened to over send you undo all the progress on liberalization that's why they needed new momentum they needed
(54:01) NAFTA to be signed to sustain the growth that was seen he would not have seen the increase in GDP and the growth they talked about absent NAFTA don't let them wiggle around and go for the general idea of their contention the only regulation that they talked about in case and throughout the round is on agriculture that's why the Lederman evidence is the round losing piece of evidence for them they don't they ignore the fact that the tariffs were possible under NAFTA specifically on the agricultural industry but Mexico chose
(54:23) not to use them this means that u.s. participation is not the reason why all of their impacts are occurring it's the Mexican government's failure to properly implement implement nafta positions that they were offered which means that it's not the case that the affirmative is actually the reason for these impacts to stop because of American participation it specifically because of the Mexican government and NAFTA included provisions that could have prevented this from happening moreover they say we lay on recessions
(54:47) we tell you that Mexico is free trader giving some 46 other countries so they would have seen recessionary impacts even without NAFTA the place where you vote for us is off of the bailout they tell you the recession creates dependency but it's not that they could recover on their own their evidence doesn't say that in Argentina without the bailout to poverty doubled they say that poverty was reduced in other Latin American countries not in the ones that receipt not in the ones that had a peso crisis without a bailiff like Latin and
(55:09) like Argentina where poverty doubled but second Humphrey explains the devaluation happened years before talks began it was not because of NAFTA but he's lacunae specifically finds that's AB US had no choice but to bail out Latin but to balaam expose specifically because of the linkage is caused by NAFTA we alway on strength of link because all of their arguments are relying upon Mexican government's failure to properly implement knocked out but the peso crisis was caused by NAFTA the previous me lots were not because of the United
(55:30) States but they experienced massive capital flight specifically because of the depreciation that was already on trend from happening after the black our evidence than the evidence that we we specifically isolated for NAFTA as the reason why we saw the bailout and the reasons why Mexico didn't see an increase in poverty [Applause]