First off, this case contends that protectionism is a part of the free trade process.

Governments make trade deals which allow and limit protectionism. Thus, free trade agreements

could never be made without some sort of protectionism. Thus, the resolution is false because

one cannot value a thing over another thing upon which it depends. If there could be no trade

agreements without protections, then protectionism is vital and therefore as important as free

trade in the continuance of the society.

And now, I offer the following definitions:

 Pragmatism: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William

James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in

their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is

preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. (Merriam Webster)

 Free Trade: Interchange of goods and services (but not of capital or labor) unhindered by

high tariffs, non-tariff barriers (such as quotas), and onerous or unilateral requirements or

processes. (www.businessdictionary.com)

 Protectionism: Governmental policy aimed at shielding a fragile economy, or a weak or

critical sector, from cheaper or better imports through imposition of high duty rates (tariff

barriers), quotas, and/or inordinately stringent or time consuming inspection or quality

regulations (non-tariff barriers). All countries practice protectionism in one form or

another but, generally, without going to any extreme. (www.businessdictionary.com)

Pragmatism is the value I will uphold because it allows those involved to recognize the

need for protections even as they negotiate trade. Permitting protectionism to be built into free

trade deals provides the most efficient way of negotiating trade between nations.
 My criterion is efficiency. In a sense, the efficiency question is the first question for all

societies. Unless a society is reasonably efficient in marshaling its resources, it cannot expect a

blossoming of innovative growth. And of course liberty is a hollow concept to a starving

population.

Contention One: Adam Smith even agreed with the idea of protectionism.

Source: Witzel, M. (Autumn 2004). Medieval economics revisited: protectionism grew out of

mercantile economics 500 years ago. Although long discredited, ailing industries in the US and

Europe are often rescued by mercantilism. European Business Forum. , 19. p.82

Viewed from our own time this looks like narrow-minded isolationism. Some mercantilists were

indeed 'little Englanders' of the worst kind, but others were pragmatic men reacting to a crisis.

The country and its economy were weak, and needed to be made strong. Although in theory free

trade might be a good thing, as some mercantilists noted, in practice, protectionist measures were

seen as the best way of defending domestic industries against low-cost foreign competition. It is

worth noting that one of free trade's greatest advocates. Adam Smith, later agreed with this view

and accepted reluctantly that some protectionist measures like the Navigation Acts, which

restricted access by foreign ships to English ports, might be necessary.

For these reasons, I ask you to negate the resolution. I now will refute the affirmative case.