Instigator / Pro
1584
rating
30
debates
71.67%
won
Topic
#6061
The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
1702
rating
78
debates
70.51%
won
Description
Use any economic indicator you want. I won't provide a metric for "negative economic effect" because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.
Metrics should be used up to the date when this debate is accepted. When I say "so far" I mean up to the time when someone accepts this challenge.
Round 1
Thanks for accepting Con, I look forward to a fun and professional debate!
To start, I'll define my terms a little by listing exactly what Tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term. Remember, I'm only going to be using Tariffs and metrics up to April 12 as that's about when this debate was accepted.
On April 5th the first of the big ones hit with Trump announcing a baseline Tariff of 10% on all imports to the U.S. Then there were "Reciprocal Tariffs" placed on many other countries. These differed country to country (Between 11% and 50%) and were designed to close our trade deficit with these countries. China specifically also got a 145% Tariff rate place on it too. Steel and aluminum were also taxed across the board at 25% as were auto parts from Mexico and other countries. [1]
That's the oversimplified version, but it should be enough for our purposes. If you dispute any of that information we can debate that too, but there really isn't much to dispute. With that done I'll move on to my arguments.
Tariffs in general have two major problems, they don't do what they're supposed to, and they do what they aren't. Most supporters of Tariffs agree that Tariffs have side effects, but make the claim that they're worth the benefits. The only problem is that there are no benefits. Tariffs don't bring manufacturing back home, and they don't support American businesses. However most of that stuff is in the long term, so I'll focus on the side effects for now.
Immediate Consequences of Tariffs
The Stock Market
This one is an obvious section to be included in my debate, and we all know what happened here, so I'll make it short. Since the beginning of 2025 the S&P is down 10%, and the Dow is down 8% compared to relative highs previous to Tariff announcements. Tech was hit especially hard too as the Nasdaq dropped 16%. And that's longer term, spanning all the way from January. The day after "Liberation Day" specifically the Nasdaq lost 1,600 points, S&P lost 6.65% and the Dow lost 1,679 points. These numbers speak for themselves, there's no analysis necessary.
Burden on Consumers
Since we are a global economy and we rely on each other, Tariffs increase prices on all goods. Though the label might say that it was made in country X, the materials could come from county Y, and they were put together in country Z. Increasing Tariffs makes prices on foreign goods soar, and domestic goods too. It's extremely difficult and necessary to produce something completely in the U.S. which makes even domestic goods increase in price.
To give some numbers, prices have risen on average 2.3% with much bigger spikes in the textiles and motor industries (17% and 8.4% respectively). Household purchasing power has dropped by an average of $3,800 which affects the entire economy too, as less consumer spending equals less market growth. [2]
Macroeconomic Consequences
On a much bigger scale, real GDP has declined 0.9 percentage points since the start of the year which was way off from past estimates. Our economy has shrunk 0.6% contributing to a loss of 160 billion dollars annually. Exports have fallen about 18%, Unemployment has sunken 0.6, and we've lost 770,000 jobs on payroll. The economy is complex, and every metric affects other metrics. Each number going down doesn't just mean one consequence for all of us, it means an entire ripple effect on our economy. [2]
Retaliation
Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true. Meanwhile other countries are the ones really acting in self defense, and everyone is paying the price. China has hit back hard with 125% across the board on America causing severe export losses. U.S. exports are down roughly 16% due to this. [3] Sectors such as Agriculture, Manufacturing, Automobiles, Steel, and Aluminum, though everyone is feeling the effects.
Summary
I know it's cliche to say that the numbers don't lie, but the numbers don't lie. Some economic actions hurt one sector of the economy while raising another, and it's possible to argue that these trade-offs are necessary. However with Tariffs, it's simple. Everything goes down, everyone hurts. Nobody wins in trade wars.
Thank you Con for participating in this debate, I look forward to your response.
Sources Cited
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
My total R1 rebuttal/argument is in the previous posts, # 20 and #19
Resolution: The Tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term have had a negative effect on our economy so far
Round 1
Notice: Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate.
I. Rebuttal: What tarrifs?
I.a On 4/2/2025, President Trump announced intent to issue tariffs, to begin on 4/5/2025, on trading partners with whom the U.S. has trade deficits [higher exports to U.S. from them than U.S. imports to them]. As of now, our top trading partners in export/import [from US perspective] are in trade deficit with the U.S. with the exception of Great Britain on the list.[1]
I.a.1 However, Pro’s R1 claim is with citation of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration. Those plans were actually announced by Trump to be delayed as of 4/4, and, as of today [4/20/2025] the plans remain delayed in favor of Trump conducting one-on-one negotiations to improve the trade imbalance making tariffs unnecessary.[2] Pro’s citation sources make no mention of these delays.
I.a.1.a Aside: Using Wikipedia as a source is curious since Wiki’s own published opinion of its own reliability is questionable because Wiki says “Wikipedia allows anonymous editing…”[3] Where, then, is credible scholarship? It cannot be “anonymous.”
I.a.2 I therefore propose that, rather than Trump being the cause of Pro’s Resolution of “negative effect,” I suggest the negative is due to the short-term U.S. financial market speculation, which has had ongoing issue with Donald Trump for other reasons than trade and alleged economic woes, and going back to the beginning of Trump’s first term, when Washington Post, on 1/20/2017, released a special edition for the inauguration that “…the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” and continues into his second term. At the time [first term inauguration], his only apparent “high crime” was walking with his wife in a parade.[4] The media, and many other detractors, have had Trump occupying their heads, rent-free, ever since.
1.a.2.a “Long-threatened tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump have plunged the country into trade wars abroad — all while on-again, off-again new levies continue to escalate uncertainty.”[5]
I.a.3 I am not implying that there are no tariffs currently applied to trading partners, but Pro’s argument is limited to tariffs Trump has personally imposed, and only “in his second term,” and that it is these tariffs, specifically, and only, which are claimed by Pro to have “a negative effect on our economy, so far.” So, what tariffs, since they have been delayed?
II Rebuttal: “Tariffs don’t bring manufacturing back home…”
II.a Quoted from Pro’s R1, The statement sounds legit; “everyone” says so. Well, StreetInsider disagrees.[6] They point to ten countries and companies committing to invest a collective $3T into American manufacturing as of March 2025. “Everyone” has not been listening.
Sources
[1] https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/trade_by_industry_sectors
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-tariffs-live-markets-selloff-us-reciprocal-tariffs-kick-2025-04-09/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/a-timeline-of-trumps-tariff-actions-so-far
[6] https://www.streetinsider.com/Investing/Investment+commitments+in+U.S.+nears+$3+trillion+since+Trump+took+office/24538801.html
III Argument: Personal Experience
III.a I have been buying gold in 1 oz bar increments for the past 50 years, beginning in the late 70s when gold bars were marketed at $400/oz [rounded]. My latest purchase was 5 years ago, by which time, I was in possession of over 100 lbs, last purchased at $2,800/oz. As of today [04/20] gold spot price is $3,400 [rounded as above].[7] My personal increase from 50 years ago is >700%; not a “negative effect.” I have the same experience with silver 10 oz bars at a lower percentage increase, but still an increase, not a negation, and I do not claim Trump is the only cause of that increase, but is a participant.
III.b Therefore, by personal experience, using the metrics of the gold and silver bar commodities, I refute Pro’s Resolution and call it failed. Same experience with a few selected stocks on the NASDAQ and NYSE exchanges [Apple & Amazon, for example].[8, 9], which I own. Since when is verifiable personal experience not a legitimate debate argument?
IV Argument: “Use any economic indicator you want”[10]
IV.a So, I have, as noted above in Arguments II & III.
IV.b However, then Pro offers this conundrum in the Description: “I won’t provide a metric for ‘negative economic effect’ because I leave that up to the debater. You can choose your own metric, but you will need to defend why it is a better metric than the ones I will use.”[11]. What are we to conclude? Will Pro argue an economic metric, or not? I do not see how the debate is won without it. Nope, Pro offered one metric: tariffs. And all Pro sources are reacting to what was announced from the White House on April 2, 2025, with no reaction cited for reversals made days later. Oh, there was one other metric noted: the NYSE. Well, we can look at the results just since 4/2, all of 19 days’ effect. But, better, look at NYSE as we should, not on recent dailies, as Pro insists, but over the long haul of investing the last 15 years; since 2010. That’s how we should look at stock market commodities, and precious metals, etc. We are not in a ‘negative economic effect,’ period. Over the long haul, even longer than Trump’s first term, let alone the short second, we are doing very well; short-term naysayers notwithstanding. They are myopic, if not altogether blind.
IV.c Pro’s Resolution presents a curious attempted syllogism: the deductive conclusion being, “…[has] a negative effect on our economy so far.” And its alleged supporting premise is singular: “The tariffs imposed by Trump in his second term…” However, just because the syllogistic sense is used does not imply that the conclusion reached is supported by a valid premises. For example:
IV.c.1 [P1] Birds fly. [P2] Camels walk. [C] Therefore, butterflies swim.
This looks and acts like a legitimate syllogism, but is it? No, because the premises given, though true, do not support the conclusion in any way, even though it is true we have a [human] swimming stroke called the “butterfly.” But that is human, not butterfly. The same illogic applies to Pro’s attempted syllogistic Resolution, as demonstrated by the arguments, above.
V Conclusion
V.a I conclude that Pro’s Resolution is false. Thank you for your attention.
To Pro for R2.
Sources:
[7] https://www.jmbullion.com/
[8] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history#google_vignette
[9] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-price-history
[10] Taken from Pro’s debate challenge description
[11] ibid
Used to go backpacking with my brothers every summer in the High Sierras - long time ago. Those days are long behind me. Take your time.
Yup. I was backpacking the last few days so the argument might be a little late. I will definitely have it by the time limit though.
notice to all:
Heretofore recent technical difficulties with DA prohibit Con [fauxlaw] from entering argument rounds within the debate argument fields of DA; whereas, the Forum fields, and the Comments fields within Debate are available for entry by fauxlaw. For this debate, Pro, has agreed [see comments, my post #13; pro’s reply post #14] to allow this condition. I also advise voters and commenters of this condition and request they ignore impulse to consider my forfeit, as this will be the result of my attempted arguments if they, again, fail to post properly in the argument fields. I am debating to the best of my ability considering this site flaw. Please agree that Con’s arguments and source references of each round will be allowed loading in the DA Comments fields. This notice is null and void should Con find that he can enter arguments appropriately in the field rounds as intended. This will only be known upon launch of the debate. This notice will be repeated in my R1 argument should it fail to post in Debate argument field as iy should.
Thanks. No prob with character limit. Shall we proceed?
Sounds okay to me. As long as you stay within the character limit I’m fine with it.
I am accepting this debate on conditional proviso that I will be able to enter arguments in the Argument field of each Con round. A previous debate I enter a couple of months ago failed to allow my posting of arguments in the ARgument field, and my opponent accepted my round posts tyt be in the Comments section. I won't kn ow if I am now able to post in the argument field, or not. Are you willing to allow my round arguments to be posted in Comments if need be? Moderators are, so far, stumped for the reason why I am prohibited from making entry. I just purchased a new iMac, but its os may be beyond the DebateArt site to recognize it, although I am operational here in comments and in Forum, so I don 't think it's an os problem
Good point. Maybe I’ll run this debate again once we’ve seen the long term effects too. That was kinda my original plan, but I got bored so I moved this one up.
It would be a shared burden. But even if you had the burden of proof, proving something 100% is an absurd burden to meet. I would think you would just have to show the impacts are more likely to be harmful on balance than not.
I think con has a case even short term anyway. Just debate what is more fun for you to debate
Well it’s an impossible burden of proof to uphold. I can’t 100% prove that tariffs will be bad long term.
If it's too speculative than how do you plan for the future? Do you just behave in ways that are immediately beneficial ignoring long term consequences?
And I've kinda already done that one a few times.
It's too speculative for me.
Why a few months instead of debating whether the long term effects are good or not?
Fine, I'll do the same debate in few months
People care about the impact it has long term not the effect following 2 weeks after
I dont accept rated debates, but no one really thinks that.
Oh, Good point
I might specify "as of [date]" because otherwise the aggregate effects "so far" will keep changing between rounds.