The Instigator
masterdebater96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

A resolution to strength bilateral relations with brazil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 23538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

masterdebater96

Pro

I strongly support the proposition that the United States should strengthen its bilateral relations with Brazil. I wish my opponent good luck
ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.

Post your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
masterdebater96

Pro

I strongly support the proposition that the United States should strengthen its bilateral relations with Brazil. Brazil has the world's seventh largest economy, and Brazil is also part of BRIC. BRIC is an acronym which refers to the nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. These countries all have economies that are developing at a fast pace and they are considered to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development.

Moving on to my first contention, American ethanol isn't as efficient as Brazil's ethanol. Although the United States is the world's leader in ethanol production, Brazil's ethanol is more efficient. According to the Economist, "Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane whereas American ethanol is made from corn. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol . U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol." If the US established stronger ties with Brazil, together they would form a powerful global ethanol market. Expanding world ethanol markets would help the USA and other nations reduce their dependence on foreign oil. If we formed this "global ethanol market," Brazil and America's ethanol production will increase and help both nations economically.
ConservativePolitico

Con

BRIC

The United States entering into stronger relations with Brazil in order to strengthen ties with BRIC is redundant because the United States already has close ties to India, strong economic ties with China and are entering into chilly relations with Russia.

President Putin is already showing his Anti-American attitude in the news [1] and entering into relations with a close friend to Russia could be bad politically with the United States and act to strain future relations between the two nations.

Entering into BRIC would not only be redundant in some areas but in poor political taste in others.

Ethanol

Most of your argument is centered around created a "strong global ethanol market" when this is not a US priority or interest. As we can see from the graph in source two [2] American ethanol consumption matches up nearly perfectly with our production and importing ethanol is not needed.

You also cite that ethanol can be produced cheaper in Brazil but then leave out the fact that the cost of importing the ethanol from Brazil would offset the price difference in producing here in America. The United States is home to some of the largest corn fields in the world and our agricultural production is top notch, importing ethanol would be unneeded and expensive. The demand is not there to justify improving relations with another country for the sake of ethanol since our supply matches our demand domestically.

Anti-US Interests

Brazil also enters into some policies that are against US policy.

Brazil has strong ties to Iran - a strong enemy of the United States. [3]

Brazil is clear cutting forests and causing environmental destruction. [4]

Since Brazil is engaged in policies that the US doesn't favor, relations with them are outweighed negatively and are therefore undesirable.

* The United States has no need politically or economically to enter into BRIC for various reasons

* Ethanol is not a viable or justifiable reason to improve relations with another nation

* Brazil engages in policies the US doesn't agree with.

We should not improve relations with Brazil.


[1] http://www.reuters.com...
[2]
www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/docs/ethanol_production_consumption.xls
[3] http://articles.cnn.com...
[4] http://news.mongabay.com...

Debate Round No. 2
masterdebater96

Pro

Also I would like to add that:
Consider the fact that since the George Bush administration, the US has built a strong bilateral relation with India, the largest democracy in the world. During the Obama administration, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the US continues to establish strong bilateral relations with India, which, as I have already mentioned is part of BRIC. Establishing strong bilateral relations with Brazil is consistent with the US stance toward BRIC countries. The relationship between India and America has been very successful and, therefore, the relationship between the US and Brazil will also be very successful.

There really is no harm in creating bilateral relations with Brazil...Whether they cut forests or not. What do you think we do in America... we are worse! We dump chemicals in large bodies of water and there are many other things the US does to harm the environment.

And also if creating relations with Brazil is unfavorable then how come President Obama went to Brazil recently? He went to Brazil to strength our relations, so we do show the need to form relations with them.

Basically you are arguing that we dont agree with Brazil's policies, but let me ask you this since you mentioned China (since it is part of BRIC), I was wondering if you believe the US agrees with all of their policies. Every country has its different views and we should repsect them. Also please mention some of the policies we are against.
ConservativePolitico

Con

BRIC

As I said before (and you didn't respond adequately) our relations with the BRIC countries would be redundant through Brazil or damaging.

I would also like to point out that India does not equal Brazil. There is nothing to say that they would be anything alike in the political arena. That's like saying "Japan has bad relations with Korea so we'll have bad relations with Korea" when in fact it's quite the opposite. You can't use relations with one country to gauge the success of relations with another.

India has nothing to do with Brazil in this debate.

There is no "harm" but there are negative consequences of doing so. We'd never be able to face the UN or environmentally conscious Europe if we support Brazil and their clear cutting of the Amazon. We don't need their ethanol and we would give them a chance to gain US intel through Russia and Russia to gain US intel through Brazil. The negative effects are present but the positive ones are no where to be found.

Obama

Whether Obama does something or not doesn't mean that we should. Obama once did crack cocaine, should all Americans do cocaine? No. Just because the President does something doesn't make it the right course of action.

Also, there could be any number of reasons for the president to visit somewhere. Strengthening of relations isn't the only reason for a presidential visit. The Olympics are going to Brazil in 2016, Brazil is supporting an Argentinian blockade of the Falkland Islands and Brazil is a notorious drug producing country. These are many unfavorable reasons to illicit a political response outside of the ambiguous "strengthening relations" umbrella you put over it.

I already mentioned some of the policies:

- Tight relations with Iran
- Negative environmental impacts
- Drugs
- Blockading the British held Falkland Islands

Those are all policies we don't agree with.

Also, no we don't agree with China's policies which is why we don't have strong overall relations with the country and have made no move to strengthen them. We have economic ties to them only.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by masterdebater96 4 years ago
masterdebater96
I did mention my sources
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
The debate was quite poor all round. PRO was bad for obvious reasons, such as not posting an argument of real substance, whilst CON's argument, from an educated standpoint, contains many points that are either contradictory, or simply plain wrong. America enters into negotiations with Russia in R2, yet this is bad in R2/3, yet this is why America should not join with Brazil R3. The discussion of Russia/Brazil political ties seems like a massive stretch. Brazil/Cuba relations would have been the best example, but it still remains a massive stretch.

Many of the points in the final round seemed poor at best as well. Brazil produces drugs, therefore one should stop negotiating with them? Bearing in mind how Brazil is on a crackdown of drugs and crime on a massive scale currently, I found this claim dubious at best, and out of date at worst.

PROs entire argument should have hinged on bauxite rather than ethanol, and I don't know why for the life of me he discussed ethanol alone, so that's why he gets no points. Sources, though, clearly goes to CON for actually citing information which disproved claims of PRO.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
It means together. Side by side.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"bilateral"?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JacobHession 4 years ago
JacobHession
masterdebater96ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro argumentation was weak throughout, the Con had some flaws but on whole was superior. Clear Con victory.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
masterdebater96ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think ethanol should be a greater priority to the US, but Con did defeat that and Pro's other arguments, and he used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
masterdebater96ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
masterdebater96ConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll stay away from voting on arguments because of lack of knoweldge, but Con definately took the sources