The Instigator
Logan94
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
ConservativeStardom
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Embargo on Cuba

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,436 times Debate No: 33210
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Logan94

Con

The Embargo on Cuba is unjust and needs to be demolished. Why does the United States support this Embargo? there is no answer to this question. They may justify it by saying that they are communist or repressive. We trade with both Laos and Vietnam. Both governments are communist and the government of Laos has been known to be repressive in the past. This trade Embargo is unfair and unjust to the people of Cuba and the Cuban government. The communist nation of Cuba is not and will not b a threat
ConservativeStardom

Pro

Your missing a big point here Logan! We should not take this off because the communist dictatorship has done nothing to lift the embargo. President Kennedy told them that he would lift the embargo if they meet the requirements, which was to ease off of the Cuban people and give them rights and liberty. We would also be seen as weak and unresponsive to the safety of Americans.
Debate Round No. 1
Logan94

Con

Why do we insist on enforcing these restrictions on the government of Cuba. This is completely unethical, and this is the only communist nation that we do this to, If we required this for all communist nations then it would be ethical but since we only do it to Cuba it is completely unjustifiable. We (Gov't) think we can impose restrictions on Cuba no other nations and that is not fair to Cuba. It is not required of other communist nations so should not be required of Cuba. This is an old grudge
ConservativeStardom

Pro

Do you really think any of the direct trade income would flow through the hands of the Cubans? No, this is not a capitalistic state this has a pure communist regime in place. Why should we make deals with people associated with dictatorships? We shouldn't that defeats American principles. You also must not be aware that Castro was not opened to ending the embargo because he felt secure about the isolationism. But due to the isolationism Cuban-Americans believe it can spark revolts of some kinds
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
Logan94ConservativeStardomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that there needs to be a good reason for a trade embargo, and that disapproval of the communist regime is not reason enough. I thought this was more convincing than the reasons Pro gave. However, a bit more evidence on either side wouldn't have hurt.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
Logan94ConservativeStardomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP was on con for asserting a change to the status quo. Con needed to establish why the embargo was set, and no longer necessary. Questioning it is a good starting point for making an argument, but more research/evidence was needed to prove the case.