The Instigator
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The American Trade Embargo Against Cuba should be eliminated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 1/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,587 times Debate No: 20667
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

THEBOMB

Con

R1. Acceptance
R2. opening arguments
R3. Rebuttal
R4. Conclusion
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting and will begin.

C1. The Cuban government is a totalitarian dictatorship which suppresses their own people.

The question I present for my opponent is why should the United States economically help a country, which has no vital strategic importance to the United States, and goes completely against the US's ideology (communist totalitarian government vs. Capitalist Republican government)? Cuba wants the United States to completely end our blockade but, in return they want to concede nothing. They will not relax their policy of oppressing their own people. So once again I ask, why should the United States end a blockade when doing so would result in strengthening an oppressive government? It is a matter of principle that we keep the blockade. It is the only leverage the United States holds to try and loosen the Cuban people from the yoke of this totalitarian regime.

a. The Cuban economy is nationalized.

The Cuban economy is nationalized. So by ending this blockade it would result in money flowing into the Central government allowing Cuba to pursue their communist agenda abroad and oppress their own people's civil liberties. This police state of Cuba controls the lives of 11 million people. Why should the US contribute to this oppression by opening trade with Cuba?

C3. The Castros hate the United States. Ending a blockade would not solve this hate.

"Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left" (1). They are not going to end their policy of hating the United States. Now let's take a step back. Cuba is very close to the Continental United States. If we open free trade relations with Cuba other countries, who hate the United States, will decide that since Cuba can help them and now has a more modern infrastructure to open a military alliance. Do you know what countries these include? China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Iran would not hesitate to use the advantage that Cuba would bring to them militarily. They will send missiles to Cuba. Guess what country they'll be aimed at. The United States. It will be a repeat of the Cuban Missile crisis (the reason the . By opening trade with Cuba the United States allows Cuba to modernize their infrastructure, allow them to build a more powerful military, and give countries such as Iran an incentive to want to create a permanent military alliance with Cuba.

Furthermore, with resources gained from the end of the blockade, Cuba would team up with "rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere." (1) How does this help the United States at all with their foreign policy? It does not.

Giving in to "evil" only begets more evil.

C4. The USA has tried to negotiate for the end of trade embargo in the past

"The U.S. has tried numerous times to broker a deal with the Castro regime to lift the embargo, but he has outright rejected any negotiations" (2). The United States has tried to negotiate for the ending of the embargo. Guess what? Castro did not want negotiate. Until Cuba is willing to negotiate with the United States over the embargo it should stay in place.

1. http://www.nypost.com...
2. http://www.alligator.org...
ConservativePolitico

Pro

C1)

The US should not deny the right of any buisnesses or persons to do business with whomever they choose. If GM wants to sell cars to Cuba then why should we stop them? You say its to starve a totalitarian government when this logic is obviously flawed. We buy 11% of our crude oil from Venezuela which is run by a dictator, Hugo Chavez [1]. If we are just trying to starve dictatorships we wouldn't purchase oil from Venezuela, Iran, etc. so this can't be the sole reason for our blockade.

You then say that this blockade is the only "leverage" the US holds over Cuba when this is obviously false since this blockade has been going on for years and Cuba has not crumbled or given in but merely exists in a state of economic stagnation because of our failed efforts. It does nothing but hurt the Cuban people.

Either be consistent with embargoing dictatorships or stop discriminating against Cuba.

C2)

The Cuban economy might be nationalized but their government is letting up on it. Cubans are now allowed to buy and sell their own property. [2] This remarkable change shows a move towads a future with less government control. If we ended the blockade then we could be there to help the Cubans during this transition phase.

As to fueling the oppression of 11 million people... they are being oppressed with or without the US blockade. With the blockade they are are oppressed and forced to drive cars from the 1950's because we refuse to sell to them. Without the blockade Cubans are oppressed but get to drive new cars. Either way Cuba is what it is, why punish it for who it is?

C3)

The Castros are both well into their 80's, while they might "hate" the United States they are close to death. [3] Now I don't know what you mean about this policy of hating the US, sure at one point they did but now that the USSR is gone and the US's crusade against communism is finished Cuba has no more reason to hate us just as we have no more reason to hate them. Cuba has done nothing to us in years, since before the USSR collapsed. This blockade is obviously out of date.

The next part of your argument is pure speculation. I too can speculate. What if, after the Castros are dead and the country is in a phase of transition the US opens trade with Cuba and helps it recover, helps it into the modern world? We could build a friendship where their previously was none. You speculate that our enemies would take advantage of a newly rebuilt Cuba but I say why can't we benefit from that? Besides, Cuba is no longer on the world stage. China and Iran could make agreements with Bermuda and Mexico too but they don't do that. Why not? They are both semi-modern countries close to the US. No, if we moved in and showed the Cuban government decency I think eventually we would get some in return.

C4) Your quote about Castro is from 2002 when Fidel was still in office. Now Raul is in office he is much more lenient than his brother was (evidence by the rights to buy and sell property). Have we negotiated with Raul? No we have not. But we should. Your fact is out of date by 10 years. Let's try again.

P1) An Embargo out of Date

Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 Cuba poses no legitiment threat to the United States. This conflict is an out dated one with roots leading back to the 60s. With the USSR gone, communism effectively crushed and no recent problems with the Cuban government we should lift the embargo. It is an old and out dated policy that only hurts both sides.

P2) Both Sides Would Benefit

Many US citizens say that they would vacation in Cuba if given the chance. A thriving tourism industry would be set up benefiting the Cuban people while giving them an incentive to treat tourists and foreigners well. The Cuban people suffer from old out dated infrastructure and equipment due to the embargo. Both sides could benefit from the lifting of the embargo while forging a new friendship in a potetial age of transition and friendship.

P3) The War of Ideas

The best way to fight the communist regime would be through ideas. The internet is the best way to learn new ideas, spread your own ideas and further expand ones own mental capacity. With the embargo in place Cuba has minimal internet capacity and is severly crippled in their technology industry. If we opened trade with Cuba internet and TV could surface and spread new ideas to the Cuban people. Sure it might be censored but limited spread of ideas is better than none, which is what they have now.

* Cuba is changing, Fidel is gone and their economy is transforming.
* The embargo is born of rivalries and sentiments long gone and dead
* The embargo hurts both America and Cuba
* Why should we punish the Cuban people with a poor economy and substandard goods for something they can no longer control?
* Forging a friendship with Cuba now could help the US usher in a new Cuba when this regime passes away.

Thus the blockade on Cuba should be lifted.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.cfr.org...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
THEBOMB

Con

D1. Rights of businesses

According to your own logic, any person or business with means has the right to trade with terrorist organizations. Should this be allowed? No. Terrorist organizations want to destroy the United States. The United States government has the right to place embargo's on countries as Congress has the power to regulate commerce. An embargo is nothing more than a regulation on commerce. As for Venezuela, Cuba has a one party-communist system. Venezuela has a multi-party system (in fact, in 2006 36% of the vote was for Manuel Rosales). Hugo Chavez while criticized was elected in a democratic manner.

The blockade is still the only leverage we hold over Cuba.

If the United States can starve one dictatorship is that not better than starving no dictatorships?

D2) Nationalized Economy

This is not a transition period. It is an attempt to boost the dormant Cuban economy. The housing "market" (if you want to call it a market there is no real market) is still partly under government control as people can own only two houses at most, people have to go through the central bank in order to make a transaction, etc.

And I pose this question to my opponent, there are hundreds of countries in the world. Only one has an embargo on Cuba, the United States, why can't Cuba trade with other countries " to drive new cars" the United States does get most of its cars from foreign countries? It is because of Cuba's governmental policy that Cuba's economy is so bad. Not the United States.

D3) Castro

But, they still have this policy of hating the United States and a Cuban-Iranian Alliance is already in the works. (1) It just is not fully implemented because Cuba really has nothing to offer Iran. Why should the USA allow Cuba to give the Iranians an incentive to become a permanent MILITARY alliance?

A wise man once said "always expect the worst, and you will never be disappointed." This applies to everyday life. Once the Castro's die whose to say that there will not be a Stalin of Cuba? Someone more oppressive could come into power. In the world of foreign affairs and international relations, ambassadors and presidents ALWAYS expect the worst outcome that way you can plan for this outcome. If you expect the world will be good, you WILL not plan for the bad because, in your mind, there is no bad. In foreign affairs, you must expect the worst. In this case, the worst case scenario is a second Cuban missile crisis, my question for my opponent is: because there is a possibility of ending a trade embargo with Cuba resulting in a second missile crisis should the leaders of the United States of America, whose sole purpose is to the people of the United States, end the embargo on Cuba when there is the rather large possibility of harm?

D4) Negotiations

Why should we negotiate at all? What is the United States incentive?

R1) Out of date Embargo

I will reiterate, "always expect the worst, and you will never be disappointed." In other words, plan for the worst, and with Cuba, the United States definitely should. There IS an Iranian-Cuban alliance in the making, with an added American trade influx all this will do is increase Iran's incentive to want to create a permanent military alliance.

R2) Benefit

You say potential for friendship. I say potential for harm. Allowing Cuba to modernize their infrastructure, and modernize their military only increases Iran's incentive to want to create a permanent military alliance with Cuba. Expecting Pro's outcome is many times more dangerous than expecting Cons.

R3) Ideas

"The Cuban internet is among the most tightly controlled in the world. A special permit is required to use the Internet and all e-mails are intricately monitored." (2) Cuba controls ALL radio broadcasts, all newspapers, the entire Internet and all entertainment. (2) How exactly is opening trade with Cuba going to change this? It will not. People in Cuba cannot access any sites which are pro capitalism, people in Cuba cannot access sites such as Twitter or Facebook. A majority of people cannot even legally use the Internet. Opening trade with Cuba does not change this.

*Opening trade with Cuba == a large chance of harm coming to the United States
*The Embargo has a reason to exist
*The Cuban leaders are causing the Cuban people's economic hardship
*Cuba is closely tied to Iran and anti-American countries

The blockade on Cuba should stay in place.

Sources:
1. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
ConservativePolitico

Pro

D1) Rights of Businesses

First of all Cuba is not a terrorist organization, it is a legitimate state. Terrorist organizations do not run businesses or economies, they are unrecognizable entities. Cuba is a country however. While the government does have the power regulate commerce and place embargoes, embargoes are in itself acts of aggression and in some cases can be considered acts of war. Cuba is no longer in a state of war or hostility with the United States.

As for your argument about Chavez, it doesn't matter how someone gets into office but rather it matters how they behave once they are in office. Hitler was also elected democratically so he must be a legitimate leader right? Wrong. The US trades or has traded with many unfavorable figures in the world including Chavez and Qaddafi so your argument that we don't trade with "dictators" is obviously false. It's time to stop discriminating against Cuba for ills long past. If we are going to starve dictatorships then starve the rest of them too.

Besides obviously Cuba has not been "starved", the only people who have been starved are the Cuban people themselves.

The blockade is still the only leverage we hold over Cuba.

False. What about military leverage? Diplomatic leverage? There are plenty of other ways to keep countries in line. We give money to Pakistan, Palestine, and Venezuela to keep them in line with the US, why can't a similar tactic be used with Cuba? It can.

D2) Nationalized Economy

transition - movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another. [1]

Cuba has indeed moved from the position that Cubans cannot own property to the concept that they can own property. This is indeed a transition. When something so monumental happens in a communist state it can be safely said that they are transitioning. Cuba was communist to the core and the main tenant of communism is that no one owns any property so when this founding tenant is breached and changed you can say that it is a state of transition.

Next you say that the only country who has an embargo on Cuba is the US which you use to spin an argument but think of it this way. No one else has sanctions on Cuba, why should we? Obviously no other countries have seen reason to embargo Cuba so why should we? If there were a whole host of countries on board your argument would make more sense but the fact that the US is the only one just shows how out of touch we are and how ancient this trade embargo really is.

D3) Castro

Perhaps Cuba is looking to Iran for help because they have both been slighted by the US. Cuba would have no incentive to approach Iran if there was no embargo on them. There is no reason for the US to embargo Cuba any longer because they have no alliances with countries that can threaten the US.

Actually the THREAT of an embargo would be more leverage than an actual embargo because as we have seen Cuba functions without the US but with the embargo in place Cuba essentially has nothing to lose.

There is absolutely no evidence to support a second Cuban missile crisis. in fact the first missile crisis ended without any violence what so ever and that was with the USSR backing Cuba. Iran is in no position to create an environment for a second missile crisis. The evidence just isn't there.

D4) Negotiations

Negotiations breed friendship, understanding and closer relations with countries. Right now we have no ties to Cuba which breeds distrust and misunderstanding. Negotiations would open the door to new realizations and understandings with a transitional Cuba.

R1) Out of Date Embargo

The embargo was put on Cuba to strangle USSR influence and trade to the nation during the Cold War plain and simple. Now that the USSR is gone and Russia shows no interest in Cuba anymore the embargo is thus out of date. In foreign affairs you CAN'T assume things like you're saying. Right now there is NO Iran-Cuba alliance, so why treat them like there is? If you assume and treat them like that ahead of time then that pushes them to an alliance because we're already acting on something that isn't there yet pushing them to create the alliance.

R2) Benefit

Once again, I see no evidence of harm by Cuba to the US. Without the USSR backing them the US could destroy them militarily. While there are rumors of a single alliance this is no reason to continuing to harm the Cuban people based on hear-say alone. You are causing undue harm to over 11 million people [2] based on an out of date embargo which you defend with rumors. It's ludicrous.

R3) Ideas

Cuba is able to control the Internet because their Internet still runs on a dial up system making it easier to manage. [3] If the Internet was broadband, if the radio was influenced by American commercials or businesses then it would be easier for ideas to spread and for American culture to diffuse into Cuba. I could censor a dial up Internet system for goodness sake. Opening trade to Cuba would give incentive to people and businesses to use the internet to conduct business and ideas would begin to spread as technology grows. Technology plugs countries into the global network which then helps spread new ideas. The Egyptian riots and revolution that happened this past spring was organized on the internet and despite the governments best effort to censor it the idea still got out [4]. Why? Because technology is hard to control once it gets past a certain point.

* Opening trade can benefit both the US and Cuba
* The Castros are near death
* The embargo is out of date and sustained by rumors
* The people wallow in economic tar because of a stagnant economy influenced by the US embargo
* There is a single rumor about ties to one anti-US country and no others.

The blockade should be lifted for the good of all.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://laredcubana.blogspot.com...
[4] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Debate Round No. 3
THEBOMB

Con

C1) Rights of Businesses

Terrorism is defined as "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear" (1). I believe we can safely say the Cuban government fits all aspects of this definition. Furthermore, Cuba sponsors terrorism "Iran and Cuba are both state-sponsors of terrorism, and need to be treated as immediate threats to our national security. Just as the Iranian regime has rejected every overture by the Administration, the Castro regime will never be coddled into changing its ways." (4) We can safely say that through oppression the Cuban government and sponsoring terrorism effectively makes itself a terrorist state. Should we open trade with a terrorist state? No.

As for your comparison of Chavez and Hitler, Hitler yes he was elected as Chancellor, and only Chancellor. Later Hitler gained control over the entire state of Germany through the Enabling Act giving Hitler full control over the government. (2) Chavez was elected President...and still is only president. Furthermore, he has been reelected multiple times in landslide victories. He may run an intolerant government but, he has not rounded up 6 million people and killed them simply because of religion. And Venezuela still does not reach the level of oppression of Cuba.

As for my opponent states Cuba has not been "starved" but, once again it is not the United States actions that lead to their economic hardships. It is the Cuban governments internal policies.

Stating other ways to leverage a country does not mean they are in place to be used as leverage. They are not. Besides if that tactic can be used so easily why did the United States not use it to leverage the USSR? Because in some places it cannot be used.

C2) Economy

There are actual 10 main tenants of Communism. That is only one of them. Until the other 9 are completely changed it is a Communist country and is completely against all US ideals. And the housing market system is so heavily regulated by the government that it is essentially under governmental control.

The embargo should be up kept because there is a reason for the USA to keep it. There is not reason for other countries. The UK is the only country which has an embargo on India should that end even if there is a reason?

C3) Castro

Considering Iran started the relationship I'd say that Cuba wasn't looking for Iran's help. Cuba supports the Iranian nuclear program also. Iran is allied with Cuba, Iran can harm the United States. (7)

C4) The worst case scenario

My opponent dropped a very important point here, expect the worst. Therefore, we must expect the worst in this situation.The worse case scenario is as follows: the United States drops the embargo on Cuba. The Cuban's modernize their infrastructure and military. Seeing their advancements, countries that hate the United States such as Iran and N. Korea together approach the Cuban government and ask for a permanent military alliance. The Cuban's accept and allow them to station soldiers and missile defense and attack systems in Cuba, both ballistic and nuclear. All this began at one point. The United States ending the Embargo allowing Cuba to give an incentive to N. Korea and Iran to create a military alliance. (Right now, Iran is in an economic alliance of sorts with Cuba). With Iranian and/or N. Korean support a second Cuban missile crisis could occur. Since my opponent accepts the worst case scenario they mus accept this scenario as valid because of this one point the United States should not end the embargo as doing so could place millions of American lives at risk. Furthermore, the Castro's are not dead yet and when they die we must take the worst-case scenario that they are replaced by a Stalin like figure. The United States government has the sole responsibility of protecting its own citizens.

C4) Negotiations

Negotiations can also breed mistrust and misunderstanding if handled the wrong way, negotiating is a two edged sword. Negotiations require 4 things (ordering from most important to least important): mutual trust, a positive relationship, shared interests (goals or objectives), Satisfactory zone of possible agreement. It is evident The United States does not have the two most important requirements to negotiate at the present time. (3)

C5) Out of Date Embargo

A United States embargo on Cuba does not stop other countries from trading with Cuba or sending ambassadors to Cuba. It only stops US relations with Cuba. "The dangerous alliance between Iran and Cuba has only grown stronger since, and today's visit to Cuba by Ahmadinejad illustrates that it continues to expand." (4) There already is an Iranian-Cuban alliance it just is not a military alliance. (4,5)

C6) Benefit

I say keep the embargo because there is evidence of Cuba supporting anti-western terrorism and evidence of them supporting Iran. It is not the US's fault Cuba is poor. It is because of internal governmental policy that Cuba is poor.

C7) Ideas

The government would still censor all data going in and out of Cuba. It is called DNS and IP Blocking meaning the Cuban government can block any sites they want through the IP address no matter what they want. Radios are still in Cuba they are just limited "Cuba became the first nation in the Western Hemisphere to jam radio broadcasts". (6) They will do so no matter what. People can only use the internet in Cuba if they have a special permit and even then the general population can only access "a 'national' one that is restricted to a simple e-mail service operated by the government" (6). "To use a computer, Cubans have to give their name and address - and if they write dissent keywords, a popup appears stating that the document has been blocked 'for state security reasons', and the word processor or browser is automatically closed." (6). This kind of censorship will not change. Technology would still be repressed. The Cuban government denies access to the technology. In Egypt, people were not denied access to technology.

*Cuba sponsors Iran and terrorism
*Opening trade can result in harm to the United States citizens
*The embargo influences the Cuban economy many times less than Cuban governmental policy
*There is sufficient documentation of a Cuban-Iranian alliance

Sources:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.au.af.mil...
4. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov...
5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
ConservativePolitico

Pro

C1) Rights of Businesses

First off I do not want to call Cuba a terrorist state because they do not use violence against their people anymore. Secondly using that definition there are tons of states that use terrorism on their people, China included. Should we embargo China too? They're communist and have shown clear signs of military build up. Furthermore they have even have said they wish to unify Taiwan with China by force if necessary. So not only do we descriminate against Cuba now days but then create massive trading partnerships with countries that share the exact same values that you want to embargo Cuba for.

Cuba is not a terrorist state and have provided no evidence supporting this claim. What groups have they supported? Just because they've talked with Iran they are suddenly terrorist? No. You have failed to capitalize on this point. Many countires on Earth oppress their people, more probably do than don't. Once again you have failed to provide reasons as to why Cuba is so special that they warrent a full blown US embargo.

Your Reasons: rumors, schemantics and ancient history.

Next is your argument comparing Hitler to Chavez which is a tangent that does not pertain to the argument at hand.

You are saying that the embargo by the US, the largest economy in the world, isn't what has caused Cuba, the closest neighbor to the US outside of Mexico and Canada, it's hardships. This is ridiculous. Obviously we have affected those people negatively. The Cubans would be better off if we traded with them, how could they not be? Has the government caused them problems? Absolutley but the US adds to those problems when we could very easily be helping to ease some of them.

As for the leverage argument: those other types of leverage did not work on the USSR because they were our equals militarily and influentially. Cuba is certainly not our equal meaning that we could hold leverage over them. Especially militarily, that leverage will work the best and it DID work against the USSR because if you remember the first Cuban missile crisis dissolved away.

C2) Economy

I never said that that was the only tenant of Communism but it is certainly a main one and is at the heart of communism. The fact that Cuba is willing to change at all, especially on such an important matter, shows that they are willing to change and might be heading towards a better future. Just because a country is communist does not mean that the people hate the US and all of their ideals. The government might but once again you are punishing 11 million people for the acts of a small few. That is simply unfair.

I have shown that the reasons you have presented for us to keep the embargo are either out of date or are inconsistent. We do not treat all countries equally, some of which are the same or worse than Cuba and yet we still trade with them. Why single them out? The West still buys oil from Iran by the boatload despite their status as a terrorist nation as well. We single out Cuba and the hear of the argument is to ask why and you have failed to adaquetly answer this question.

Cuba is harmless. Their military is pathetic compared to ours, they have no way to harm us. The Cold War is over and this silly anti-Communist mentality has to die. Communism in and of itself is not evil so why punish them for it?

C3) Castro

Yes, Iran can harm the US. They have powerful allies and a strong military. Cuba has neither of these.

Also I would once again like to reiterate that the Castros are in their 80s. They don't have much time left so lets capitalize on that and open trade now so when they do die we can influence the changing of power so that perhaps it will shift in our favor, the favor of free trade.

C4)

I did not drop this point. I didn't think there was much to argue. I did combat it by saying that the scenario you pointed out was illogical at best and mostly down right wrong. Why would opening trade to Cuba encourage alliances with Cuba? It wouldn't. Opening trade with Cuba would most likely DISCOURAGE such alliances because then they look like friends to America rather than enemies. Trade would no more encourage such alliances than an embargo does. It does not change the situation.

Also, you can't govern by this philosophy. If we did then we need to bomb Iran TODAY because worst case scenario is that they have a nuke, same with Pakistan and North Korea. According to you we must embargo and preferably bomb these nations immidietly in order to respond to the worst case scenario. This is folly. You can't govern like this. You can't lead based on paranoia and rumors like you suggest.

Worst case scenario = most irrational and bold action based on little evidence.

We can't build relations like this.

C5) Negotiations

Any negotiation is better than no negotiation which is why we continue to attempt to negotiate with Iran and North Korea. If we are willing to negotiate with these nations why not Cuba? Why descriminate against Cuba? We don't have half these things with a lot of countries yet still negotiate. There is no reason no to talk with the Cuban government. Once again your argument does not stand up against the practices of the US.

C6) Out of Date Embargo

The idea is still out of date. It is an old vestiage of the Cold War that stands against communism in a time when our largest trading partner is a one party communist country... It is out of date.

Also once again I would like to point out that they would have no incentive to ban together with Iran if the US had not shunned them so thoroughly.

C7) Benefit

You have not provided any evidence of Cuban support of terrorism or anything else besides half baked rumors of an alliance that does not even exist at this time. You have failed on this.

Also I am talking about the mutual benefit to individual people:

Americans get a new beautiful vacation spot

Cuban families get better food and goods

C8) Ideas

This same technique is used in China, should we embargo them as well? All of these reasons you have supported in defense of the embargo against Cuba are present in China our biggest trading partner which suggests that these things obviously no longer matter to the US which shows that our embargo of Cuba is OUT OF DATE. Technology can only help the Cubans at this point. You can only go up from where they are.

In conclusion:

You have provided an argument based on rumor and trumped up charges while saying that these things warrent an embargo when we trade with China who displays all the same traits proudly. Apparently the United States government does not share your sentiment or else China would be embargo buddies with Cuba meaning the only thing left to do is lift the embargo and stop descriminating against one of our neighbors.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Stephen_Hawkins// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Close debate, but bomb won imo.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over 4 years old, and thus well past the statute of limitations for moderation.
************************************************************************
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
leandro.sanchez
You now all cuban cars have new motors iin them right?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Bull, he gave me THREE POINTS
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Tuf still should have been countered.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
" It was a great debate by both parties. This was hard to judge, but it came down to who I agreed with by the end, and that was pro." possible VB *see votes*

Still think its a VB and should be countered to make the votes lead to a reliable win.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
I merely asked him to refrain from counter vote bombing against a non existen vote bomb for the record
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Note the re-votes where pros requests. (he had no influence on how I voted though)
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Yea, I did that once to, then I went in there....made my speech....and got my a** handed to me on a platter.....it was not pretty......
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
Oldfrith
Ah. you're not an evidence guy. I've compiled an entire brief on 85% of the 22 congress topics in about an hour (not to brag) so it's quite easy for me.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
It got to be way to much work to prepare....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
THEBOMBConservativePoliticoTied
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: I felt the Con's sort of weak arguments were trumped by the pro's well thought out ideas regarding the embargo against Cuba and he was all around more convincing. Both sides used an adequete number of sources, no clear differences in spelling and grammar, conduct wasnt an issue. Good debate guys :D
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
THEBOMBConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Close debate, but bomb won imo.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
THEBOMBConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments pro: logic, well spoken, economically proven etc. also proved cons case = rumor. But con had more sources. Good enough RFD? But pro did well so I will give him a point
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
THEBOMBConservativePoliticoTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a great debate by both parties. This was hard to judge, but it came down to who I agreed with by the end, and that was pro.