The Instigator
Warturtle
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
I_vin_zee_game
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Embargo with Cuba needs to be lifted.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,307 times Debate No: 13803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Warturtle

Pro

"The embargo has been a failure by every measure. It has not changed the course or nature of the Cuban government. It has not liberated a single Cuban citizen. In fact, the embargo has made the Cuban people a bit more impoverished, without making them one bit more free. At the same time, it has deprived Americans of their freedom to travel and has cost US farmers and other producers billions of dollars of potential exports." These are the words of Daniel Griswold in 2009, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

First of all, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say I want to lift the embargo.
I intend to:
Repeal the Cuban Democracy Act
Repeal the Helms-Burton Act
Amend the Foreign Assistance Act to exclude Cuba
Amend the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to exclude Cuba

I would also like to clarify that this is not only ending the economic embargo, but also the travel embargo.

This debate will be centered around these points:
1. The Embargo has already met some of it's original aims. Those that it has not met, it will not meet.

2. This is not only an economic problem in the U.S. and Cuba, (which it is), but it is also a worldwide economic problem.

3. The Embargo is internationally and domestically unpopular.

4. Ending the travel embargo with help with a transition to democracy.

1. The Original Aims of the Embargo.
The embargo was first put in place in the 60's for two reasons. The first was to punish Cuba for seizing property owned by Americans. In 2001, Cuban Officials offered to compensate those Americans whose property was taken. For reasons unknown, this offer was declined. This goal has evidently been abandoned.
The second reason was to make it costlier and more of a hassle for the Soviet Union to fund and participate with Cuba. This part worked wonderfully, it is estimated to have cost the Soviet Union six billion dollars a year. However, the S.U. disbanded in 1991, so this is no longer an issue.
The only plausible reason the Embargo is still in place is to try and punish Cuba until it ceases to be Communist. This has failed for the past 48 years, and will continue to fail until Castro dies.

2. Obviously this is an economic problem in the U.S. and Cuba. This seems to be self-evident and I'd rather not try to expand on it. However, I would like to explain why this is an international economic problem.
The Helms-Burton Act stops any company from dealing with the U.S. and Cuba at the same time. Obviously, this company is going to choose the bigger market; the U.S. Not only does this negatively affect Cuba and it's citizens, but it also affects foreign companies. It does nothing to aid international relations, and only aids the increase of international deficit.

3. In 2009 Mois�s Na�m, Editor-In-Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine and Former Venezuelan Minister of Development, said "The embargo is the perfect example used by anti-Americans everywhere to expose the hypocrisy of a superpower that punishes a small island while cozying to dictators elsewhere."
The United Nations has voted 19 years in a row over 90% in favor of ending the embargo. During the last voting session this year (2010), only the U.S. and Israel voted to keep it in place, with only three other U.S. allies abstinentating. Also, according to a poll done by CNN, a majority of Americans want the travel embargo lifted.

4. By allowing U.S. travelers to converse with Cuban citizens, it can only help Cuba to become democratic after the death of Castro. An editorial in the Boston Herald in 2002 said, "The more travelers there are (to Cuba) the more the truth will spread, and that can only help the transition of Cuba out of tyranny when the tyrant dies."

Whoever accepts: If you want the source for ANYTHING I just said, just ask. I'd be happy to comply.
I_vin_zee_game

Con

1st point:
Castro has a family of very powerful warlords and extreme left communists. Besides, Castro has already retired and given control to his brother. Who will probably reign for another 20-30 years.

2nd point:
There are a few very good and self-evident reasons why the US will either; A: go to war with any country that dares to attack her soil and/or threaten her (Ex: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor during WWII. US wanted to stay out of the war, but the Japanese disrespected this); or B: stop trading relations with a country because of its economy (bad), government (usually communist or anti-democratic), or because of profiling (a huge problem with our government). That reasons are the well-being of the country itself, the people, the economy, and government. This is usually due to the government itself. If you look to our history, you will see many examples of this.

3rd point:
One of the main reasons why the US established the embargo was because of the very strict, communist government that was lead by Fidel Castro.

4th and final point for this round:
As you know, the embargo was progressive and didn't reach its full intensity until the late 70's. The economic impact on us was significant, but not significant enough to send the economy into a spiral.
Debate Round No. 1
Warturtle

Pro

First of all, thank you for accepting! I thought I would never get to debate this! However, I am going to be out of town on Friday and Saturday. I may be able to get this stuff done on my iPhone, we'll have to see. It would be preferable to get this debate done by tomorrow.

On to the arguments…

Sorry for just saying Castro in my proponent speech. I am aware that Fidel has given up his reign to his brother Raul, however they are both technically Castro. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

1st Nobody is set to succeed Raul, and Raul is currently 79 years old. You say he is set to rule for 20-30 more years. It is possible, but unlikely. He has already trumped the average life expectancy, and most likely will not live until he is 99 as the negative suggests. Please disregard the negative's argument.

2nd The negative suggests that we refuse to trade with Cuba because of their communist government. How do you explain our trade with China, Venezuela, and even North Korea? Cuba, although communist, is not nearly as communist or hostile as some of the other countries we deal with. I would like to repeat the quote from my proponent speech from Mois�s Na�m, which said, "The embargo is the perfect example used by anti-Americans everywhere to expose the hypocrisy of a superpower that punishes a small island while cozying to dictators elsewhere."

3rd The negative argument does not even begin to be competitive to my third point. My point was that the embargo is both domestically and internationally unpopular, but my opponent just pointed out that Cuba is communist, and that's why there is an embargo. I pointed out the actual reason for the embargo in my first speech. Communism is what the embargo has evolved into, not what started it. Please look to my 2nd point above as to why communism is not a good reason for an embargo on Cuba.

4th Our economy was not necessarily sent into a spiral, but Cuba's was. Also, the negative points out that the economic impact on our country is significant. Why not solve for this? There are obviously no reasons not to. I urge you to vote in affirmation.

Thanks for reading, I look forward to the next round.
I_vin_zee_game

Con

Well, your very welcome. Happy to be the first to respond. This is my first debate on this site.
I would also like to point out that my third argument in the first round was not thought through very well. I admit that I wrote it at 11:30 PM last night
Anyway, back to my second arguement.

1st point:
In the quote that was found by the instigator, it stated that the U.S. only put the embargo on Cuba because of it's communist government, and at the same time helps other communist countries. This quote is very hippocratic on the part of the speaker who stated it and the instigator himself. To begin with, the speaker of the quote is from the very communist country of Venezuela. Secondly, the instigator stated that the embargo was ORIGINALLY put into action because of the land and economic squabbles between the U.S. and Cuba. THEN, it evolved into a race to stop the communist government, and begin a new democratic government. It would not be surprising if a Russian government delegate during the communist era said the same thing of essence. As you can probably tell, the instigator has created a hole in his argument.

2nd point:
As I stated in the first round argument, President Raul Castro has the possibility of reigning for another 20 years. This may be very unlikely, but the possibility of Castro appointing someone else to take his place before he dies or when he retires is very high. Because of the dictatorship, even though there is a congress, part of Cuba's constitution states that presidential candidates run uncontested. This means Castro can very likely persuade someone to take his place. This, in turn, will make it harder for the U.S. to complete its goal of converting Cuba to a democratic government.

3rd and final point for this round:
If you watch the news, since the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency, he's been trying persuade many communist countries, including China, Iran, and others, to give their people more rights. This list of countries would include Cuba as well. This has been a world-wide goal of the U.S. for a very long time. This means that embargo is in place, not because of the communist government, but because of what happened with land and economic problems.

I encourage readers to vote against repealing the embargo.
Debate Round No. 2
Warturtle

Pro

This is only my second debate on this site, I'm glad we are both getting very helpful experience on the site. Now, onto arguments.

1st. You've split this into two separate arguments, so I will make them into subpoints.
a)You state we cannot trust Mois�s Na�m as a source because he is from a communist country. I would like to know how the nationality of a person destroys the validity of their points? Plus, who better to look to for the enemy's point of view, than the enemy itself? The argument I was trying to make was that communists are effectively making the U.S. the enemy, by using the U.S. as a scapegoat for all Cuba's problems. If anything, we should take this quote into consideration MORE because of the nationality of the speaker, not less.
b)In my proponent "speech" I stated that the embargo was originally put in place because of land squabbles and to inconvenience the Soviet Union. I still stand by that fact. However, this is what you said in your Round One argument.

" stop trading relations with a country because of its economy (bad), government (usually communist or anti-democratic), or because of profiling (a huge problem with our government). That reasons are the well-being of the country itself, the people, the economy, and government."

I was simply responding to that point. Valid or not, I had to respond to your argument, that is what debate is all about. You heavily suggested that the reason for the embargo was the communist government, and I had to respond.

Now, look at what I said at the beginning of round two. "2nd The negative suggests that we refuse to trade with Cuba because of their communist government." I made if very clear that this was none of my own saying, but rather it was what you had suggested in your own argument. There are no holes in my argument, and you have therefore agreed with me on the original point of the embargo. Now that we both agree that the embargo was originally enacted for the same reasons, and we agree that it has now evolved into a punishment for communism. Since we agree, we need not discuss this point for the remainder of the debate.

2nd Are you saying we need to simply give up since there is a possibility Raul will live to an extreme age? As of now, Raul has not appointed anyone to succeed him, and the negative side cannot claim that he will do so in the near future. We have no way of knowing. What we DO know is he could die any day now. We need to get rid of this embargo so American influence can reach Cuba and assist in a transition out of tyranny.

3rd O.k…… I agree with you. Communism is the antithesis of American political goals. I think we are just restating what you said in the first point. This offers no reason to keep the embargo. You don't offer any solvency. I don't see what the point of bringing this up was.

Now, since this is my last chance to sum things up, I will go ahead and do so.

1.The embargo had two original goals. One has been abandoned; and the second one succeeded but no longer pertains to the status quo (the Soviet Union).
2.The U.S. could benefit from trade with Cuba. Cuba would IMMENSLY benefit from trade with the U.S., and everyone else would benefit from the repealing of the Helms-Burton act.
3.The embargo is unpopular worldwide. This point has not been refuted by the neg and is an automatic win for the affirmative side.
4.This is the cloudiest point, so I would like to expand on it a little more.
There is no guarantee that by ending the embargo will end Cuban communism. However, there IS a guarantee that keeping it is doing nothing. For the 50-some years the embargo has been in place, Cuban communism has not ended. The best option here is to end the embargo, and take down the iron curtain we have over Cuba. Diplomatic success with Cuban citizens is not achieved by ignoring them, but it will by achieved by letting our culture and ideals spill over to their island.

Vote for affirmative on the following grounds:
1.Ending the embargo would assist with worldwide economies.
2.It would aid U.S.-World relations (especially with communist countries).
3.It would assist Cuba in transitioning to democracy (or some other communism alternative.)

Thank you for reading, and I encourage you to vote affirmative.
I_vin_zee_game

Con

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for giving me one heck of an argument.
I have decided not to post my final argument because I know when I've been beaten.
I've read your argument and there is just simply no way I can compete with it.
I've learned that I need to do more research on a subject before I say things that do not make any sense.
I do not intend to disrespect you, nor do I think this is a waist of my time.
I've just been really busy with school work and other extracurricular activities.
Thank you so much for giving this wonderful learning experience.
Anyway, if any of the readers want to vote with me, the con, do as you please.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
They can be imported indirectly. Such as: Cuba sells to Mexico, Mexico sells to the U.S.
Posted by Woodycanuck 6 years ago
Woodycanuck
Pretty sure there are no exemptions. Cuban cigars in the US are definitely all smuggled in. But come to Canada, we got lots of em here! Also, I met quite a few Americans in Cuba.
Posted by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
Are Cuban cigars exempt from the embargo? Or is it all black market stuff?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Usually you post your sources at the end of the round. You should do that.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Castro's rule will never fade tho, his family, his brother is taking over then what next its just going to be ruled like this forever. I would just rather the U.S to take over cuba and instate it as a state.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Great topic! I hope someone takes this, because it could be a really great debate.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Oh CHRISTMAS TREE, OH CHRISTMAS TREE!!!!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 5 years ago
Awed
WarturtleI_vin_zee_gameTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 5 years ago
Elmakai
WarturtleI_vin_zee_gameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
WarturtleI_vin_zee_gameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
WarturtleI_vin_zee_gameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60