The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,542 times Debate No: 10585
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




First I would like to thank the judges, and my opponent (not yet defined) for joining this debate
I would like my opponent to go first, I gave an 8,000 character limit for a meaty debate, use it well. Thank you!


I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation.

Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that the U.S. should allow free trade with Cuba.

Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: free trade, and set up a strict standard for the what is free trade and what isn't. Make it clear where to draw the line between free trade and restricted trade. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. By which standards should this debate be judged? Should judges weight the economic benefits, the political benefits, or moral reasons for doing so? Are all three completely equal? Are there any other benefits other than those already suggested? If so how do they rank with the other categories?

Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the United States should allow free trade with Cuba. What would the US gain politically, economically, morally, etc. from trading with such a country. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why the US should allow the free trade with Cuba. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the protests are justifiable. You should also give your opinion on other countries that the US does not trade with such as North Korea, Iran, etc.. Should the US trade with them too?

Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, I am the first speaker for the house on the motion that "The US should allow free trade with cuba"
I affirm that the US should allow free trade with Cuba.
Definitions: US: The United states of america,
Free Trade: Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to act and transact without interference from government. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services. (According to wikipedia)

Now onto the debate...

Point 1: The Popularity of Opening Relations is Huge
A. The popularity of opening relations is so large that is really inconcievable that anyone would not want to open relations.
R. We need to do a lot of work to fix Cuba and with popularity so high, we cannot go wrong.
E. A poll by Washington Post and New York Times asked, �€œDo you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" The response was amazing. 2/3 of responders were in favor of opening relations.
E. A similar poll was conducted by CNN in April of this year showed that upward of 70% of people saide we should open relations. Furthermore, this was up almost 10% from the same poll in 2002.
R. Clearly, the population is becoming more and more relaxed about having relations with Cuba and are confident that bad things will not happen. So judge, I ask you, why not?!

Point 2: The Dangerous Fidel Castro is No Longer in Power.
A. Fidel Castro was the man who invaded Cuba from Mexico in 1959, took control of the government, and made the lives of Cubans and Americans miserable for many years. He was also the man who led the Cuban missile crisis that threatened our country.
R. Now, you may say, well, why can�€™t this happen again. But judge, when one looks at it, Cuba�€™s power is very limited at this point. Fidel Castro is gone and his brother Raul has taken over. Cuba is in the news so much less for dangerous activities. There was a scare about a plan with Russia a couple of years ago, but this was settled and gone within weeks.
E. Judge, prominent organizations believe this too; this is not just me saying this to try and convince you. The proposal is supported by the US Tour Operators Association, the National Tour Association and human rights groups like the Washington Office on Latin America, according to the Cuban newspaper Trabajadores.
E. Congressman also believe in it. U.S. congressman Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) is confident that Washington�€™s travel restrictions to Cuba on U.S. citizens will be lifted before the end of this year. He says that voters in the house are just ~25 votes short of a bill to lift the embargo and he said in a September article that he hoped to have this done by the end of 2009. Although this has not happened with more pressing on the table, it is clear it is close and with a little more convincing, it can be done.

Conclusion: Judge, so many people, citizens, politicians and organizations alike, support making this move. I will explain more on this topic in the second speech, showing concrete reasons about why we should make the change beyond popularity. So for the reasons I have stated, the pro should clearly win this debate.


===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <===

I appreciate my opponent's excellent opening argument.

My opponent has made two contentions for why Free Trade with Cuba is beneficial for the US.

===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 1 <===

-->Because the population is in favor of it.<--

My opponent is attempting to make the claim that because the masses favor something, it should immediately be done by the congress. Using public opinion to base the decisions of the most powerful nation on the earth is absolutely ridiculous.

"Fewer than a third (Of Americans) can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth"


Our government is a representational democracy. We choose educated elected leaders to make key foreign policy choices for us. Is my opponent seriously advocating otherwise? To allow public opinion to dictate government's decision is an incredibly dangerous precedent. Polls also can easily be misleading based on how the questions are phrased, the tone of which the questions for ask, etc. Furthermore not everyone chooses to answer polls because not everyone has the time nor cares enough to answer them. For these reasons polls are a terrible way of determining key foreign policy decisions.

===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 2 <===

"Fidel Castro is no longer in power"

My opponent attempts to make the following argument "Fidel Castro is gone and his brother Raul has taken over. Cuba is in the news so much less for dangerous activities. There was a scare about a plan with Russia a couple of years ago, but this was settled and gone within weeks."

Such an argument could be re-written: "Hitler is gone and his brother Schmitler has taken over. Germany is still in control by the Nazi party, but it isn't on our news as much for being dangerous. Nuclear warheads were set up in Cuba and pointed directly at the US. A nuclear war nearly erupted due to Cuba's part in Russia's plans.

Although my opponent labels this as point two, he clearly has several contentions which I will outline and sub-sequentially rebut.

-->Raul Castro is not as dangerous as Fidel Castro.

"Raul Castro was once known as an iron-fisted ideologue who executed Fidel Castro's orders - and enemies - ruthlessly.

At the time of the revolution 50 years ago, Raul Castro did the dirty work backstage, disposing of soldiers loyal to U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista and cracking the whip to keep wavering communist apparatchiks in line and passionate about the cause.

As Fidel Castro's strongman and defence minister, he trained a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas into a feared army that fought "anti-imperialist" wars abroad, most notably in Angola where Cuban soldiers helped defeat South African troops.

The strength of Raul Castro's ideology and his enforcement of it made ordinary Cubans wary of the now bespectacled, flabby-faced grandfather of eight."


"(Washington, DC) - Ra�l Castro's government has locked up scores of people for exercising their fundamental freedoms and allowed scores more political prisoners arrested during Fidel Castro's rule to languish in detention, Human Rights Watch says in a report released today. Rather than dismantle Cuba's repressive machinery, Ra�l Castro has kept it firmly in place and fully active, the report says.

The 123-page report, "New Castro, Same Cuba," shows how the Ra�l Castro government has relied in particular on the Criminal Code offense of "dangerousness," which allows authorities to imprison individuals before they have committed any crime, on the suspicion that they are likely to commit an offense in the future. This "dangerousness" provision is overtly political, defining as "dangerous" any behavior that contradicts Cuba's socialist norms. "

"In a January 2009 campaign called "Operation Victory," dozens of individuals in eastern Cuba—most of them youth—were charged with "dangerousness" for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Sp�ritus who could not work because of health problems, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in August 2008 for being unemployed. "

-->Cuba hasn't done anything terrible recently (thus not being in the news)
"Cuba's laws empower the state to criminalize virtually all forms of dissent. Article 62 of the Cuban constitution explicitly prohibits Cubans from exercising their basic rights against the "ends of the socialist state."

As can clearly be seen by the evidence for both Raul and Cuba, they continue to actively repress their citizens and prevent both by their actions (locking up dissidents) and by their laws(stated directly above). Cuba's blatant disrespect for basic human rights, wrongful imprisonment, and blatant disregard for the rights of their citizens warrants no lifting of the trade ban of a country which nearly brought our world to the brink of nuclear war.

Eyewitness testimony: "The rapid response brigade was waiting for us, carrying wooden bats and metal rods, as though they were ready to beat us. They insulted us, saying we were worms, the scum of society. They called my mother and me whores and sluts."

Raul is no different than his brother and is a danger to the U.S. Simply because Cuba does not appear on our local news does not mean that they have been acting fairly towards their citizens.

-->Random Organizations support this.
My opponent has committed the following fallacies:
Argument from Authority -- By saying that a few organizations approve of it, it must be the best for our country.
Anecdotal - By only giving only a few organizations as proof, my opponent assumes that all organizations agree with this notion.
Ad Populum - An appeal to the populous (popularity). Since it's popular, it must be the right thing to do.
Hasty Generalization: committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
-->One Representative believes in it.
My opponent makes the same fallacies as above. Perhaps my opponent has misread his own resolution.

The U.S. should allow free trade with Cuba. Should is being the correct word. This argument is about what is right vs what is wrong, not a popularity contest.

===> C O N C L U S I O N <===
My opponent has yet to show any real benefits of allowing free trade with Cuba. Instead, he has merely tried to turn this debate in a popularity contest in which the number of people agreeing with his resolution somehow affirm it. This is not so. My opponent must show much more than vague assertions that Cuba and its ruler are somehow less dangerous if he expects to affirm his resolution. He carries the burden of proof, but as of yet has not shown any real benefits of free trade. Using polls and anecdotal evidence to somehow assert his resolution is weak and is not an affirmation of your resolution. Furthermore making vague assertions such that Cuba and its leader are less dangerous without any real proof or logical backing will also not affirm your resolution.

For these reasons I have negated Pro's contentions. I await my opponents new contentions in R2. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


Rockylightning forfeited this round.


johngriswald forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
and you failed too hax.... you haven't even done one debate
Posted by haxandrew 7 years ago
u freakin failed triston hehehee!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
For some reason, I read "cuba" as "China", with a capital C. I must really be f*cked up or something. It IS 1:30 AM, among other things. :) I was especially confused when I read Pro's Round 2 argument, and I was all like, "WTF?! This isn't China!"
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
This is gonna bee good! hehehe
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06