The Instigator
Pokemonzr
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The US Should End the Cuban Embargo

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 1 vote the winner is...
Pokemonzr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 49531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Pokemonzr

Pro

The United States should end the Cuban Embargo because it has poor effects on the people in Cuba. The original goal of this embargo was to help the civilians in Cuba by helping them achieve freedom from Castro by forcing Cuba to become a democracy. However, the embargo has only harmed the innocent civilians in Cuba. (According to cato.org), the economic embargo has failed completely. The effect that it has had on the Cubans is not helping them to achieve their freedom, but rather depriving the Cuban civilians of necessary items for survival such as food and water. (According to American Association for World Health), doctors in Cuba have less than 50% of the drugs as they did before the embargo. Also, food shortages lead to a 33% drop in the caloric intake of Cubic citizens over the span of four years (1989-1993). The report said that their opinion is that "the US embargo has caused a significant rise suffering-and even deaths in Cuba." This is significant because it is morally incorrect to deprive these innocent Cuban citizens of having items that are necessary for survival. The population of Cuba is roughly 11.27 million, and all of these people who are not in the government will be starved to death by this embargo.

The United State should end the Cuban embargo because it is inefficient. The reason is does not fulfill the job it was created to do. That is to change Cuba"s government to help Cuban civilians. According to cato.org, penalizing an oppressive country will only make matters worse. Penalties against Burma, Iran, and North Korea were tried and failed to change the oppressive behaviors of these countries. Research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade increase democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication like cell phones and the Internet. With this communication comes ideas and higher intellect in people that altogether oppose tyrants like Castro. Development creates a larger middle class that increases democracy as well. This is impactful because the embargo is counterproductive. We want a democratic Cuba, and the embargo gives us a more tyrannical Cuba. Trade, communication, and development are the things that will have a higher chance of making Cuba democratic. According to slate.com, China is not as communist as they say they are. China is very important in the manufacturing of goods in America and we can see U.S."s capitalism influencing China. In communism everything is owned collectively, or publicly, but in China schools can be state-run or private, the economy has public and private businesses, and almost everything in China is at least partly privatized. Communist countries tend to have high taxes, but China"s taxes are not especially high. In fact, they are comparable to U.S."s taxes. General Motors sold more cars in China then in the U.S. in the first half of 2010. China is now a quarter of the company"s sales. China is not communist if they are buying enough privately owned cars to be a quarter of a company"s sales and bought more than U.S., a capitalist country. 2)This is impactful because China is one of our greatest trading partners, and our capitalism is influencing China. We can do the same thing with Cuba. If we want them to change their government, trade is the best option, as seen on how it affected China.
utahjoker

Con

The embargo allows the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights. Their has been a long history of human rights abuses in Cuba. Examples of the abuses are that 4,123 people were detained for political reasons in 2011, and 6,602 political detentions occurred in 2012. The Congressional Research Service reported that there are an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 prisoners incarcerated in Cuba as of May 2012 this is among the highest in the world on a per capita basis. The 1996 Helms-Burton Act stated that the United States has an obligation to promote human rights in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This embargo allows the United States to take the proper steps in securing human rights in Cuba.(1)

The United States is already helping Cuba with food and water .The United States has been exporting food to Cuba following a devastating hurricane in 2001 and now the United States is Cuba's second-largest food supplier. Annual food sales to Cuba peaked at $710 million in 2008. (2)

Cuba has virtually no private sector, opening trade would only help the government, not regular Cuban citizens. The 90% state-owned economy ensures that the Cuban government and military would reap the gains of open trade with the United States, not private citizens. Also any foreign company operating in Cuba are required to hire workers through the state; wages are converted into local currency and devalued at a ratio of 24:1, so for example a $1,000 wage becomes a $240 paycheck. (3)

Sources
(1)-One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America, "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996," (25 KB) www.gpo.gov, Jan. 3, 1996
(2)-Stephanie Hanson, "U.S.-Cuba Relations," www.cfr.org, Jan. 11, 2010
(3)-Richard E. Feinberg, "The New Cuban Economy: What Roles for Foreign Investment," www.brookings.edu, Dec. 2012
Debate Round No. 1
Pokemonzr

Pro

To start out with this debate, I would like to bring up what the official stated purpose of the Cuban embargo was.

According to the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the stated purpose of the Cuban embargo is "maintaining sanctions on Cuba so long as the Cuban government continues to refuse to move toward 'democratization and greater respect for human rights'."

Now, I would like to move on to refuting what my opponent has stated.

They stated that "the embargo allows the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights" and that we should not lift this embargo because "the embargo allows the United States to take the proper steps in securing human rights in Cuba." I disagree with this. Firstly, because the stated purpose of the Cuban embargo was not to improve human rights, rather to push Cuba towards democracy. Secondly, I disagree because the embargo is not doing its job, whether it is to improve human rights or push Cuba towards democracy. My argument two proves this. Therefore, I believe that my opponent's point is invalid because the embargo has not done its job as my opponent wants it to do, and because they believe that the stated purpose was something other than it actually is.

I would like to point out that what my opponent said that the US is already helping Cuba with water contradicts their point that opening trade with Cuba would only help their government, not the actual citizens of Cuba. They stated that if we do indeed open up trade, resources would only benefit the government, but, in the food and water case, how is it helping the citizens? These two points completely contradict each other. For this reason, I believe that my poor effects on the people point still stands.

Now, I would like to restate my own points.

Argument 1:
The United States should end the Cuban Embargo because it has poor effects on the people in Cuba. The original goal of this embargo was to help the civilians in Cuba by helping them achieve freedom from Castro by forcing Cuba to become a democracy. However, the embargo has only harmed the innocent civilians in Cuba. (According to cato.org), the economic embargo has failed completely. The effect that it has had on the Cubans is not helping them to achieve their freedom, but rather depriving the Cuban civilians of necessary items for survival such as food and water. (According to American Association for World Health), doctors in Cuba have less than 50% of the drugs as they did before the embargo. Also, food shortages lead to a 33% drop in the caloric intake of Cubic citizens over the span of four years (1989-1993). The report said that their opinion is that "the US embargo has caused a significant rise suffering-and even deaths in Cuba." This is significant because it is morally incorrect to deprive these innocent Cuban citizens of having items that are necessary for survival. The population of Cuba is roughly 11.27 million, and all of these people who are not in the government will be starved to death by this embargo.

Argument 2:
The United State should end the Cuban embargo because it is inefficient. The Cuban embargo. does not fulfill the job it was created to do. That job is to change Cuba's government to help Cuban civilians. According to cato.org, penalizing an oppressive country will only make matters worse. Penalties against Burma, Iran, and North Korea were tried and failed to change the oppressive behaviors of these countries. Research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade increase democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication like cell phones and the Internet. With this communication comes ideas and higher intellect in people that altogether oppose tyrants like Castro. Development creates a larger middle class that increases democracy as well. This is impactful because the embargo is counterproductive. We want a democratic Cuba, and the embargo gives us a more tyrannical Cuba. Trade, communication, and development are the things that will have a higher chance of making Cuba democratic. According to slate.com, China is not as communist as they say they are. China is very important in the manufacturing of goods in America and we can see U.S.'s capitalism influencing China. In communism everything is owned collectively, or publicly, but in China schools can be state-run or private, the economy has public and private businesses, and almost everything in China is at least partly privatized. Communist countries tend to have high taxes, but China"s taxes are not especially high. In fact, they are comparable to U.S.'s taxes. General Motors sold more cars in China then in the U.S. in the first half of 2010. China is now a quarter of the company"s sales. China is not communist if they are buying enough privately owned cars to be a quarter of a company"s sales and bought more than U.S., a capitalist country. 2)This is impactful because China is one of our greatest trading partners, and our capitalism is influencing China. We can do the same thing with Cuba. If we want them to change their government, trade is the best option, as seen on how it affected China.
utahjoker

Con

utahjoker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Pokemonzr

Pro

My opponent has forfeited, and I am disappointed.

However, I would like to use this opportunity to restate my previous speech.

To start out with this debate, I would like to bring up what the official stated purpose of the Cuban embargo was.

According to the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the stated purpose of the Cuban embargo is "maintaining sanctions on Cuba so long as the Cuban government continues to refuse to move toward 'democratization and greater respect for human rights'."

Now, I would like to move on to refuting what my opponent has stated.

They stated that "the embargo allows the United States to apply pressure on the Cuban government to improve human rights" and that we should not lift this embargo because "the embargo allows the United States to take the proper steps in securing human rights in Cuba." I disagree with this. Firstly, because the stated purpose of the Cuban embargo was not to improve human rights, rather to push Cuba towards democracy. Secondly, I disagree because the embargo is not doing its job, whether it is to improve human rights or push Cuba towards democracy. My argument two proves this. Therefore, I believe that my opponent's point is invalid because the embargo has not done its job as my opponent wants it to do, and because they believe that the stated purpose was something other than it actually is.

I would like to point out that what my opponent said that the US is already helping Cuba with water contradicts their point that opening trade with Cuba would only help their government, not the actual citizens of Cuba. They stated that if we do indeed open up trade, resources would only benefit the government, but, in the food and water case, how is it helping the citizens? These two points completely contradict each other. For this reason, I believe that my poor effects on the people point still stands.

Now, I would like to restate my own points.

Argument 1:
The United States should end the Cuban Embargo because it has poor effects on the people in Cuba. The original goal of this embargo was to help the civilians in Cuba by helping them achieve freedom from Castro by forcing Cuba to become a democracy. However, the embargo has only harmed the innocent civilians in Cuba. (According to cato.org), the economic embargo has failed completely. The effect that it has had on the Cubans is not helping them to achieve their freedom, but rather depriving the Cuban civilians of necessary items for survival such as food and water. (According to American Association for World Health), doctors in Cuba have less than 50% of the drugs as they did before the embargo. Also, food shortages lead to a 33% drop in the caloric intake of Cubic citizens over the span of four years (1989-1993). The report said that their opinion is that "the US embargo has caused a significant rise suffering-and even deaths in Cuba." This is significant because it is morally incorrect to deprive these innocent Cuban citizens of having items that are necessary for survival. The population of Cuba is roughly 11.27 million, and all of these people who are not in the government will be starved to death by this embargo.

Argument 2:
The United State should end the Cuban embargo because it is inefficient. The Cuban embargo. does not fulfill the job it was created to do. That job is to change Cuba's government to help Cuban civilians. According to cato.org, penalizing an oppressive country will only make matters worse. Penalties against Burma, Iran, and North Korea were tried and failed to change the oppressive behaviors of these countries. Research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade increase democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication like cell phones and the Internet. With this communication comes ideas and higher intellect in people that altogether oppose tyrants like Castro. Development creates a larger middle class that increases democracy as well. This is impactful because the embargo is counterproductive. We want a democratic Cuba, and the embargo gives us a more tyrannical Cuba. Trade, communication, and development are the things that will have a higher chance of making Cuba democratic. According to slate.com, China is not as communist as they say they are. China is very important in the manufacturing of goods in America and we can see U.S.'s capitalism influencing China. In communism everything is owned collectively, or publicly, but in China schools can be state-run or private, the economy has public and private businesses, and almost everything in China is at least partly privatized. Communist countries tend to have high taxes, but China"s taxes are not especially high. In fact, they are comparable to U.S.'s taxes. General Motors sold more cars in China then in the U.S. in the first half of 2010. China is now a quarter of the company"s sales. China is not communist if they are buying enough privately owned cars to be a quarter of a company"s sales and bought more than U.S., a capitalist country. 2)This is impactful because China is one of our greatest trading partners, and our capitalism is influencing China. We can do the same thing with Cuba. If we want them to change their government, trade is the best option, as seen on how it affected China.

Thank you, and good luck to my opponent, if he does not forfeit again!
utahjoker

Con

utahjoker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
PokemonzrutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro 's second round needed addressing, yet Con ended up forfeiting, so arguments to Pro. I found the sources to be approximately even, in terms of reliability, but Pro, please reference your sources at the end. It makes it difficult for voters to check your sources, otherwise (to see if they are legitimate, which they appeared to be, in this case).