The Instigator
NPDAgeek
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
alexlcole16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Federal Government Should End the Trade Embargo with Cuba

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 44297
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

NPDAgeek

Con

Rules.

Round 1: Acceptance, Interpretations

Round 2: Constructive phase

Round 3: Answering phase

Round 4: Summary and reason to vote
alexlcole16

Pro

trade is essential for a capitalist nation to expand especially with a nation as big as the united states. as we know cuba is a communist country, i believe that more trade with cuba will open up more freedoms for the people and possibly the elimination of the communist government. this does not come with out compromise from the cuban government of course. the cuban government must release us prisoner alan gross and give more freedoms to the people such as free speech.
Debate Round No. 1
NPDAgeek

Con

First i am going to interpret case.

THE USFG SHOULD ENACT LEGISLATION OR ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO CEASE THE TRADE EMBARGO WITH THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA

My opponent does not submit a plan, does not interpret the resolution, does not show how this would happen, nor does he warrant why eliminating a communist government is a good thing. Which is a bad thing because I have no idea what I am supposed to be debating, and this IS a policy round. Meaning that we should be talking like we are on the floor and passing laws, otherwise it is just going to be contradiction and clarification.

They also add something that is not topical, the releasing of the prisoner Alan Goss is not a part of the resolution. Because it is affs duty to uphold the resolution this is unfair. He could just, "also we cure cancer"

Also my opponent calls this a "communist government" which is not specific. Socialist Republic is the official term for the Cuban government. This is abusive to the round because the Con needs to know specifics and can't ask any, If the con doesn't know what they're debating the pro could just come back and be like, oh no what i meant was... making the pro a moving target. this is bad because it decreases the amount of clash in the debate, making it just a series of speeches clarifying each other.

This plays off of fear by issuing the communist as a bad word expecting all voters to be from the mcarthy era. This is a logical fallacy and should be ignored as a contention.

VOTE ON PROCEDURE FIRST-your vote is the acceptance of rules, in debate there are none but the the rules you argue, because my opponent writes so little in his case with so many generalities I cannot answer with anything but procedure.

There is nothing to answer but procedure. You vote here first because debaters who read this forum will actually learn about fairness and therefore be educated. A Vote for CON is for clear policy rounds that uphold the resolution and against lazy debating.
alexlcole16

Pro

sorry about that but lazy debating is how i play it, im sorry but i dont have the kind of time to do your kind of debating at this moment, ill forfit the debate and you can start a new one
Debate Round No. 2
NPDAgeek

Con

Lol no problem dude, it just so happens I use this to practice for college.

So thanks for the practice! :)
alexlcole16

Pro

alexlcole16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NPDAgeek

Con

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
alexlcole16

Pro

alexlcole16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NPDAgeek 3 years ago
NPDAgeek
Sorry thet, I like to stick to a limit, debates are much smaller than the amount said, not everything needs to be answered, parliamentary debates usually boil down to weighing a couple sentences worth of arguments.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
I was about to accept until I saw a 2000 character limit...I'll still take it, but I'd prefer a larger character limit (at least 4000 preferably 6000). But your debate, not mine so your rules. Let me know if you will change it, and if not I'll accept as is tomorrow.
No votes have been placed for this debate.