The Instigator
Justinisthecrazy
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
thejudgeisgod
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

The United States Should Normalize Relations with Cuba

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
thejudgeisgod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,445 times Debate No: 8242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

Justinisthecrazy

Con

I will be negating the resolution that The United States should normalize relations with cuba

The first round is for introductions. This should be Public Forum style of debate as much as possible.

Definitions and the case for aff introduced in round 2
Definitions/argue of definitions by con and con case introduced round 2

Support for aff case/destory neg case in round 3
Support for neg case/destroy aff case round 3

round 4 see round 3 criterias
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I stand in firm affirmation that the United States should Normalize its relations with Cuba. I have two main contentions.
1) Fidel is no longer a threat to the United States. By giving the cold shoulder to Cuba we are still conveying that we are a threat, and that is not necessary. Barack Obama sent a new message when he went and conversed with Raul Castro. We will accomplish nothing by ignoring them.
2) Opening Trade With Cuba could help stabilize our economy. Cuba is a very lucrative nation and establishing trade with them. We need to be in a workable relationship with Cuba. The time for hatred is over.

And for these reasons I stand in firm affirmation of the above resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Justinisthecrazy

Con

Today's resolution states Resolved: The United States should normalize relations with Cuba. I am in negation of the resolution by saying that the relations with Cuba are normal.

I would like to define a few terms before I enter the debate.

The word negate: to prove false

Through the definition of the word negate we can see I am meeting the criteria of the debate round and negating the resolution by saying that the relation with Cuba are already normalized.

Normalized: Normalization is a process whereby behaviors and ideas are made to seem normal through repetition to the point where they appear natural.

Contention 1) Repetition
Repetition is The act or process or an instance of repeating or being repeated. History shows us the repetition of our relationship being bad and good thus meeting the criteria of the definition of normalized in the debate, also allowing me to negate the resolution by stating the relations with Cuba are already normalized. Bear with me as I go through a brief history of Cuba and the United States. On April 10 1869, the first constituent assembly prepares for the first Constitution of the Republic of Cuba and elects Carlos Manuel as the first president. President Grant and his cabinet refuse to recognize the new Cuban government even after House votes and wins 98 to 25 to recognize it. In 1872, President Grant rejects a proposal that offers Cuban independence and the abolition of slavery. In 1880 The U.S. is Cuba's largest trading partner. 83% of Cuban exports were sold to the U.S. 1890s. U.S. newspaper baron William Randolph seeds his newspaper with phony stories about atrocities in Cuba to incite America to intervene in Cuba. In January 1899 the American military takes control over Cuba and will rule until 1902, only to regain Cuba in 1906-1909. In 1903, Gauntanimo bay is opened and Cuba is paid $2,000 in gold coin for it. In 1906 when the Cuban president is accused of election fraud the U.S. intervenes and sends in 2,000 marines and 5,600 army soldiers to occupy the country under the command of William Taft. In 1925 the United States controlled over � of the sugar produced in Cuba. In 1962 U.S. spy planes began flying over Cuban airspace to photograph the island. Cuba turns to the USSR for support. Thus we enter the Cuban Missile crisis. Where the U.S. forces a naval Quarantine of Cuba. In 1963 Kennedy prohibits travel to Cuba and makes financial and commercial transactions with Cuba illegal. In 1966 Lyndon Johnson signs a law that allows 120,000 Cubans to immediately apply for permanent residency within the United States. In 1994 the United States tightens its immigration laws against Cuba. In 2002 George Bush vetoed any easing of the sanctions against Cuba. As you can see policy towards Cuba is repetition and looks to be normal through the eyes of a normal citizen looking back at history. The actions of sanctioning Cuba do appear natural as several presidents enact such a movement. Therefore relations with Cuba are already normal and do not need to be normalized.
(cubanet.org) (www.historyofcuba.com/cuba.htm) (www.globalexchange.org/index.html) Cuba, A Concise History for Travelers, by Alan Twigg, Penguin Books, Toronto, 2000)

Contention 2) Natural
The definition of the word natural is something that is unthinking (or as if by) instinct; such as "a cat's natural aversion to water"; Human Nature is to be resistant to change or resistant to those who speak out against you. (psychologytoday.com) Since the Cuban Revolution succeeded in ousting the corrupt puppet Batista regime in 1959, succeeding U.S. administrations have done all that they could to undermine the Cuban government. During the 1960s, such interventions were not limited to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, but also included a covert military operation that carried on through the mid-1960s. This accompanied economic sanctions and other efforts to isolate the Cuban government. The historic hatred of the Cuban government by various U.S. presidents and their Congressional supporters has less to do with the fact that the Communist Party of Cuba is in power than another fact. A small, Western Hemispheric country, made up largely of Black and Brown people, chose to stand up to the United States, throw the Mafia out of the country, and insist that their country be treated with respect by their northern neighbor, which had for more than half a century, interfered in the internal affairs of their country. If this is not the reason, then nothing else makes sense. So by acting by their natural instincts to be disdainful toward those that rebuke or refute us, the United States has indeed already normalized relations with Cuba. And the resolution is negated.

Conclusion
As the saying goes why fix something that isn't in need of fixing? In this case it is our relations with Cuba. I have shown why I negate the resolution and strongly urge an Negative Ballot on the Resolution that The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate.

Again, I stand in firm affirmation of the above resolution that states The United States should normalize its relations with Cuba. I would first like to challenge my opponent's definition of normalize. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary the word normalized is defined as the following.

"to bring or restore (as relations between countries) to a normal condition." http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I would also like to challenge his offered definition of natural. I will define it again by the same Merriam-Webster's dictionary
"having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question

Using this definition I believe that our relationship with Cuba is neither natural nor normal.
Our former president added Cuba to list of "The axis of evil" in 2002. (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1971852.stm)
First of all I find it inherently impossible to have a relationship with a group of people whom you find evil.

My opponent went into a long, drawn-out, and entirely irrelevant lecture on past relations with Cuba, which has no bearing on his own resolution.

I would like to define "should" as my opponent failed to do so. According to Merriam Webster's dictionary should is defined as the following:
—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis commanded I should do so.

Should in the above example expresses the fact that "should" and "ought to" are interchangeable" and ought to expresses the future and not the past. So, by saying I affirm that the US SHOULD normalize its relations with Cuba, the negation's case SHOULD be the opposite. In public forum debate, according to Black's law the negative cannot argue the neutral, because the resolution suggests that the US-Cuban relationship is not normal. Since his position is neutral he is not really debating.
I will now prove how our relationship with Cuba is not "normal" and needs to be "normalized"

As I said in my previous argument, in order for any political relationship to be "normal" is must be
A) workable
B) we must establish a neutral relationship with Cuba and therefore we should remove them from the proverbial "axis of evil"
C) We must, remain neutral in their affairs, unless they directly affect the US itself or any of its allies.

I rest my case and await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Justinisthecrazy

Con

Justinisthecrazy forfeited this round.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

My opponent has failed to post any argument or rebuttal in effect conceding. I will say that I still stand in firm affirmation of the resolution above, for the reasons mentioned in previous rounds. I urge a strong vote for the affirmation. I await my opponent's response, if he indeed does respond.
Debate Round No. 3
Justinisthecrazy

Con

Justinisthecrazy forfeited this round.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I'm assuming that my opponent has forfeited this debate, so by rule pro wins.
Vote Aff
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by thejudgeisgod 5 years ago
thejudgeisgod
just refer to this round as round 1
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 5 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
switch sides maybe? or just refer to this debate as round 1?
Posted by thejudgeisgod 5 years ago
thejudgeisgod
actually I would like to carry on
Posted by thejudgeisgod 5 years ago
thejudgeisgod
Not at the moment... no disrespect to you. I would like to finish my other debate first. Its on the existence of God, I'm debating PRO against Theskeptic check it out
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 5 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
My bad on the forfeits, got busy with work and school care to continue on a new debate?
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 5 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
correct but in public forum the neg usually goes second
Posted by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
You'll have to make a case at some point anyway, you might as well do it in the first round. Again, if I had an idea what you were trying to debate I would accept it.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
why because cuba gave americas "soilders" a whooping in the bay of pigs ?
Posted by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
You should consider drawing up at least the skeleton of your argument in round one. If not that, then you should define your resolution. What constitutes 'nornailizing' to your resolution? I would be interested in accepting iif I knew what you were trying to debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
JustinisthecrazythejudgeisgodTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 5 years ago
fresnoinvasion
JustinisthecrazythejudgeisgodTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 5 years ago
thejudgeisgod
JustinisthecrazythejudgeisgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 5 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
JustinisthecrazythejudgeisgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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