The Instigator
Patriotgames8
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

US embargo of 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 2 votes the winner is...
Patriotgames8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,797 times Debate No: 36022
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Patriotgames8

Con

It is immoral, outdated and politically inane.
I will leave the first shot up to any fellow debaters.
lannan13

Pro

Environment


You state in your opening round that the embargo is outdated, but you are in fact incorrect. The reason that it still exists today is environmental protection. http://www.nytimes.com... The reason for the protection is because China and Cuba want to start a massive drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico. This will cause massive environmental impact and even have to lead to dredging http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu..., which will again destroy the ecosystem of the sea by destroying miles and miles of coral and an ecosystem collapse of the ocean is bad for one major reason. That reason is that it absorbs over half of the CO2 that we emit http://news.nationalgeographic.com.... Destroying that will lead to the Green House effect sky rocketing to the point of Venus.


Communism


You may think that this is a bad point, but communism is still a problem in today's world. We first put the embargo on Cuba to end the Cuban Missile Crisis and to end their reign of communism. My friends they are still communist and there is a reason on why it is bad. Just look at the other communist nation's USSR (yes I know it doesn't exist anymore), Vietnam, Cuba, and China (well somewhat). What we will see here if we lift the embargo on Cuba we'll fall into another Cold War, but this time it will be over the environment not over political idealogogies. The communist nation's have bad track records when it comes to the environment. http://www.un.org... China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela are not on track to meat the UN's demand to cut down on CO2 emissions by 2020.
Debate Round No. 1
Patriotgames8

Con

I find it ironic that my opponent has chosen the environmental route to defend the US embargo of Cuba, as I consider myself about as "green" as Al Gore. This argument is just the latest in a series of U.S. excuses D.C. has used to perpetuate the embargo. It is also hypocritical following the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil DISASTER a couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org... something for which Halliburton (A US firm) has admitted guilt to. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

My opponent lists he is "con/against" animal rights in his profile
(So why are you concerned with coral reefs/marine life?) But I am getting off topic here.

My opponent states "We first put the embargo on Cuba to end the Cuban Missile Crisis"

Not true, the embargo was placed on Cuba in 1960 because the US was angry Castro came out of the closet as a communist and because he overthrew Batista (Popular uprising), a ruthless/oppressive dictator and US puppet. See below info. and the missile crisis
was not until 1962.

From: http://forcechange.com...
a site that lists animal rights first and the environment second on its banner.

The U.S.-Cuba embargo was signed into effect in October 1960 and ceased any commercial or economic interactions between the two countries. This was done in reaction to the nationalization of the country under Fidel Castro, including some properties of U.S. citizens. However, the political importance and idealistic significance of the embargo increased as a result of the rising tensions in the Cold War.

Note the word outdated below:

In 1992 , soon after the Berlin Wall fell, the U.S. government passed the Cuban Democracy Act, promising to continue the embargo until the Cuban government made progress towards a true democracy. Unfortunately, this outdated piece of legislation has stunted Cuba’s economy for over 50 years and left millions of Cubans living in poverty. With the Cold War long in the past, it’s time to open America’s doors to Cuba and help them grow their economy whether they believe in communism or not.

From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com...
"SENSELESS"


Lifting the embargo will immediately jump start the Cuban economy through tourism and American investment, raising the living standards of impoverished Cubans and, at the same time, sections of the American economy.

Moreover, there are millions of Cubans currently living in the U.S. They are our friends, neighbors, work associates, and relatives. This outdated piece of legislation, put in place 53 years ago, has had severe consequences for the Cuban people both here in America as well as in Cuba.

If America is truly the altruistic modern super power the U.S. government continues to insist it is, this embargo must be lifted in order to help Cuba in the same way Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, and even Haiti has been helped. The U.S. is China’s biggest importer, and China is still a proponent of communism. Why has Cuba remained the shut out of American markets for so long, when they are so close?

This is pure politics my fellow debater. Since when has DC placed embargoes on countries for environmental reasons? If so we should embargo ourselves and China. But that would bankrupt Walmart. A bit of humor to end this round.
lannan13

Pro

I'll first breakdown my opponet's arguement piece by piece.

It is also hypocritical following the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil DISASTER a couple years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org......

Wikipedi isn't a creditable source.

My opponent lists he is "con/against" animal rights in his profile
(So why are you concerned with coral reefs/marine life?) But I am getting off topic here.

I'm against animal rights because I have the right to a cheese burger, but concerned about coral reefs because of how it comes back to affect me.

Opponent's Cuban economy contention.

My opponent's statment is false here. Most nation's in the world still actually trade with Cuba including China and Venezula. Of the two import Cuban oil, so you can see here that if we lift the embargo on Cuba it will hardly touch the Cuban economy. http://www.one.cu...;(sorry about the Spanish).


My Points

My opponent has yet to see the impacts of destroying the ecosystem by lifting the embargo, secondly he didn't touch my points so you can extend them across the board here.

Debate Round No. 2
Patriotgames8

Con

If the US were to open trade with Cuba the Cuban government may not need to
grasp at China's drilling program.

As you state yourself.."
And as it is in Cuba's territorial waters they have the same rights as the US to
do as they desire there.
Finally, PRO did not answer the linchpin of my argument ...

" Since when has DC placed embargoes on countries for environmental reasons?"

Also PRO states " ...China and Venezuela (Check your spelling on Venezuela PRO). Of the two import Cuban oil" Care to document that source PRO??..as the last I knew Venezuela was producing more oil than it consumed. I would suggest that PRO do his homework. BTW I am a staunch ethical/financial supporter of Greenpeace and a former member of the Sierra club. I will not be lectured to on environmental issues. As stated before this matter is purely political and I would much rather debate it with an anti-Castro/Raul Cuban in Miami than with some high school kid in Topeka, Kansas..the state I was born in BTW!

I will basically "waste" the rest of this round by stating "Is that the best you can do?"
lannan13

Pro

My opponent is just trolling here.

TO answer his agruement US place embargo on Hati for envirnmental reasons. http://www1.american.edu...




Con still hasn't answered any of my points yet so still extend them across the board.

To answer yet again his last point on Cuba and Venezuela http://www.news24.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Patriotgames8

Con

I take umbrage at you stating "My opponent is just trolling here." HOW SO? Read the above voters..and if pro can't even spell "argument", how can he debate such an intricate and dynamic topic?
As for answering your points..look in the mirror..you have not addressed mine..simply
stated, you are pontificating with a green slant without demonstrating any knowledge of the true
geopolitical situation between the US and Cuba.
Let the voters decide.
lannan13

Pro

*Sigh* I've been debating here so let's go over the points once more.


I've answered all of his arguments and Con has yet to respond to my Ecosystem points, I've answered what he said last round and he hasn't said much except I suck at spelling (which I agree) and that I haven't responded to his arguments so I'm going to extended all points and voter's please see what I'm getting at and please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Patriotgames8

Con

I would ask that all voters read the entirety of the debate and vote it on its merits.
To simply appeal for votes with a "sigh" is not a reasonable argument..just a plea for votes.
I have no further comments for this round as I believe the voters have the intellect to separate
the environmental from the geopolitical issues. As a "Green" myself I understand..without the environment we have need of politics. Read my reply to the facetiousness of this approach as stated in my first reply to the environmental subterfuge DC has taken and PRO's swallowing of it, hook, line and sinker. I do commiserate/empathize with the sickening state of our globe and detest the political aspects that exacerbate it. That was not what this debate was about,
As far as the insinuation that I am a "Troll", I promise you I feel very deeply about both issues. Enough said?
I hope we can just both reply with a "Yep" in the 5th round..as we obviously agree on the most important of ALL issues...the health of our planet. Thank you for your time and pleas know that at your age I was seriously thinking of actively joining Green Peace..it was actually a
derogatory nickname given to me by republican bred classmates. I would TRULY encourage PRO to join the Sea Sheppard in their "Whale Wars" project. I would if I were his age and unmarried...REALLY
lannan13

Pro

Since Con didn't really respond to any arguments this round I do urge the voter's for a vote for Pro. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
This was an absolutely terrible debate for many reasons. Constructive criticism:

1) Suggest CON describe his sources so readers have an idea what arguments he is deriving from them.

2) PRO's point about the Haiti "environment" belied a total misreading of his source:

"The President of Haiti (Jean-Bertrand Aristide) was democratically elected on December 16, 1990. However, on September 30, 1991, he was overthrown in a coup d'etat headed by Lieutenant-General Raoul Cedras.(1) As a result of the coup, Raoul Cedras's junta was immediately and strongly condemned by the United Nations (U.N.), Organization of American States (O.A.S.), and United States (U.S.). These three entities later reacted with sanctioning Cedras's action. "

"Sanctions on Haiti seemed to fail outright: Haiti's environment was effected deleteriously; due to a lack of staple goods..."

Sanctions were enacted due to the coup, environmental degradation was what resulted. PRO's assertion that sanctions were enacted due to environmental reasons is totally inaccurate. Sources to CON for such a misstatement.

3) I'm going to give PRO the benefit of the doubt that he was debating from a phone and that his spelling is typically better. Regardless, S&G to CON.

4) I assume BoP is shared, and PRO did not address any of CON's arguments. His statements were short, uninformative, and in general either wildly inaccurate or irrelevant to the debate.

5) Although CON engaged in ad-hominem (pointing out PRO's profile), he was not overtly insulting. PRO however did insult CON by calling him a troll when he was clearly debating in earnest. Conduct CON.

6) The Deepwater incident does not even need a source, so for PRO to attack the "source" belies a complete and utter unfamiliarity with environmental issues.

7) CON could have done better addressing what little there was of PRO's argument, but he did well enough, and PRO did not adequately refute CON. Arguments CON.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 3 years ago
LevelWithMe
Patriotgames8lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll comment from pro. Copy paste Word check from their posts indicates Pro had more errors. Pro miscited his Haiti claim. The source actually claims it was not done for environmental reasons(within the first paragraph, no less). It does, however, point out the impact the embargo had on the environment. These are not the same thing.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Patriotgames8lannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. This is not a votebomb.