Resolved: That the United States Should Normalize Relations With Cuba

Here is my assumption, this is PF style 'cause we have partners. O' and by the way my partners name is Harold. Hi Chris, you sound like a cool guy. And because this is PF style, drops don't count if I out weigh On my opponents number 5 thing: We can't look at history. History= the past. First of all, how can we look at any interaction between two political countries with out viewing the past? Thats hard, I mean I can't even talk about Obama becoming president 'cause that's all in the past. Secondly, and if we can't look at the past then we can't define what the 'normal' is. Because, in my opponents example, by the time you got to the last person in the room (ignoring the past) he would not know what you had done to the other people in the room, and further their are good reasons not to high five the guy like maybe you didn't like him, or he had a deadly contages disease like AIDS, or the Chicken Poxs, or my even the Communist Flu. Also, my opponenet assumes that 'high fiving' (which he used as a metaphor for lifting the embargo) but maybe their Jewish and its offensive. Or something like that. I mean, say you went in the room and flicked everybody off except the one guy, then you decide to not flick him off. That's not actually bad. Or may you give thumbs ups and he's Muslim. You wouldn't want to do that. Basically without history their is no past, no past be that nothing can be know, if nothing is know then epic fail trying to make something normal, if nothing is normal than relations can't be normalized, if relations can't be normalized then you have to vote con because the United States can't implement the action of normalizing (because normalizing doesn't exsitst) and thus the resolution fails vot con. "The United States [will] not end the trade embargo until [it shows] Cuba progress toward democracy." States President Obama. As I have already stated, which my opponent did not adress, the reason for the current embargo on Cuba is because the US does not like of get along with the Current goverment of Cuba, just as you might not get along with one of your classmates. Their is nothing wrong with this, it is in fact normal, no said you have to like everybody. And because the US is a democracy, by it passing the laws to instigate the embargo it was following the will of its people and thus if in a democratic society, the will of the people is being followed. If the people wanted the embargo lifted then the goverment would lift it, but they don't so it doesn't. Analogy: Say you drink a 52 oz. Bucc-ee's Coke Icee with 12 shots of Vanilla everday (Yummmmm....Bucc-ee's). Ok, so everyone doesn't do that (mostly 'cause they'd die), but say this one person did. That would be normal for them. Then they stop doing for a week, unnormal. Then they 'normalize' they're routine by drink the 52 oz. Icee again. Thus, you 'normalized' your routine. Our routine with Cuba now is normal, if we lift the embargo it becomes unnormal, and thus we would have to reenstate the embargo to 'normalize'. The Pro team is not advacating to normalize relations, but because they are normal, it is advocating to unnormalize them. At that point you have to view the pro argument on lifting the embargo as flawed because it does not support the pro side of the debate, if anything it supports then con side of the debate. Please move Pro's three contentions to the con side of the Flow. Now the Pro has no offense left, and thus nothing for me to attack.