Resolved: That the United States Should Normalize Relations With Cuba

First of all, their is no pro ballot on this website. Just a bunch of people that vote on who has better grammar and who wasn't an A**. So, theoretically you can actually lose debates even if you destroyed them in debating. I really don't like that part, but you new; and I'm guessing your fresh back from Nats and need something to do with your life 'cause you didn't changing the wording on your cases. Its cool though, idc. I'm more about debate, especially pf. * * * * * * Today I will stand on the Con side of the debate, Resolved: That the United States Should Normalize Relations with Cuba. For one main reason, but first lets define some key terms. Normalize: to make normal . http://dictionary.reference.com... To clearify, Normal: Regular . http://dictionary.reference.com... For further clearification, Regular: Uniform Procedure . http://dictionary.reference.com... Basically, the resolution calls for the United States to Normalize Relations with Cuba, or the United States should have regular relations with Cuba. The United States relationship with the United States has not changed since 1959 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and after a month something becomes a habit (. http://www.shaw.af.mil...) and thus where talking about fifty years of repeative action, and thus normal. Example: It is normal for someone to play video game (1962), have a smoke detectors in their house (1969), listen to digital music (1970), have Cell Phone (1973), and use the Internet. Just as it is Normal for the United States to have an embargo on Cuba. Basically, the resolution is flawed because the current relation the United States has with Cuba is its normal relations. Let me explain, goverment of Cuba is fundementally the same now as it was fifty years ago. Think of the goverment like a person. The US is a person, Cuba's a person. Say we got off to a bad foot, rubbed each other the wrong way. Got in a big fight, and never really made up. That would mean its one, normal not to like each other (Like its normal to consider the Nazi's the bad guys in WWII), and also their is no reason we have to like each other. We don't want to talk to Cuba, they don't want to talk to use, its a big world we'll get along without them and they without us. Furthermore, my opponent never states anywhere what 'Normalize' means or is, and thus you have to fall back on the Con definition. On my opponents first contention, he does not state anywhere why 'normalizing relations' would have to result in lifting the embargo, but as I have informed you relations are normal now (and thus the resolution mute cause pro can't have any impact) and are current normal relation we have an embargo. My opponents Second Contetion falls on one, that the embargo is lifted, and two that some how Americans would go to Cuba and help a bunch of hurricane victims. One: US economy in shambles, if we need to help anyone we should help ourselves. Two: Galveston is still in ruble from hurricane Ike, why can't those people get help? Where's the Embargo their? Heck, even New Orleans is barly rebuilt. The Rebuilding point falls because these people do not have any money regardless of if they could buy from the US. The truth is they could buy from other countries if they had money. Also, my opponents wants us to give Cubans goods on credit. Ok, if US citizens can't pay back credit; what makes you think Cubans can? Again, the third contentions resovles on lifting an embark which is normal for Americans. Basically, my opponent avicates to lift an embargo which is normal for Americans. Which does not reside within the bounds of the resolution. The con explains that relations now are normal, because they have not changed under this regime, and thus the resolution can not be affirmed becuase the 'should' implies an action must be taken. The action to normalize can't be taken because realtions are already normal.