The US should not recognize the results of the latest Nicarguan election.

Thank you Bluesteel for that impressive and quick resonse.== Realism vs. Idealism == My opponent is essentially saying that having a democracy is not necessarily better in all cases, and is only seemingly better as an idealistic concept and has the connotation of “solving all the worlds woes”. An application to Nicaragua and a reference to this particular resolution is required before you can actually see if it makes any sense. We ask ourselves, better than what. The use of my opponent’s realism here would mean that a blatantly rigged and corrupted election is acceptable for this country, and a dictator not elected by the people is also acceptable as an application of realism. Whereas I would contend that such ‘realism’ is a generic dismissal of a people. It needn't be this way in this reagion especially when we consider the modern history of that region, and the current political dynamics, both of which my opponent neglected to cite here. Currently there are countries moving toward a more democratic system Honduras, and Columbia, and there are those who go toward a Chavez – Castro type of dictatorship. Nicaragua has a choice of being a Cuba or a Costa Rica[1], and that is only possible through some window of democratic change. It is both realistic and reasonable that Nicaragua could aspire toward their neighbors to the south (Costa Rica) through democratic movement in process via elections. Furthermore, my opponent infers in his argument that a dictatorship is beneficial in matters of peace and prosperity. Again I point to Costa Rica[2][3] == Prevalence of illiberal democracies == Here my opponent is essentially saying, they (dictatorships) exist in places like this, get used to it and accept it. A variation of the previous point. I would add to my last points that this is also not necessarily the case if you are to identify the prevailing cause of this particular dictatorship. Again, I ask for actual application of the theories that my opponent cites. Hugo Chavez and his oil wealth is the prevailing influence over the behavior of Daniel Ortega; this particular variable is optional, and has been refused by other countries in the region (Honduras [4] and Columbia) The generalization that my opponent is asserting is unwarranted and doesn’t stand up to actual application. It needn’t be a foregone conclusion that a dictatorship is inevitable, and better (see Costa Rica). == Marginalizing ourselves from international politics ==My opponent fears that by taking a stand in not recognizing this sort of behavior will marginalize these sorts of countries, and we will be disengaged with them internationally, and we lose all opportunity in a diplomatic and economic exchange.Once again I ask my opponent to look at the state of Nicaragua now they already are marginalized and stand to be further marginalized through relationships with Chavez, Russia, and Iran[5] [6]. If you Google Nicaragua and Russia you will find endless references toward increased cooperation and partnerships between the two countries, and in particular joint military operations. The net result of not encouraging a more democratic society will be a in fact be a more marginalized society and country. My opponent lists a myriad collection of leaders and countries who held elections that were filled with fraud and illegitimacy. I don't know that we ever recognized these elections as being legitimate. We may accept their leaders as the leaders of these countries out of pragmatic consideration, but I am unsure if we actually accepted them as a result of their elections. Keep in mind my resolution is not about recognizing the leader, but recognizing the results of the election. I made this quite clear in the discussion leading up to the debate. == Futility ==My opponent asserts that there really is no point in not accepting the election results because it will remain anyway. As I write this there are protests taking place all over Nicaragua and the people are desperately looking for the US to take a position.[7] Furthermore, things are different now. We are seeing changes taking place in the world as a result of popular protest and world recognition of what it deems as being corrupt and counter to the good of the people. There are real results to such demonstrations and protests that haven't happened before, and in countries of similar make up as Nicaragua. Furthermore, it is part of our national integrity to disavow such corruption, in the vague hope of establishing some sort of relationship with Nicaragua, or self interest. It is also preposterous to think that Ortega could get more influenced by Chavez, and that we could hope to provide some sort of direction toward Daniel Ortega. Keep in mind that Daniel Ortega despises the United States. There is very little to lose by standing up to the corruption used in the election, because he would never look toward the US for any direction, and is completely dependent on Hugo Chavez for all matters economic and political.[8] Two key points why it is not futile:1. Hugo Chavez and his influence will soon be in jeopardy as it is expected that he will not live for another 2 years, and his death will provide a window of opportunity for Venezuela and the region. [9]2. There is a legitimate opposing party which is currently gaining popularity among splinter factions, so there is greater unification behind the Constitutional Party of Nicaragua.[10] == Quick response to "Constitutionally illegitimate candidate" ==My opponent asserts that Ortega is operating within the parameters of the supreme court.I'm glad that my opponent brought this up, but for reasons of space I will try and summarize how it got to this point: The Chief Justice of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court called the decision unconstitutional and illegal in how it was achieved [11]. So here's what happened: Ortega went around the National Assembly and went straight to the Supreme Court for an immediate ruling (illegal process), the day of the decision that he forced, the 15 member court consisted of 6 Sandinista members, 3 non Sandinista members were replaced by Sandinistas, 2 other non Sandinista members were not called in time for the vote. Initially it was mandated that it must be a full 15 member agreement decision, but it was decided at that moment, by that court that this would not be necessary. "Martinez insisted that the Sandinista magistrates showed "complete and flagrant disrespect for the Constitution, for the laws and even for the ethics that every individual should have for himself." – Supreme Court Chief Justice of Nicaragua.== Coup ==I don't believe I am actually advocating a coup, but simply to join those in the world who are not going to recognize the recent election, and advocate a new election that would be safeguarded against corruption. == Authoritarian Transition ==My opponent is essentially saying that they are better off with an authoritarian rule; that Nicaragua isn't ready for democracy. First, they have nothing to lose. Proposing that a democracy will make things worse is a little ridiculous. Nicaragua has improved despite Ortega, but still remains the second poorest country in the hemisphereSecond, following in the path of Costa Rica, or even Honduras is a real option. Nicaragua has enormous natural resources and economic potential that can benefit the people of that country, but have long been held back by the authoritarian governments that are hostile to economic relations with prospering democracies. In realistic terms, countries such as Nicaragua have the resources to create a much more prosperous country than what currently exists, if there is any moderate gains in Next, to call Daniel Ortega extremely popular is to not understand Nicaraguan politics. Nicaragua is deeply scarred by the experience of the civil war, and speaking out publicly against the Sandinistas is an invitation to trouble. Sources will be in coment section due to space confinement.