Resolved: That the United States Should Normalize Relations With Cuba

=============================== Definition debate =============================== Overview: Extend that we have an interpretation of normalize - from the 1ac, "It is because the U. S. embargo is the main strain on relations between the two countries that Chris and I see the lifting of this strict trade and travel ban as the best way to normalize relations. " Our interpretation of normalize is lifting the totality of the embargo. Normalization *means* lifting the embargo. Line-By-Line Interpretation debate: Ours is Good - 1. Contextuality - Normal relations are normal in terms of relations with other countries. We trade with other countries and allow people to emigrate and immigrate. That is what we do as the affirmative, which is contextual to our relations with other countries. 2. Legal Area - The Helms-Burton Act and Cuban Democracy Act are the primary obstacle to treating Cuba like we treat other countries - that is, treating them "normally". 3. Analogy - I high-five everyone in the room except "Bob". Then, I decide to high-five Bob. I have treated Bob "normal" in relation to how I treated everyone else; the norm was set by how I act in relation with others. At the point where the international norm is trade and permitting em/immigrants, you accept our definition of normalize. His is bad - 1. Debateability - If the resolution is moot, the Aff could never win - this is unfair - means that you default to the Affirmative interpretation to allow for fairness. 2. Semantic BS - If we're to string around definitions that are shoddily justified with poor logic and mentioning Nazi's being bad, debates would never amount to anything other than "this definition means vote _____" - this kills actually addressing the issues of a topic and means we debate pseudo-grammar every single debate, never learning about anything. Perpetuating this idiocy is an independant reason to vote affirmative - vote aff to reject the idiocy of definition debate that kills the education that debate is all about. 3. Definition Debate Only For Crazy Affs - Definition debate should only be used to check back crazy affirmatives who use abusive definitions. Nothing about our interpretation of normalize is unfair or abusive, means you reject the definition debate on face. 4. No Research Justification - his only evidence on why the U. S. is "normal" now is because "after three weeks something becomes a habit. " 4.1 First, this was intended to apply to humans - federal governments don't have brains to develop habits. 4.2 Just because something is habitual doesn't make it normal. 4.3 No expert in Cuban policy analysis would call what the US has with Cuba "normal". He's clearly playing f/uck-f/uck with the definitions, not taking a fair stance on setting the parameters of the resolution. 5. Can't Use History - Historically, the United States varied too greatly in how we've treated them to look to history as the way to define. We owned them (colonial period), then we hated them (Cuban Missile Crisis), then we *invaded them* (Bay of Pigs), and now we shun them. Which is it? It makes no sense to try to condense all of this (outdated and failed) foreign policy into a modern course of Cuban policy action. Prefer our interpretation which calls "normal" relative to our current foreign policy with other countries. =========================== Case =========================== lol. If I win the definition debate, I win case debate, because he didn't refute any of it.