The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba

===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <=== I appreciate my opponent's excellent opening argument. My opponent has made two contentions for why Free Trade with Cuba is beneficial for the US. ===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 1 <=== -->Because the population is in favor of it.<-- My opponent is attempting to make the claim that because the masses favor something, it should immediately be done by the congress. Using public opinion to base the decisions of the most powerful nation on the earth is absolutely ridiculous. "Fewer than a third (Of Americans) can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth" Source:http://www.nytimes.com... Our government is a representational democracy. We choose educated elected leaders to make key foreign policy choices for us. Is my opponent seriously advocating otherwise? To allow public opinion to dictate government's decision is an incredibly dangerous precedent. Polls also can easily be misleading based on how the questions are phrased, the tone of which the questions for ask, etc. Furthermore not everyone chooses to answer polls because not everyone has the time nor cares enough to answer them. For these reasons polls are a terrible way of determining key foreign policy decisions. ===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 2 <=== "Fidel Castro is no longer in power" My opponent attempts to make the following argument "Fidel Castro is gone and his brother Raul has taken over. Cuba is in the news so much less for dangerous activities. There was a scare about a plan with Russia a couple of years ago, but this was settled and gone within weeks." Such an argument could be re-written: "Hitler is gone and his brother Schmitler has taken over. Germany is still in control by the Nazi party, but it isn't on our news as much for being dangerous. Nuclear warheads were set up in Cuba and pointed directly at the US. A nuclear war nearly erupted due to Cuba's part in Russia's plans. Although my opponent labels this as point two, he clearly has several contentions which I will outline and sub-sequentially rebut. -->Raul Castro is not as dangerous as Fidel Castro. "Raul Castro was once known as an iron-fisted ideologue who executed Fidel Castro's orders - and enemies - ruthlessly. At the time of the revolution 50 years ago, Raul Castro did the dirty work backstage, disposing of soldiers loyal to U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista and cracking the whip to keep wavering communist apparatchiks in line and passionate about the cause. As Fidel Castro's strongman and defence minister, he trained a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas into a feared army that fought "anti-imperialist" wars abroad, most notably in Angola where Cuban soldiers helped defeat South African troops. The strength of Raul Castro's ideology and his enforcement of it made ordinary Cubans wary of the now bespectacled, flabby-faced grandfather of eight." SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "(Washington, DC) - Raï¿½l Castro's government has locked up scores of people for exercising their fundamental freedoms and allowed scores more political prisoners arrested during Fidel Castro's rule to languish in detention, Human Rights Watch says in a report released today. Rather than dismantle Cuba's repressive machinery, Raï¿½l Castro has kept it firmly in place and fully active, the report says. The 123-page report, "New Castro, Same Cuba," shows how the Raï¿½l Castro government has relied in particular on the Criminal Code offense of "dangerousness," which allows authorities to imprison individuals before they have committed any crime, on the suspicion that they are likely to commit an offense in the future. This "dangerousness" provision is overtly political, defining as "dangerous" any behavior that contradicts Cuba's socialist norms. " SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... "In a January 2009 campaign called "Operation Victory," dozens of individuals in eastern Cuba—most of them youth—were charged with "dangerousness" for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Spï¿½ritus who could not work because of health problems, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in August 2008 for being unemployed. " REPORT SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... -->Cuba hasn't done anything terrible recently (thus not being in the news) "Cuba's laws empower the state to criminalize virtually all forms of dissent. Article 62 of the Cuban constitution explicitly prohibits Cubans from exercising their basic rights against the "ends of the socialist state." REPORT SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... As can clearly be seen by the evidence for both Raul and Cuba, they continue to actively repress their citizens and prevent both by their actions (locking up dissidents) and by their laws(stated directly above). Cuba's blatant disrespect for basic human rights, wrongful imprisonment, and blatant disregard for the rights of their citizens warrants no lifting of the trade ban of a country which nearly brought our world to the brink of nuclear war. Eyewitness testimony: "The rapid response brigade was waiting for us, carrying wooden bats and metal rods, as though they were ready to beat us. They insulted us, saying we were worms, the scum of society. They called my mother and me whores and sluts." Raul is no different than his brother and is a danger to the U.S. Simply because Cuba does not appear on our local news does not mean that they have been acting fairly towards their citizens. -->Random Organizations support this. My opponent has committed the following fallacies: Argument from Authority -- By saying that a few organizations approve of it, it must be the best for our country. Anecdotal - By only giving only a few organizations as proof, my opponent assumes that all organizations agree with this notion. Ad Populum - An appeal to the populous (popularity). Since it's popular, it must be the right thing to do. Hasty Generalization: committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. -->One Representative believes in it. My opponent makes the same fallacies as above. Perhaps my opponent has misread his own resolution. The U.S. should allow free trade with Cuba. Should is being the correct word. This argument is about what is right vs what is wrong, not a popularity contest. ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== My opponent has yet to show any real benefits of allowing free trade with Cuba. Instead, he has merely tried to turn this debate in a popularity contest in which the number of people agreeing with his resolution somehow affirm it. This is not so. My opponent must show much more than vague assertions that Cuba and its ruler are somehow less dangerous if he expects to affirm his resolution. He carries the burden of proof, but as of yet has not shown any real benefits of free trade. Using polls and anecdotal evidence to somehow assert his resolution is weak and is not an affirmation of your resolution. Furthermore making vague assertions such that Cuba and its leader are less dangerous without any real proof or logical backing will also not affirm your resolution. For these reasons I have negated Pro's contentions. I await my opponents new contentions in R2. Thank you.