The Embargo with Cuba needs to be lifted.

This is only my second debate on this site, I'm glad we are both getting very helpful experience on the site. Now, onto arguments. 1st. You've split this into two separate arguments, so I will make them into subpoints. a)You state we cannot trust Moisï¿½s Naï¿½m as a source because he is from a communist country. I would like to know how the nationality of a person destroys the validity of their points? Plus, who better to look to for the enemy's point of view, than the enemy itself? The argument I was trying to make was that communists are effectively making the U.S. the enemy, by using the U.S. as a scapegoat for all Cuba's problems. If anything, we should take this quote into consideration MORE because of the nationality of the speaker, not less. b)In my proponent "speech" I stated that the embargo was originally put in place because of land squabbles and to inconvenience the Soviet Union. I still stand by that fact. However, this is what you said in your Round One argument. " stop trading relations with a country because of its economy (bad), government (usually communist or anti-democratic), or because of profiling (a huge problem with our government). That reasons are the well-being of the country itself, the people, the economy, and government." I was simply responding to that point. Valid or not, I had to respond to your argument, that is what debate is all about. You heavily suggested that the reason for the embargo was the communist government, and I had to respond. Now, look at what I said at the beginning of round two. "2nd The negative suggests that we refuse to trade with Cuba because of their communist government." I made if very clear that this was none of my own saying, but rather it was what you had suggested in your own argument. There are no holes in my argument, and you have therefore agreed with me on the original point of the embargo. Now that we both agree that the embargo was originally enacted for the same reasons, and we agree that it has now evolved into a punishment for communism. Since we agree, we need not discuss this point for the remainder of the debate. 2nd Are you saying we need to simply give up since there is a possibility Raul will live to an extreme age? As of now, Raul has not appointed anyone to succeed him, and the negative side cannot claim that he will do so in the near future. We have no way of knowing. What we DO know is he could die any day now. We need to get rid of this embargo so American influence can reach Cuba and assist in a transition out of tyranny. 3rd O.k…… I agree with you. Communism is the antithesis of American political goals. I think we are just restating what you said in the first point. This offers no reason to keep the embargo. You don't offer any solvency. I don't see what the point of bringing this up was. Now, since this is my last chance to sum things up, I will go ahead and do so. 1.The embargo had two original goals. One has been abandoned; and the second one succeeded but no longer pertains to the status quo (the Soviet Union). 2.The U.S. could benefit from trade with Cuba. Cuba would IMMENSLY benefit from trade with the U.S., and everyone else would benefit from the repealing of the Helms-Burton act. 3.The embargo is unpopular worldwide. This point has not been refuted by the neg and is an automatic win for the affirmative side. 4.This is the cloudiest point, so I would like to expand on it a little more. There is no guarantee that by ending the embargo will end Cuban communism. However, there IS a guarantee that keeping it is doing nothing. For the 50-some years the embargo has been in place, Cuban communism has not ended. The best option here is to end the embargo, and take down the iron curtain we have over Cuba. Diplomatic success with Cuban citizens is not achieved by ignoring them, but it will by achieved by letting our culture and ideals spill over to their island. Vote for affirmative on the following grounds: 1.Ending the embargo would assist with worldwide economies. 2.It would aid U.S.-World relations (especially with communist countries). 3.It would assist Cuba in transitioning to democracy (or some other communism alternative.) Thank you for reading, and I encourage you to vote affirmative.