While I think this is a very educational issue, I’m really at a loss as to what the neg ground is here. The only reason we haven’t “normalized” relations with Cuba is because a small special interest group wields disproportional power over electoral politics.

The vagueness of the term normalize also concerns me. The best neg strategy is probably to argue that “normalizing” means going even further than lifting the embargo, but that’s not a fun debate to watch.

yes but the imminent judging pool at nats (lay judges…ppl bringing their parents…a large array of other uneducated persons) will def not be buying any of the good con args…they are too “out there” for non-debaters

I disagree. I think this’ll be one helluva congress-esque topic, but I think this will come down to the Embargo – I don’t see any other interp of “normalize”.

At one point, we wanted to blow them up. Then we owned them. Then we traded with them. Funded an invasion. Relations have never been “normal”.

So, its normal in comparison with other countries – trade, friendly relations, etc.

The biggest barrier to that {and thus the most topical action to discuss}? The embargo.

I really hope teams don’t try to run “give back GitMo” or “remove Cuba from the terror list” plan-texty affs.

I think normalize probably means getting rid of:

1. the embargo
2. trade restrictions

I think the argument can be made for taking them off the state sponsors of terrorism list, as the main groups they fund are ETA and FARC, not exactly pressing threats to American security.

I agree that ending the embargo and travel restrictions is the most logical definition of normalize.

My point was that there are no good arguments for keeping the embargo. It’s an outdated policy that remains in place mostly because of inertia with some help from a vocal minority who still support it and a few politicians who think they can score points as tough on Communism or whatever by supporting it.

Sure, there are authors who write in favor of it, but they don’t have any real support for their claims.

I also agree that the best arguments for the embargo are probably political backlash arguments or even that ending the embargo would increase capitalism in Cuba, which would be bad, or things along those lines. But those don’t fly with most public forum judges.

If the judges didn’t understand it, he clearly didn’t “pwn” with it, did he?

But de-dev (de-development) is a horrible argument – it says that complete economic collapse and societal destruction is good, we should go back to living like serfs in small feudal communities.

The main solvency advocates like Zerzan don’t even make it into a decent argument.

And I don’t understand how you’d run dedev on that topic. Maybe trying to impact turn economic collapse? But that would only *MAYBE* work in policy in conjunction with a capitalism kritik. There’s no way that could possibly work in PF, simply for the fact that its a retarded argument in the first place, AND lacks the important components that make it barely passing in policy (such as the Cap K).

Capitalism bad might have worked on EFCA.

There are kritiks of appealing to morality/ethics that will work for NCFL’s topic as well.

There are actually some brilliant K’s, but usually only the people that cut them know how to run them well. The rest just copy-paste the file without understanding the warrants.

Ok so after some attempted research I have concluded that this topic is awful. All the lit is for pro and the con lit is TERRIBLE. Plus the lack of a time frame has completely screwed con b/c pro can just say lets normalize relations in 100 yrs