Latin America Policy Debate

[DebateJunky]

Hello,
I'm relatively new to this forum, i'm a high school debater who has a real passion for politics.

This years resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase It's Economic Engagement in Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela."
I'm really looking for some experienced and knowledgeable members to help generate topic areas, case areas, various advantages or disadvantages to taking such federal action. I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me, i'm just looking for help brainstorming and finding something more unique than "Oil case", "Border and Immigration control", "Shut down the Embargo", etc.

The crazier, the funnier, the better!
I'd really appreciate anything anyone has to contribute.
Thanks!

[Kathianne]

Hello,
I'm relatively new to this forum, i'm a high school debater who has a real passion for politics.

This years resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase It's Economic Engagement in Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela."
I'm really looking for some experienced and knowledgeable members to help generate topic areas, case areas, various advantages or disadvantages to taking such federal action. I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me, i'm just looking for help brainstorming and finding something more unique than "Oil case", "Border and Immigration control", "Shut down the Embargo", etc.

The crazier, the funnier, the better!
I'd really appreciate anything anyone has to contribute.
Thanks!

Hi! and Welcome! So what year are you in and what is your position on the issue thus far? No one should be 'answering' until we know your position. They we can help.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hello,
I'm relatively new to this forum, i'm a high school debater who has a real passion for politics.

This years resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase It's Economic Engagement in Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela."
I'm really looking for some experienced and knowledgeable members to help generate topic areas, case areas, various advantages or disadvantages to taking such federal action. I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me, i'm just looking for help brainstorming and finding something more unique than "Oil case", "Border and Immigration control", "Shut down the Embargo", etc.

The crazier, the funnier, the better!
I'd really appreciate anything anyone has to contribute.
Thanks!

A... Welcome.
B... 'relatively new' ? That was literally your first post.
C... Happy hunting
D... Watch out for trolls and socks.

[Kathianne]

A... Welcome.
B... 'relatively new' ? That was literally your first post.
C... Happy hunting
D... Watch out for trolls and socks.

and no one is going to do your homework. However if you do it, we'll help you build off that.

[DebateJunky]

Kathianne, I will be a Junior this year, i'm specifically looking to find an affirmative plan. I will argue both affirmative and negative this year. So my position here is really finding a case area where the US should engage and why it's important and that it's not already happening. Trying to find something unique.


Marcus Aurelius ~
A- Thank you
B- Well... I read a new topics before I posted, so relatively in terms of time spent reading debates.
C- It always is
D- You wouldn't happen to have any extra anti-troll spray handy would you?

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, I will be a Junior this year, i'm specifically looking to find an affirmative plan. I will argue both affirmative and negative this year. So my position here is really finding a case area where the US should engage and why it's important and that it's not already happening. Trying to find something unique.


Marcus Aurelius ~
A- Thank you
B- Well... I read a new topics before I posted, so relatively in terms of time spent reading debates.
C- It always is
D- You wouldn't happen to have any extra anti-troll spray handy would you?

Terrorism and the Americas?
Building Off NAFTA happening or not?

[Kathianne]

Building a real North/South America coalition in financial and security sense. Beyond NAFTA. Actually, 'Beyond NAFTA' would be a good topic.

[DebateJunky]

I like the sound of building on NAFTA or beyond, i'll look into that and post back with my findings.

As far as Terrorism towards the America's, i'm not sure I understand the correlation to how that would engage one of the three countries. I guess the Terror list plays a role in that... hmm, something to consider.

Also, Venezuela seems to be kind of the old country out... It seems to only have oil as far as policy debate is concerned. I mean Mexico has NAFTA as you mentioned, border/immigration, renewable energy, trade. Cuba has the embargo, oil, lots of agricultural abundance.

Thanks! :)

[Kathianne]

I like the sound of building on NAFTA or beyond, i'll look into that and post back with my findings.

As far as Terrorism towards the America's, i'm not sure I understand the correlation to how that would engage one of the three countries. I guess the Terror list plays a role in that... hmm, something to consider.

Also, Venezuela seems to be kind of the old country out... It seems to only have oil as far as policy debate is concerned. I mean Mexico has NAFTA as you mentioned, border/immigration, renewable energy, trade. Cuba has the embargo, oil, lots of agricultural abundance.

Thanks! :)

You wouldn't likely have time for, however one of the real concerns of security are the physical features of middle eastern and south americans regarding racial profiling. A ME terrorist that was extremely fluent in Hispanic language can easily pass 'legally' or not through the Southern border.

Indeed there are claims, some credible, some not so much, that it's already happened.

[DragonStryk72]

I like the sound of building on NAFTA or beyond, i'll look into that and post back with my findings.

As far as Terrorism towards the America's, i'm not sure I understand the correlation to how that would engage one of the three countries. I guess the Terror list plays a role in that... hmm, something to consider.

Also, Venezuela seems to be kind of the old country out... It seems to only have oil as far as policy debate is concerned. I mean Mexico has NAFTA as you mentioned, border/immigration, renewable energy, trade. Cuba has the embargo, oil, lots of agricultural abundance.

Thanks! :)

actually, another area to look into are the cartels in Latin america. Many Americans hear the word and assume drugs, but they actually make up most industries in mexico, and they're an enormous consideration to trying to do anything in LA.

Cartels are, in America, basically trusts. Each industry is controlled, so you have cartels lime oil, tobacco, coffee, and various other commodities, and they have a lot of influence over cost of living, imports and exports, so any economic actions in mexico must, if they are to be successful, take them into account.

[fj1200]

Hello,
I'm relatively new to this forum, i'm a high school debater who has a real passion for politics.

This years resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase It's Economic Engagement in Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela."
I'm really looking for some experienced and knowledgeable members to help generate topic areas, case areas, various advantages or disadvantages to taking such federal action. I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me, i'm just looking for help brainstorming and finding something more unique than "Oil case", "Border and Immigration control", "Shut down the Embargo", etc.

The crazier, the funnier, the better!
I'd really appreciate anything anyone has to contribute.
Thanks!

Why Mexico, Cuba, or Venezuela? They are three completely different case studies of Latin America IMO. What do you base your premise on that the Feds can increase economic engagement? We could certainly relax our policies where Cuba is concerned but Mexico is already under NAFTA and you'll have a massive uprising here if you suggest expanding/creating? the North American Union. I don't really think this is a political discussion more than an economics discussion and what can those particular countries do to fix their own problems. But nevertheless, welcome.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Mexico would be a good choice. So much going on with Mexico right now and Obama seems to be a "rich uncle" willing to toss money at Mexico and bow at the RAZA altar. NAFTA already has had many negative effects for this nation. A rich topic to explore(illegal immigration and its aftermath) and easily researched too. Good luck. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^Free trade is good.

[tailfins]

Hello,
I'm relatively new to this forum, i'm a high school debater who has a real passion for politics.

This years resolution is "Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase It's Economic Engagement in Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela."
I'm really looking for some experienced and knowledgeable members to help generate topic areas, case areas, various advantages or disadvantages to taking such federal action. I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me, i'm just looking for help brainstorming and finding something more unique than "Oil case", "Border and Immigration control", "Shut down the Embargo", etc.

The crazier, the funnier, the better!
I'd really appreciate anything anyone has to contribute.
Thanks!


I can tell you thing or two about Brazil and about Information Technology. Brazil is sometimes attractive as an outsourcing destination because the time zone difference with India is disruptive. In places like New York and Boston there's enough of a Portuguese speaking presence (your's truly included) that the language barrier is a much smaller issue. Brazil is a socialist-oriented society, so any business proposition will be viewed through that lens by the authorities. I know a few things about Cuba as well. It is almost as miserable as Cuban-Americans say it is. They do have free "health care", but the quality is inferior to what we had in the 1800s. Most get an official salary of about $20/month. To live you need a "game". I knew a guy that survived installing illegal satellite dishes. If he got busted, it meant two years "carcel-le" (being locked up) for both he and the customer.

[DebateJunky]

Kathianne - A ME terrorist crossing from Mexico would certainly be something interesting to look into... It's not exactly economic engagement, but would be very helpful in an immigration debate.
Dragonstryk72 - I've read some on the cartels, i'm familiar with their activities. The Mexico President, Nieto actually recently announced his plan to combat their threat. By improving living conditions, education and jobs. However, yes, they are very important to factor in and they certainly won't leave without a fight.
Fj1200 - Well, I agree the resolution itself is a little tricky, Cuba and mexico are fine by me, Venezuela seems like it would of been better replaced by like Brazil or Colombia. Anyhow, it's a mixture of both, economics and policy to determine how to benefit both the US and a country in a new way.
Tyr - I agree Mexico is very popular right now with Obama and has great potential, however in my style of debate, the case/plan I submit cannot currently be in place/or on it's way (no point in passing my plan if it's already going to happen) So as much as I like Mexico, i'm not sure how many things would benefit Mexico that Obama isn't heavily 'working' on. An immigration bill has been working its way through congress for quite sometime... although it probably will never see a successful agreement, it's still in the works.
Tailfins - The Brazil information was very interesting, i'd heard about that job shift, however I had never read about why. Cuba medicine is indeed outdated... there are quite a few pros to lifting the embargo, however along with it come several cons.-------Just a thought to throw out there, but since we own Guantanamo Bay, might it be possible to close or down size and convert it something useful? I'm just not sure about finding research that says that would work or be successful...Thanks for all the replies guys, this has been extremely helpful so far :)

[DragonStryk72]

Kathianne - A ME terrorist crossing from Mexico would certainly be something interesting to look into... It's not exactly economic engagement, but would be very helpful in an immigration debate.
Dragonstryk72 - I've read some on the cartels, i'm familiar with their activities. The Mexico President, Nieto actually recently announced his plan to combat their threat. By improving living conditions, education and jobs. However, yes, they are very important to factor in and they certainly won't leave without a fight.
Fj1200 - Well, I agree the resolution itself is a little tricky, Cuba and mexico are fine by me, Venezuela seems like it would of been better replaced by like Brazil or Colombia. Anyhow, it's a mixture of both, economics and policy to determine how to benefit both the US and a country in a new way.
Tyr - I agree Mexico is very popular right now with Obama and has great potential, however in my style of debate, the case/plan I submit cannot currently be in place/or on it's way (no point in passing my plan if it's already going to happen) So as much as I like Mexico, i'm not sure how many things would benefit Mexico that Obama isn't heavily 'working' on. An immigration bill has been working its way through congress for quite sometime... although it probably will never see a successful agreement, it's still in the works.
Tailfins - The Brazil information was very interesting, i'd heard about that job shift, however I had never read about why. Cuba medicine is indeed outdated... there are quite a few pros to lifting the embargo, however along with it come several cons.-------Just a thought to throw out there, but since we own Guantanamo Bay, might it be possible to close or down size and convert it something useful? I'm just not sure about finding research that says that would work or be successful...Thanks for all the replies guys, this has been extremely helpful so far :)

you should definitely look more into the cartels. they're going to be a force in any attempt to aid mexico, and even an otherwise solid plan can have detrimental effects if you don't know how to work around, combat, or use them.

it would he much akin to trying to economically aid the USA without understanding Wall Street, corporations, or unions effect on the economy.

[revelarts]

Welcome DJ,
interesting question.
I'm A'gin it.

Where's the Money for any foreign aid coming from? is the 1st question I want to ask.
If we are tweaking our congressional rules to just pass a budget to pay the gov't bills we have,
why should we consider MORE aid to ANY country?
If the FED is just printing more money for the U.S. gov't to borrow and increase the already insane national debt,
why talk of increasing foreign aid?
Unless it can be shown empirically that the foreign aid, to those or any other countries, will mean more Jobs in the U.S.,
why send an extra nickel?

If your beginning to bleed to death you don't go to the Red Cross to give more blood.

nafta etc:
NAFTA, GAT and many of the made in secret so called 'free trade agreements' are just another of a few back doors to global governance.
And Ross Perot warned there would be a "giant sucking sound" of jobs going south if it past, and he was right.

um, I have strong opinions on some issues DJ.
Please DO NOT take my issue based statements as personal attacks DJ.
If you've got some good reasons why it's going to help the U.S. economy in the short/long term to give MORE to other nations. I'd love to know what they are.


actually, another area to look into are the cartels in Latin America. Many Americans hear the word and assume drugs, but they actually make up most industries in mexico, and they're an enormous consideration to trying to do anything in LA.

Cartels are, in America, basically trusts. Each industry is controlled, so you have cartels lime oil, tobacco, coffee, and various other commodities, and they have a lot of influence over cost of living, imports and exports, so any economic actions in Mexico must, if they are to be successful, take them into account.
yep, Many U.S. Multinationals also have very long powerful fingers in agricultural issues effecting local farming and land use. Dole, Monsanto, United Fruit Company. South America has been a big capitalist HO in more than a few industries.

[DebateJunky]

Welcome DJ,
interesting question.
I'm A'gin it.

Where's the Money for any foreign aid coming from? is the 1st question I want to ask.
If we are tweaking our congressional rules to just pass a budget to pay the gov't bills we have,
why should we consider MORE aid to ANY country?
If the FED is just printing more money for the U.S. gov't to borrow and increase the already insane national debt,
why talk of increasing foreign aid?
Unless it can be shown empirically that the foreign aid, to those or any other countries, will mean more Jobs in the U.S.,
why send an extra nickel?

If your beginning to bleed to death you don't go to the Red Cross to give more blood.

nafta etc:
NAFTA, GAT and many of the made in secret so called 'free trade agreements' are just another of a few back doors to global governance.
And Ross Perot warned there would be a "giant sucking sound" of jobs going south if it past, and he was right.

um, I have strong opinions on some issues DJ.
Please DO NOT take my issue based statements as personal attacks DJ.
If you've got some good reasons why it's going to help the U.S. economy in the short/long term to give MORE to other nations. I'd love to know what they are.


yep, Many U.S. Multinationals also have very long powerful fingers in agricultural issues effecting local farming and land use. Dole, Monsanto, United Fruit Company. South America has been a big capitalist HO in more than a few industries.

Cartels and Wall street... a great place to start on Mexico research, I see your point to why the cartels will effect it so much, I could write a really nice disadvantage to other cases as to why their plan fails with the cartels in the equation.

And Reve, I don't take it personally at all. I agree, the US government needs to get it's business in line. If we're spending more money that runs into a world of spending and fiscal discipline disadvantages in the debate world. I'm trying to find that case that wouldn't inflict the US with more useless plans and wasted money. The plain truth is such a foreign policy is rare.

[fj1200]

Fj1200 - Well, I agree the resolution itself is a little tricky, Cuba and mexico are fine by me, Venezuela seems like it would of been better replaced by like Brazil or Colombia. Anyhow, it's a mixture of both, economics and policy to determine how to benefit both the US and a country in a new way.


And Reve, I don't take it personally at all. I agree, the US government needs to get it's business in line. If we're spending more money that runs into a world of spending and fiscal discipline disadvantages in the debate world. I'm trying to find that case that wouldn't inflict the US with more useless plans and wasted money. The plain truth is such a foreign policy is rare.

You're going to have to help me out, I'm not sure what you're arguing for and why.

[DebateJunky]

You're going to have to help me out, I'm not sure what you're arguing for and why.

Hey, sorry about the late reply!
I'll be arguing for economic engagement for one of the three countries, let's go with Cuba for now. What kind of economic engagement could we propose that isn't already in action? We could close like Gitmo. Bay, any ideas on what that would make it like? We could remove the embargo... but there would need to be a unique argument beyond just what the United Nations has been fighting for, for the past decade.

I debate at least 4 rounds a tournament, 2 affirmative and 2 negative. The negative's I need as much evidence as I can find on why economic engagement is a bad idea for said country (any of the three). Just beyond just spending is bad, relations are fine etc. Legitimate cons like latin america is sustaining growth and doesn't want us to impede.

I hope that was kind clarifying, if not i'll try to clear up any confusion that's left.

[logroller]

^Free trade is good.
Overall and in the long-run, yes. But it has disparaging effects on those who dont enjoy lesser overhead, ie regulations like anti-trust, minimum wage, worker rights... triple bottom line stuff.

I mean, give me unbridled control of the agents who regulate my actions and financials and ill guarantee you I have a profitable and productive company. But thats merely the perception of benefit, not the real one.
In the long run these advagages should level out, but its never so good as before the cats out of the bag.

[fj1200]

Hey, sorry about the late reply!
I'll be arguing for economic engagement for one of the three countries, let's go with Cuba for now. What kind of economic engagement could we propose that isn't already in action? We could close like Gitmo. Bay, any ideas on what that would make it like? We could remove the embargo... but there would need to be a unique argument beyond just what the United Nations has been fighting for, for the past decade.

I debate at least 4 rounds a tournament, 2 affirmative and 2 negative. The negative's I need as much evidence as I can find on why economic engagement is a bad idea for said country (any of the three). Just beyond just spending is bad, relations are fine etc. Legitimate cons like latin america is sustaining growth and doesn't want us to impede.

I hope that was kind clarifying, if not i'll try to clear up any confusion that's left.

You might want to be sure you are straight on the facts before starting an argument; I'd bet Gitmo has zero impact economically on Cuba apart from some hard currency we likely pay them and I don't recall the UN fighting for anything in Cuba, and the embargo has been going on for a bit longer than a decade.

Nevertheless I'm of the belief that countries are pretty much in charge of their own destiny, if they have crap systems that minimize the economic freedoms of their people then no amount of engagement by the US is going to help outside of the obvious like lifting embargoes or creating a free-trade zone with them. If you have a dualistic economy before engagement then you will have one after.

[fj1200]

Overall and in the long-run, yes. But it has disparaging effects on those who dont enjoy lesser overhead, ie regulations like anti-trust, minimum wage, worker rights... triple bottom line stuff.

I mean, give me unbridled control of the agents who regulate my actions and financials and ill guarantee you I have a profitable and productive company. But thats merely the perception of benefit, not the real one.
In the long run these advagages should level out, but its never so good as before the cats out of the bag.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There would certainly be changes in labor patterns if you all of a sudden made a major change but right, in the long run those with higher labor costs are going to become capital intensive while lower labor costs are going to be labor intensive. Are there countries that don't have the protections that we enjoy? Sure but who is to say that they aren't going to go through the same natural development patterns than we went through. Should we not trade with them because they're not as advanced as we are?

[DebateJunky]

Logroller, if you could explain what you're saying a little more. I think I get the idea you're going for but I don't really understand "In the long run these advagages should level out, but its never so good as before the cats out of the bag."

Also fj1200, in response your post about Cuba, here's the facts. Guantanamo bay has a tremendous economic burden on Cuba, for one, just keeping it open. The Embargo has been going on for over 50 years, in the last decade however, the UN has deemed the united states actions wrong and has voted against the continuation of an embargo upon Cuba.

What i'm suggesting is the possibility to close the facility, AS a detention camp and convert it to perhaps an renewable energy station, or some kind of factory. Which in turn, would create a wide span of advantages for the US and Cuba.

[fj1200]

Also fj1200, in response your post about Cuba, here's the facts. Guantanamo bay has a tremendous economic burden on Cuba, for one, just keeping it open. The Embargo has been going on for over 50 years, in the last decade however, the UN has deemed the united states actions wrong and has voted against the continuation of an embargo upon Cuba.

What i'm suggesting is the possibility to close the facility, AS a detention camp and convert it to perhaps an renewable energy station, or some kind of factory. Which in turn, would create a wide span of advantages for the US and Cuba.

Link to burden on Cuba? Apparently they're not cashing our lease payment checks though; don't want to be seen validating the lease agreement. I don't think you'll find much UN support on this particular site but if you've got some specifics we'd love to see it.

Having said that, Guantanamo Bay would have almost zero impact on what you're trying to argue IMO. Renewable energy is expensive here and it's not magically going to be cheaper there and opening some kind of factory on the, surprisingly, small bit of ground that we actually control again is unlikely to create any large change; look at the Mexican Maquiladoras for comparison.