Datasets:

dgonier

/

Yusuf-OpenCaselist-finetuning

like 0

Multiple signals for short and long term economic growth in the U.S.

] /Wyo-MB focusing on longer-term picture of the United States economy.¶ The recent surge in domestic oil and gas production signals “the start of a new era of cheap energy,” while less expensive online education programs could open the door to millions of people who have been priced out of more traditional academics slower growth in the cost of health care will be a boon for the government and businesses Baily a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman has recently become more hopeful about the short-term as well.

[Nelson, has covered the economy and economics for the business section of The New York Times since August 2012, Even Pessimists Feel Optimistic About the American Economy, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/economy/even-pessimists-feel-optimistic-over-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] /Wyo-MB Mr. Cowen, who is also an occasional contributor to the Sunday Business section of The New York Times, is more skeptical about a short-term takeoff, focusing instead on what he sees as a brightening, longer-term picture of the United States economy.¶ The recent surge in domestic oil and gas production signals “the start of a new era of cheap energy,” he said, while less expensive online education programs could open the door to millions of people who have been priced out of more traditional academics.¶ At the same time, Mr. Cowen said, he now expects subtler improvements in the country’s economic well-being that will not necessarily be reflected in statistics like gross domestic product, but will be significant nonetheless.¶ For example, slower growth in the cost of health care will be a boon for the government and businesses, but will actually subtract from reported economic activity. “It’s like the music industry,” he said. “Revenues are lower at record companies but the experience for listeners is better.”¶ Martin Neil Baily, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, said he has always been skeptical of Professor Gordon’s long-term view but has recently become more hopeful about the short-term as well.

<h4><strong>Multiple signals for short and long term economic growth in the U.S.</h4><p>Schwartz, 6-15-13</p><p></strong>[Nelson, has covered the economy and economics for the business section of The New York Times since August 2012, Even Pessimists Feel Optimistic About the American Economy, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/economy/even-pessimists-feel-optimistic-over-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Mr. Cowen, who is also an occasional contributor to the Sunday Business section of The New York Times, is more skeptical about a short-term takeoff, <u><strong>focusing</u></strong> instead <u><strong>on</u></strong> what he sees as a brightening, <u><strong>longer-term picture of the United States economy.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>The recent surge in domestic oil and gas production signals “the start of a new era of cheap energy,”</u></strong> he said, <u><strong>while less expensive online education programs could open the door to millions of people who have been priced out of more traditional academics</u></strong>.¶ At the same time, Mr. Cowen said, he now expects subtler improvements in the country’s economic well-being that will not necessarily be reflected in statistics like gross domestic product, but will be significant nonetheless.¶ For example, <u><strong>slower growth in the cost of health care will be a boon for the government and businesses</u></strong>, but will actually subtract from reported economic activity. “It’s like the music industry,” he said. “Revenues are lower at record companies but the experience for listeners is better.”¶ Martin Neil <u><strong>Baily</u></strong>, <u><strong>a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman</u></strong> of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, said he has always been skeptical of Professor Gordon’s long-term view but <u><strong>has recently become more hopeful about the short-term as well.</p></u></strong>

Schwartz, 6-15-13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Schwartz, 6-15-13 fulltext: [Nelson, has covered the economy and economics for the business section of The New York Times since August 2012, Even Pessimists Feel Optimistic About the American Economy, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/economy/even-pessimists-feel-optimistic-over-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] /Wyo-MB Mr. Cowen, who is also an occasional contributor to the Sunday Business section of The New York Times, is more skeptical about a short-term takeoff, focusing instead on what he sees as a brightening, longer-term picture of the United States economy.¶ The recent surge in domestic oil and gas production signals “the start of a new era of cheap energy,” he said, while less expensive online education programs could open the door to millions of people who have been priced out of more traditional academics.¶ At the same time, Mr. Cowen said, he now expects subtler improvements in the country’s economic well-being that will not necessarily be reflected in statistics like gross domestic product, but will be significant nonetheless.¶ For example, slower growth in the cost of health care will be a boon for the government and businesses, but will actually subtract from reported economic activity. “It’s like the music industry,” he said. “Revenues are lower at record companies but the experience for listeners is better.”¶ Martin Neil Baily, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, said he has always been skeptical of Professor Gordon’s long-term view but has recently become more hopeful about the short-term as well. [/INST] <h4><strong>Multiple signals for short and long term economic growth in the U.S.</h4><p>Schwartz, 6-15-13</p><p></strong>[Nelson, has covered the economy and economics for the business section of The New York Times since August 2012, Even Pessimists Feel Optimistic About the American Economy, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/economy/even-pessimists-feel-optimistic-over-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>Mr. Cowen, who is also an occasional contributor to the Sunday Business section of The New York Times, is more skeptical about a short-term takeoff, <u><strong>focusing</u></strong> instead <u><strong>on</u></strong> what he sees as a brightening, <u><strong>longer-term picture of the United States economy.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>The recent surge in domestic oil and gas production signals “the start of a new era of cheap energy,”</u></strong> he said, <u><strong>while less expensive online education programs could open the door to millions of people who have been priced out of more traditional academics</u></strong>.¶ At the same time, Mr. Cowen said, he now expects subtler improvements in the country’s economic well-being that will not necessarily be reflected in statistics like gross domestic product, but will be significant nonetheless.¶ For example, <u><strong>slower growth in the cost of health care will be a boon for the government and businesses</u></strong>, but will actually subtract from reported economic activity. “It’s like the music industry,” he said. “Revenues are lower at record companies but the experience for listeners is better.”¶ Martin Neil <u><strong>Baily</u></strong>, <u><strong>a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chairman</u></strong> of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, said he has always been skeptical of Professor Gordon’s long-term view but <u><strong>has recently become more hopeful about the short-term as well.</p></u></strong> </s>

Yes CIR – senate deal will make it through the house: new deal, bipart, momentum

A bipartisan group of senators is scrambling to reach a fresh compromise propel a proposal to overhaul U.S. immigration policy toward passage in that chamber and provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House

bipartisan senators compromise to overhaul immigration provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House

[Politics for CNN. “Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration” CNN News, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV] A bipartisan group of senators is scrambling to reach a fresh compromise they hope can propel a proposal to overhaul U.S. immigration policy toward passage in that chamber and provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House.

<h4>Yes CIR – senate deal will make it through the house: new deal, bipart, momentum </h4><p>Barrett and Walsh 6-18</p><p>[Politics for CNN. “Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration” CNN News, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]</p><p><u><strong>A <mark>bipartisan</mark> group of <mark>senators</mark> is scrambling to reach a fresh <mark>compromise</u></strong></mark> they hope can <u><strong>propel a proposal <mark>to overhaul</mark> U.S. <mark>immigration</mark> policy toward passage in that chamber and <mark>provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House</u></strong></mark>.</p>

Barrett and Walsh 6-18

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Barrett and Walsh 6-18 fulltext: [Politics for CNN. “Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration” CNN News, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV] A bipartisan group of senators is scrambling to reach a fresh compromise they hope can propel a proposal to overhaul U.S. immigration policy toward passage in that chamber and provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House. [/INST] <h4>Yes CIR – senate deal will make it through the house: new deal, bipart, momentum </h4><p>Barrett and Walsh 6-18</p><p>[Politics for CNN. “Senate negotiators seek new compromise on immigration” CNN News, 6/18/13 ln//GBS-JV]</p><p><u><strong>A <mark>bipartisan</mark> group of <mark>senators</mark> is scrambling to reach a fresh <mark>compromise</u></strong></mark> they hope can <u><strong>propel a proposal <mark>to overhaul</mark> U.S. <mark>immigration</mark> policy toward passage in that chamber and <mark>provide momentum heading into the Republican-controlled House</u></strong></mark>.</p> </s>

First uniqueness- US-Cuba ties down now and Chinese influence is expanding

US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard the continent has arguably never been so united and independent US attention to Latin America has waned in recent Latin American leaders urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US

(Shlomo, former Israeli foreign minister and internal security minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?,” June 5, 2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami) /wyo-mm MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well. It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.

<h4><strong>First uniqueness- US-Cuba ties down now and Chinese influence is expanding</h4><p>Ben-Ami 13</p><p></strong>(Shlomo, former Israeli foreign minister and internal security minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?,” June 5, 2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami) /wyo-mm</p><p>MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: <u><strong>US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard</u></strong>”; on the contrary, <u><strong>the continent has arguably never been so united and independent</u></strong>. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well. It is true that <u><strong>US attention to Latin America has waned in recent</u></strong> years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, <u><strong>Latin American leaders </u></strong>felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They <u><strong>urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent</u></strong>, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that <u><strong>Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway.</u></strong> <u><strong>China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US</u></strong>. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.</p>

Ben-Ami 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ben-Ami 13 fulltext: (Shlomo, former Israeli foreign minister and internal security minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?,” June 5, 2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami) /wyo-mm MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard”; on the contrary, the continent has arguably never been so united and independent. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well. It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela. [/INST] <h4><strong>First uniqueness- US-Cuba ties down now and Chinese influence is expanding</h4><p>Ben-Ami 13</p><p></strong>(Shlomo, former Israeli foreign minister and internal security minister, is Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, Project Syndicate, “Is the US Losing Latin America?,” June 5, 2013, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami) /wyo-mm</p><p>MADRID – It is a mantra increasingly heard around the world: <u><strong>US power is in decline. And nowhere does this seem truer than in Latin America. No longer is the region regarded as America’s “backyard</u></strong>”; on the contrary, <u><strong>the continent has arguably never been so united and independent</u></strong>. But this view fails to capture the true nature of US influence in Latin America – and elsewhere as well. It is true that <u><strong>US attention to Latin America has waned in recent</u></strong> years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, <u><strong>Latin American leaders </u></strong>felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They <u><strong>urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent</u></strong>, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that <u><strong>Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway.</u></strong> <u><strong>China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US</u></strong>. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela.</p> </s>

[E.] Democracy promotion solves terrorism

The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs for individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism

[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration officials signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries are encouraging. The Administration should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs that account for the particular circumstances of individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would not only adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others, but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism.

<h4>[E.] <strong>Democracy promotion solves terrorism</h4><p>Curtis, 2011</p><p></strong>[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda.</u></strong> <u><strong>This is particularly important in Muslim countries</u></strong> <u><strong>where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ </u></strong>Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration officials <u><strong>signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries</u></strong> are encouraging. The Administration <u><strong>should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs</u></strong> that account <u><strong>for</u></strong> the particular circumstances of <u><strong>individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would</u></strong> not only <u><strong>adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others</u></strong>, <u><strong>but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism</u></strong>.</p>

Curtis, 2011

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Curtis, 2011 fulltext: [Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda. This is particularly important in Muslim countries where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration officials signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries are encouraging. The Administration should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs that account for the particular circumstances of individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would not only adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others, but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism. [/INST] <h4>[E.] <strong>Democracy promotion solves terrorism</h4><p>Curtis, 2011</p><p></strong>[Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, Championing Liberty Abroad to Counter Islamist Extremism, 2-9-11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/championing-liberty-abroad-to-counter-islamist-extremism] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The Obama Administration needs to prioritize the promotion of democracy and individual freedom as part of its foreign policy agenda.</u></strong> <u><strong>This is particularly important in Muslim countries</u></strong> <u><strong>where repression and intolerance can foster development of extremist movements that feed global terrorism.¶ </u></strong>Recent statements from President Obama and other senior Administration officials <u><strong>signaling strong support for democratic development in other countries</u></strong> are encouraging. The Administration <u><strong>should continue to demonstrate its commitment to nurturing democratic development both through public statements and through aid programs</u></strong> that account <u><strong>for</u></strong> the particular circumstances of <u><strong>individual countries. In doing so, the U.S. would</u></strong> not only <u><strong>adhere to its founding principles and help to secure freedom for others</u></strong>, <u><strong>but also protect its national security by uprooting support for extremist ideologies that lead to global terrorism</u></strong>.</p> </s>

Competitiveness is key to prevent all major war impacts

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy there is much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.

a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers the US must urgently act to restart its economy But we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, leaders in the North Korean capital have grown increasingly boisterous about their claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. , there is much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy. So far, there is little evidence to suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.

<h4>Competitiveness is key to prevent all major war impacts</h4><p><strong>Green ‘09</strong> [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]</p><p><u>Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts</u> at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency <u>are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year</u>. For the most part, <u>the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe</u>. However, <u>the Great Depression taught us that <mark>a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers</mark>. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict</u>. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. <u>There is no question <mark>the US must urgently act to</mark> address banking issues and to <mark>restart its economy</mark>. <mark>But</mark> the lessons of the past suggest that <mark>we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed </mark>early in the</u> Barack <u>Obama administration and realize that <mark>economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face</u>. A</mark> disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. <u>The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy</u>, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states <u>It is noteworthy that <mark>North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis,</mark> which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, <mark>leaders in the North Korean capital</mark> of Pyongyang <mark>have grown increasingly boisterous about their</mark> country's <mark>claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state</u>.</mark> The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. <u>It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy</u>. So far<mark>, <u>there is</u></mark> little evidence to suggest either and <u><mark>much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.</u></mark> </p>

Green ‘09 [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Green ‘09 [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09] fulltext: Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy. So far, there is little evidence to suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system. [/INST] <h4>Competitiveness is key to prevent all major war impacts</h4><p><strong>Green ‘09</strong> [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]</p><p><u>Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts</u> at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence Agency <u>are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year</u>. For the most part, <u>the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe</u>. However, <u>the Great Depression taught us that <mark>a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers</mark>. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict</u>. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. <u>There is no question <mark>the US must urgently act to</mark> address banking issues and to <mark>restart its economy</mark>. <mark>But</mark> the lessons of the past suggest that <mark>we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed </mark>early in the</u> Barack <u>Obama administration and realize that <mark>economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face</u>. A</mark> disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. <u>The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy</u>, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states <u>It is noteworthy that <mark>North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis,</mark> which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, <mark>leaders in the North Korean capital</mark> of Pyongyang <mark>have grown increasingly boisterous about their</mark> country's <mark>claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state</u>.</mark> The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. <u>It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy</u>. So far<mark>, <u>there is</u></mark> little evidence to suggest either and <u><mark>much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.</u></mark> </p> </s>

-----No impact---mitigation and adaptation will solve---no tipping point or “1% risk” args

The debate about climate change give the impression that human-induced climate change is an immediate threat to society These statements are alarmist and misleading society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences science and economics is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences severe impacts require a century (or two of no mitigation predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks

debate give the impression that climate change is an immediate threat to society These statements are alarmist and misleading immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences science and economics is clear that emissions over the next decades will lead to mild consequences severe impacts require a century of no mitigation predicted impacts assume there will be no adaptation many of these ” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not apparent that immediate policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks

The heart of the debate about climate change comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that give the impression that human-induced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006). These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.

<h4>-----No impact---mitigation and adaptation will solve---no tipping point or “1% risk” args </h4><p>Robert O. <strong>Mendelsohn 9</strong>, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf</p><p><u>The</u> heart of the <u><mark>debate</mark> about climate change</u> comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that <u><mark>give the impression that</mark> human-induced <mark>climate change is an immediate threat to society</u></mark> (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006). <u><mark>These statements are</u></mark> largely <u><strong><mark>alarmist and misleading</u></strong></mark>. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, <u>society’s <mark>immediate behavior has an</u> <u><strong>extremely low probability</u></strong> <u>of leading to</u> <u><strong>catastrophic consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><mark>science and economics</u></mark> of climate change <u><mark>is</mark> quite <mark>clear that emissions over the next</mark> few <mark>decades will lead to</mark> only</u> <u><strong><mark>mild consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><strong><mark>severe impacts</u></strong></mark> predicted by alarmists <u><strong><mark>require a century</mark> (or two</u></strong> in the case of Stern 2006) <u><strong><mark>of no mitigation</u></strong></mark>. Many of the <u><mark>predicted impacts assume there will be no</mark> or little <mark>adaptation</u></mark>. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of <u>the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and <mark>many of these</u></mark> “<u>potential<mark>” impacts</u> <u><strong>will never occur because people will adapt</u></strong>. <u>It is not</mark> at all <mark>apparent that immediate</mark> and dramatic <mark>policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks</u></mark>. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.</p>

Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf fulltext: The heart of the debate about climate change comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that give the impression that human-induced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006). These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses. [/INST] <h4>-----No impact---mitigation and adaptation will solve---no tipping point or “1% risk” args </h4><p>Robert O. <strong>Mendelsohn 9</strong>, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf</p><p><u>The</u> heart of the <u><mark>debate</mark> about climate change</u> comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that <u><mark>give the impression that</mark> human-induced <mark>climate change is an immediate threat to society</u></mark> (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006). <u><mark>These statements are</u></mark> largely <u><strong><mark>alarmist and misleading</u></strong></mark>. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, <u>society’s <mark>immediate behavior has an</u> <u><strong>extremely low probability</u></strong> <u>of leading to</u> <u><strong>catastrophic consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><mark>science and economics</u></mark> of climate change <u><mark>is</mark> quite <mark>clear that emissions over the next</mark> few <mark>decades will lead to</mark> only</u> <u><strong><mark>mild consequences</u></strong></mark>. The <u><strong><mark>severe impacts</u></strong></mark> predicted by alarmists <u><strong><mark>require a century</mark> (or two</u></strong> in the case of Stern 2006) <u><strong><mark>of no mitigation</u></strong></mark>. Many of the <u><mark>predicted impacts assume there will be no</mark> or little <mark>adaptation</u></mark>. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of <u>the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and <mark>many of these</u></mark> “<u>potential<mark>” impacts</u> <u><strong>will never occur because people will adapt</u></strong>. <u>It is not</mark> at all <mark>apparent that immediate</mark> and dramatic <mark>policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range climate risks</u></mark>. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.</p> </s>

History proves economic decline doesn’t cause war

(Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct) Nor can economic crises explain bloodshed the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to fascism and World War II. But Nazi Germany started the war only after its economy recovered. Not all countries affected by the Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Nazi Germany started the war only after its economy recovered. no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

(Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct) Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

<h4><strong>History proves economic decline doesn’t cause war</h4><p>Ferguson 6 </p><p><u>(Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)</p><p>Nor can economic crises explain</u></strong> the <u><strong>bloodshed</u></strong>. What may be <u><strong>the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to</u></strong> the rise of <u><strong>fascism and</u></strong> the outbreak of <u><strong>World War II. But</u></strong> that simple story leaves too much out. <u><strong><mark>Nazi Germany started the war</u></strong></mark> in Europe <u><strong><mark>only after its economy</u></strong></mark> had <u><strong><mark>recovered.</mark> Not all</u></strong> the <u><strong>countries affected by the</u></strong> Great <u><strong>Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars</u></strong> of aggression. In fact, <u><strong><mark>no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible</u></strong></mark> for the century as a whole. <u><strong>Some <mark>wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.</p></u></strong></mark>

Ferguson 6

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ferguson 6 fulltext: (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct) Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars. [/INST] <h4><strong>History proves economic decline doesn’t cause war</h4><p>Ferguson 6 </p><p><u>(Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)</p><p>Nor can economic crises explain</u></strong> the <u><strong>bloodshed</u></strong>. What may be <u><strong>the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to</u></strong> the rise of <u><strong>fascism and</u></strong> the outbreak of <u><strong>World War II. But</u></strong> that simple story leaves too much out. <u><strong><mark>Nazi Germany started the war</u></strong></mark> in Europe <u><strong><mark>only after its economy</u></strong></mark> had <u><strong><mark>recovered.</mark> Not all</u></strong> the <u><strong>countries affected by the</u></strong> Great <u><strong>Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars</u></strong> of aggression. In fact, <u><strong><mark>no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible</u></strong></mark> for the century as a whole. <u><strong>Some <mark>wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

Yes CIR – Obama strategy generates momentum for House passage

This push is strategic, Obama wants to pass immigration reform, and the House is the biggest stumbling block . The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans The president and senior staff at the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans to build a common sense caucus that works to reform our broken immigration system These meetings But it’s a noticeable shift. the White House must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s only action The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans The White House also recently reached out to top Republican senators

Obama wants to pass immigration reform the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans to build a common sense caucus that works to reform immigration it’s a noticeable shift

This push is strategic, of course. Obama wants to pass immigration reform, and — for the moment — the House is the biggest stumbling block between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law. The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans who just might support Obama’s initiatives.¶ “The president and senior staff at the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans on a variety of issues in an effort to build what the President has called a common sense caucus that works to find common ground on priorities like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and reforming our broken immigration system,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO.¶ Of course, this hasn’t yet brought the president and Republicans closer on policy. These meetings and phone calls haven’t resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. But it’s a noticeable shift.¶ When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, the White House recognizes that it must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, according to sources involved.¶ This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s only action on the Hill. The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. The White House also recently reached out to top Republican senators about a deficit deal.

<h4>Yes CIR – Obama strategy generates momentum for House passage</h4><p>Jake <strong>Sherman and</strong> Anna <strong>Palmer</strong>, Politics for Politico. “White House dials up efforts with House Republicans” Politico, 6/13/<strong>13</p><p><u>This push is strategic, </u></strong>of course. <u><strong><mark>Obama wants to pass immigration reform</mark>, and</u></strong> — for the moment — <u><strong>the House is the biggest stumbling block </u></strong>between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law<u><strong>. The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans</u></strong> who just might support Obama’s initiatives.¶ “<u><strong>The president and senior staff at <mark>the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans</u></strong></mark> on a variety of issues in an effort <u><strong><mark>to build</u></strong></mark> what the President has called<u><strong> <mark>a</u></strong> <u><strong>common sense caucus</u></strong> <u><strong>that works to</u></strong></mark> find common ground on priorities like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and <u><strong><mark>reform</u></strong></mark>ing <u><strong>our broken <mark>immigration</mark> system</u></strong>,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO.¶ Of course, this hasn’t yet brought the president and Republicans closer on policy. <u><strong>These meetings</u></strong> and phone calls haven’t resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. <u><strong>But <mark>it’s a noticeable shift</mark>.</u></strong>¶ When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, <u><strong>the White House</u></strong> recognizes that it <u><strong>must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, </u></strong>according to sources involved.¶ <u><strong>This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s only action</u></strong> on the Hill. <u><strong>The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans</u></strong>, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. <u><strong>The White House also recently reached out to top Republican senators</u></strong> about a deficit deal.</p>

Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, Politics for Politico. “White House dials up efforts with House Republicans” Politico, 6/13/13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, Politics for Politico. “White House dials up efforts with House Republicans” Politico, 6/13/13 fulltext: This push is strategic, of course. Obama wants to pass immigration reform, and — for the moment — the House is the biggest stumbling block between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law. The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans who just might support Obama’s initiatives.¶ “The president and senior staff at the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans on a variety of issues in an effort to build what the President has called a common sense caucus that works to find common ground on priorities like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and reforming our broken immigration system,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO.¶ Of course, this hasn’t yet brought the president and Republicans closer on policy. These meetings and phone calls haven’t resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. But it’s a noticeable shift.¶ When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, the White House recognizes that it must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, according to sources involved.¶ This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s only action on the Hill. The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. The White House also recently reached out to top Republican senators about a deficit deal. [/INST] <h4>Yes CIR – Obama strategy generates momentum for House passage</h4><p>Jake <strong>Sherman and</strong> Anna <strong>Palmer</strong>, Politics for Politico. “White House dials up efforts with House Republicans” Politico, 6/13/<strong>13</p><p><u>This push is strategic, </u></strong>of course. <u><strong><mark>Obama wants to pass immigration reform</mark>, and</u></strong> — for the moment — <u><strong>the House is the biggest stumbling block </u></strong>between Capitol Hill and a bill being signed into law<u><strong>. The White House wants to gather a gaggle of Republicans</u></strong> who just might support Obama’s initiatives.¶ “<u><strong>The president and senior staff at <mark>the White House have routinely engaged House Republicans</u></strong></mark> on a variety of issues in an effort <u><strong><mark>to build</u></strong></mark> what the President has called<u><strong> <mark>a</u></strong> <u><strong>common sense caucus</u></strong> <u><strong>that works to</u></strong></mark> find common ground on priorities like strengthening the economy, reducing the deficit in a responsible way and <u><strong><mark>reform</u></strong></mark>ing <u><strong>our broken <mark>immigration</mark> system</u></strong>,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest wrote in an email to POLITICO.¶ Of course, this hasn’t yet brought the president and Republicans closer on policy. <u><strong>These meetings</u></strong> and phone calls haven’t resulted in legislative agreements on gun control, deficit reduction, tax reform or an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. <u><strong>But <mark>it’s a noticeable shift</mark>.</u></strong>¶ When Obama wanted to blunt the sequester or enact new gun laws, he fanned out across the country, looking to build pressure on lawmakers by rallying their constituents. It was widely perceived as a failure. Now, <u><strong>the White House</u></strong> recognizes that it <u><strong>must have a real relationship with lawmakers before asking them to support something, </u></strong>according to sources involved.¶ <u><strong>This quiet outreach isn’t Obama’s only action</u></strong> on the Hill. <u><strong>The administration has put a full-court press on Senate Republicans</u></strong>, dining with them and bringing them onto the golf course. <u><strong>The White House also recently reached out to top Republican senators</u></strong> about a deficit deal.</p> </s>

[F.] Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terror

As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, terrorism

("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5, http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html) As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, Al Qaeda, and its weapon, terrorism. That is who we are at war with, not Cuba. ns in Havana.

<h4>[F.] <strong>Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terror</h4><p>US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10 </p><p></strong>("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5, http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html)</p><p><u><strong>As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, </u></strong>Al Qaeda, and its weapon, <u><strong>terrorism</u></strong>. That is who we are at war with, not Cuba. </p><p>ns in Havana.</p>

US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10 fulltext: ("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5, http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html) As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, Al Qaeda, and its weapon, terrorism. That is who we are at war with, not Cuba. ns in Havana. [/INST] <h4>[F.] <strong>Relations with Cuba is key to winning the war on terror</h4><p>US-Cuba Policy and Business Blog 10 </p><p></strong>("United States Cuba Relations - Terror Designation," January 5, http://uscuba.blogspot.com/2010/01/unitedstates-cuba-relations-terrorist.html)</p><p><u><strong>As long as we have poor relations with Cuba, we are effectively opening the door to our adversaries. It is in the strategic interests of our country to have normal relations with Cuba. As long as we deprive Cuba of socioeconomic engagement, Cuba will seek it elsewhere. Why do you think our adversaries are gaining a foothold on our doorstep in the Western hemisphere? That Cuba has a government we do not agree with or like how it treats its own citizens, our embargo and preventing U.S. citizens from freely visiting Cuba has not accomplished anything to change our island neighbor. Keeping Cuba on this list is simply an obstacle and not any real protection from our true enemy, </u></strong>Al Qaeda, and its weapon, <u><strong>terrorism</u></strong>. That is who we are at war with, not Cuba. </p><p>ns in Havana.</p> </s>

Second, link- US engagement in Cuba undermines Chinese influence and crowds them out-

Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region bilateral trade increased to $1.83 billion in 2010 it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba

(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm) Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan. Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba.

<h4><strong>Second, link- US engagement in Cuba undermines Chinese influence and crowds them out-</h4><p>Luko 11</p><p></strong>(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region</u></strong>, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, <u><strong>bilateral trade increased</u></strong> from $440 million in 2001 <u><strong>to $1.83 billion in 2010</u></strong>. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, <u><strong>it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan</u></strong>. <u><strong>Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources</u></strong>. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] <u><strong>The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba</u></strong>.</p>

Luko 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Luko 11 fulltext: (James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm) Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan. Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba. [/INST] <h4><strong>Second, link- US engagement in Cuba undermines Chinese influence and crowds them out-</h4><p>Luko 11</p><p></strong>(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region</u></strong>, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, <u><strong>bilateral trade increased</u></strong> from $440 million in 2001 <u><strong>to $1.83 billion in 2010</u></strong>. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, <u><strong>it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan</u></strong>. <u><strong>Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources</u></strong>. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] <u><strong>The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba</u></strong>.</p> </s>

[insert non-unique e.g.]

<h4>[insert non-unique e.g.] </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>[insert non-unique e.g.] </h4> </s>

The plan solves poverty

Venezuela has been at the center of appropriating and distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have inefficient administrative capabilities this program expanded to bring more advanced health services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7 Education missions included pre-school literacy Other examples included programs for peasant welfare and food distribution missions central aim was defined as eradicating poverty These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy and schooling, improved health indicators

Venezuela has been at the center of appropriating and ¶ distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for ¶ inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in ¶ order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have ¶ inefficient administrative capabilities this program expanded to bring more advanced health ¶ services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7¶ Education ¶ missions included pre-school literacy Other examples included programs for peasant ¶ welfare and food distribution missions central aim was defined as ¶ eradicating poverty These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy ¶ and schooling, improved health indicators

Given the dominant role of the oil production in the economy, it is not ¶ surprising to see that the first large-scale changes took place in this area. The fact ¶ that in Venezuela the state has historically been at the center of appropriating and ¶ distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for ¶ inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions (Grinberg 2010). ¶ While domestically increasing state control over oil industry, internationally the ¶ government set itself out to strengthen OPEC in an effort to increase oil prices. ¶ Increased OPEC coordination and adhering to the production quotas, that were ¶ previously not followed by the PDVSA in an attempt to target market share rather ¶ than price, contributed to the increase in the price of oil (Lander 2008: 13). ¶ In 2001, oil royalties were increased from 16.6 percent to 30 percent. This was a ¶ significant increase given that most foreign oil companies had previously negotiated ¶ rates much lower than the 16.6 percent. Especially following the failed April 2002 ¶ coup and the 2002-2003 shutdown of the oil industry, PDVSA continuously ¶ increased its control in the oil sector. In 2005 private companies with operating ¶ agreements with the PDVSA were transformed into joint ventures, where the ¶ PDVSA would have a majority stake, with the exception of Exxon Mobile who ¶ refused to participate in this transformation and whose fields were as a result entirely ¶ taken over by the PDVSA (Wilpert 2007: 96). In 2007, the Orinoco Belt joint ¶ ventures were turned into PDVSA controlled projects and in May 2009, PDVSA ¶ further integrated subcontracting companies into its body in an effort to strengthen ¶ state control in the oil industry.¶ Increased control over the oil industry resulted in a greater share of the oil ¶ wealth flowing into the coffers of the PDVSA. The new hydrocarbons law aimed to ¶ use the income derived from oil to fund social projects in health and education and ¶ to allocate part of the income to a macroeconomic stabilization fund. The ¶ redistribution of this wealth to the poorest sections of the society was a priority for ¶ the Venezuelan government, given the widespread poverty and immense ¶ inequalities. This redistribution took the form of various extensive social programs, ¶ called missions, in health, education, provision of basic consumption goods and so [7] ¶ on. These social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in ¶ order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have ¶ inefficient administrative capabilities which could not be reformed quickly whereas it ¶ deemed these social programs urgent. ¶ By 2009, there were 25 different missions operating, among which health, ¶ education and food missions occupied a large place. Mision Barrio Adentro, which ¶ began in April 2003, brought 20,000 Cuban doctors to around 1,600 medical offices ¶ scattered around in poor neighborhoods to make essential health services accessible ¶ to everyone. Over time, this program expanded to bring more advanced health ¶ services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7¶ Education ¶ missions included pre-school (Mision Simoncito), literacy (Mision Robinson 1), primary ¶ education (Mision Robinson 2), secondary education (Mision Ribas), higher education ¶ (Mision Sucre), and vocational training and job creation programs (Mision Vuelvan ¶ Caras). Other examples of these social programs included programs for peasant ¶ welfare (Mision Zamora), mining communities (Mision Piar), indigenous populations ¶ (Mision Guacaipuro), and food distribution (Mision Mercal). Mercal, one of the most ¶ ambitious of these programs, is a state-run food distribution network. It is estimated ¶ that 40-47 percent of the population buy food through it at prices that are on ¶ average 41-44 percent lower than market prices (Datanilisis 2006). According to the ¶ National Statistics Institute’s numbers, households that buy at least one item from ¶ Mercal constituted 54.21 percent of total households. A large number of programs ¶ were also run to provide infrastructure services such as water distribution, ¶ electrification, transportation, housing and so on. The combination of all these ¶ missions was to become the ‘Christ’ mission whose central aim was defined as ¶ eradicating poverty by 2012.8¶ These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy ¶ and schooling, improved health indicators and so on. In addition to these, oil ¶ revenues have been used in many different areas, including supporting industrial ¶ initiatives, sponsoring the formation of cooperatives and financing the ¶ nationalizations. Part of the oil rent was distributed to other countries in various forms, including donations, lending and selling of oil with advantageous financing ¶ terms. For example, through PetroCaribe, a 14-country energy agreement launched ¶ in 2005, “Venezuela provides $9.7 billion worth of oil to member-states, of which ¶ $3.7 billion is financed over 25 years at 1% interest. This guarantees supply for ¶ countries with small economies” (PDVSA 2010).9

<h4>The plan solves poverty</h4><p><strong>Orhangazi ‘11</strong> [Özgür, Assistant Professor of Economics at the Roosevelt University Chicago, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Contours of Alternative Policy Making in Venezuela,” November 2011, Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP275.pdf]</p><p>Given the dominant role of the oil production in the economy, it is not ¶ surprising to see that the first large-scale changes took place in this area. The fact ¶ that in <u><mark>Venezuela</u> </mark>the state <u><mark>has</u> </mark>historically <u><mark>been at the center of appropriating and </u>¶<u> distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for </u>¶<u> inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions</u> </mark>(Grinberg 2010). ¶ While domestically increasing state control over oil industry, internationally the ¶ government set itself out to strengthen OPEC in an effort to increase oil prices. ¶ Increased OPEC coordination and adhering to the production quotas, that were ¶ previously not followed by the PDVSA in an attempt to target market share rather ¶ than price, contributed to the increase in the price of oil (Lander 2008: 13). ¶ In 2001, oil royalties were increased from 16.6 percent to 30 percent. This was a ¶ significant increase given that most foreign oil companies had previously negotiated ¶ rates much lower than the 16.6 percent. Especially following the failed April 2002 ¶ coup and the 2002-2003 shutdown of the oil industry, PDVSA continuously ¶ increased its control in the oil sector. In 2005 private companies with operating ¶ agreements with the PDVSA were transformed into joint ventures, where the ¶ PDVSA would have a majority stake, with the exception of Exxon Mobile who ¶ refused to participate in this transformation and whose fields were as a result entirely ¶ taken over by the PDVSA (Wilpert 2007: 96). In 2007, the Orinoco Belt joint ¶ ventures were turned into PDVSA controlled projects and in May 2009, PDVSA ¶ further integrated subcontracting companies into its body in an effort to strengthen ¶ state control in the oil industry.¶ Increased control over the oil industry resulted in a greater share of the oil ¶ wealth flowing into the coffers of the PDVSA. The new hydrocarbons law aimed to ¶ use the income derived from oil to fund social projects in health and education and ¶ to allocate part of the income to a macroeconomic stabilization fund. The ¶ redistribution of this wealth to the poorest sections of the society was a priority for ¶ the Venezuelan government, given the widespread poverty and immense ¶ inequalities. This redistribution took the form of various extensive social programs, ¶ called missions, in health, education, provision of basic consumption goods and so [7] ¶ on. These<u> <mark>social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in </u>¶<u> order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have </u>¶<u> inefficient administrative capabilities</u></mark> which could not be reformed quickly whereas it ¶ deemed these social programs urgent. ¶ By 2009, there were 25 different missions operating, among which health, ¶ education and food missions occupied a large place. Mision Barrio Adentro, which ¶ began in April 2003, brought 20,000 Cuban doctors to around 1,600 medical offices ¶ scattered around in poor neighborhoods to make essential health services accessible ¶ to everyone. Over time, <u><mark>this program expanded to bring more advanced health </u>¶<u> services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7</u>¶<u> Education </u>¶<u> missions included pre-school</u> </mark>(Mision Simoncito), <u><mark>literacy</u> </mark>(Mision Robinson 1), primary ¶ education (Mision Robinson 2), secondary education (Mision Ribas), higher education ¶ (Mision Sucre), and vocational training and job creation programs (Mision Vuelvan ¶ Caras). <u><mark>Other examples</u></mark> of these social programs <u><mark>included programs for peasant </u>¶<u> welfare</u> </mark>(Mision Zamora), mining communities (Mision Piar), indigenous populations ¶ (Mision Guacaipuro), <u><mark>and food distribution</u> </mark>(Mision Mercal). Mercal, one of the most ¶ ambitious of these programs, is a state-run food distribution network. It is estimated ¶ that 40-47 percent of the population buy food through it at prices that are on ¶ average 41-44 percent lower than market prices (Datanilisis 2006). According to the ¶ National Statistics Institute’s numbers, households that buy at least one item from ¶ Mercal constituted 54.21 percent of total households. A large number of programs ¶ were also run to provide infrastructure services such as water distribution, ¶ electrification, transportation, housing and so on. The combination of all these ¶ <u><mark>missions</u> </mark>was to become the ‘Christ’ mission whose <u><mark>central aim was defined as </u>¶<u> eradicating poverty</u></mark> by 2012.8¶ <u><mark>These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy </u>¶<u> and schooling, improved health indicators</u></mark> and so on. In addition to these, oil ¶ revenues have been used in many different areas, including supporting industrial ¶ initiatives, sponsoring the formation of cooperatives and financing the ¶ nationalizations. Part of the oil rent was distributed to other countries in various forms, including donations, lending and selling of oil with advantageous financing ¶ terms. For example, through PetroCaribe, a 14-country energy agreement launched ¶ in 2005, “Venezuela provides $9.7 billion worth of oil to member-states, of which ¶ $3.7 billion is financed over 25 years at 1% interest. This guarantees supply for ¶ countries with small economies” (PDVSA 2010).9</p>

Orhangazi ‘11 [Özgür, Assistant Professor of Economics at the Roosevelt University Chicago, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Contours of Alternative Policy Making in Venezuela,” November 2011, Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP275.pdf]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Orhangazi ‘11 [Özgür, Assistant Professor of Economics at the Roosevelt University Chicago, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Contours of Alternative Policy Making in Venezuela,” November 2011, Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP275.pdf] fulltext: Given the dominant role of the oil production in the economy, it is not ¶ surprising to see that the first large-scale changes took place in this area. The fact ¶ that in Venezuela the state has historically been at the center of appropriating and ¶ distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for ¶ inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions (Grinberg 2010). ¶ While domestically increasing state control over oil industry, internationally the ¶ government set itself out to strengthen OPEC in an effort to increase oil prices. ¶ Increased OPEC coordination and adhering to the production quotas, that were ¶ previously not followed by the PDVSA in an attempt to target market share rather ¶ than price, contributed to the increase in the price of oil (Lander 2008: 13). ¶ In 2001, oil royalties were increased from 16.6 percent to 30 percent. This was a ¶ significant increase given that most foreign oil companies had previously negotiated ¶ rates much lower than the 16.6 percent. Especially following the failed April 2002 ¶ coup and the 2002-2003 shutdown of the oil industry, PDVSA continuously ¶ increased its control in the oil sector. In 2005 private companies with operating ¶ agreements with the PDVSA were transformed into joint ventures, where the ¶ PDVSA would have a majority stake, with the exception of Exxon Mobile who ¶ refused to participate in this transformation and whose fields were as a result entirely ¶ taken over by the PDVSA (Wilpert 2007: 96). In 2007, the Orinoco Belt joint ¶ ventures were turned into PDVSA controlled projects and in May 2009, PDVSA ¶ further integrated subcontracting companies into its body in an effort to strengthen ¶ state control in the oil industry.¶ Increased control over the oil industry resulted in a greater share of the oil ¶ wealth flowing into the coffers of the PDVSA. The new hydrocarbons law aimed to ¶ use the income derived from oil to fund social projects in health and education and ¶ to allocate part of the income to a macroeconomic stabilization fund. The ¶ redistribution of this wealth to the poorest sections of the society was a priority for ¶ the Venezuelan government, given the widespread poverty and immense ¶ inequalities. This redistribution took the form of various extensive social programs, ¶ called missions, in health, education, provision of basic consumption goods and so [7] ¶ on. These social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in ¶ order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have ¶ inefficient administrative capabilities which could not be reformed quickly whereas it ¶ deemed these social programs urgent. ¶ By 2009, there were 25 different missions operating, among which health, ¶ education and food missions occupied a large place. Mision Barrio Adentro, which ¶ began in April 2003, brought 20,000 Cuban doctors to around 1,600 medical offices ¶ scattered around in poor neighborhoods to make essential health services accessible ¶ to everyone. Over time, this program expanded to bring more advanced health ¶ services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7¶ Education ¶ missions included pre-school (Mision Simoncito), literacy (Mision Robinson 1), primary ¶ education (Mision Robinson 2), secondary education (Mision Ribas), higher education ¶ (Mision Sucre), and vocational training and job creation programs (Mision Vuelvan ¶ Caras). Other examples of these social programs included programs for peasant ¶ welfare (Mision Zamora), mining communities (Mision Piar), indigenous populations ¶ (Mision Guacaipuro), and food distribution (Mision Mercal). Mercal, one of the most ¶ ambitious of these programs, is a state-run food distribution network. It is estimated ¶ that 40-47 percent of the population buy food through it at prices that are on ¶ average 41-44 percent lower than market prices (Datanilisis 2006). According to the ¶ National Statistics Institute’s numbers, households that buy at least one item from ¶ Mercal constituted 54.21 percent of total households. A large number of programs ¶ were also run to provide infrastructure services such as water distribution, ¶ electrification, transportation, housing and so on. The combination of all these ¶ missions was to become the ‘Christ’ mission whose central aim was defined as ¶ eradicating poverty by 2012.8¶ These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy ¶ and schooling, improved health indicators and so on. In addition to these, oil ¶ revenues have been used in many different areas, including supporting industrial ¶ initiatives, sponsoring the formation of cooperatives and financing the ¶ nationalizations. Part of the oil rent was distributed to other countries in various forms, including donations, lending and selling of oil with advantageous financing ¶ terms. For example, through PetroCaribe, a 14-country energy agreement launched ¶ in 2005, “Venezuela provides $9.7 billion worth of oil to member-states, of which ¶ $3.7 billion is financed over 25 years at 1% interest. This guarantees supply for ¶ countries with small economies” (PDVSA 2010).9 [/INST] <h4>The plan solves poverty</h4><p><strong>Orhangazi ‘11</strong> [Özgür, Assistant Professor of Economics at the Roosevelt University Chicago, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Contours of Alternative Policy Making in Venezuela,” November 2011, Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP275.pdf]</p><p>Given the dominant role of the oil production in the economy, it is not ¶ surprising to see that the first large-scale changes took place in this area. The fact ¶ that in <u><mark>Venezuela</u> </mark>the state <u><mark>has</u> </mark>historically <u><mark>been at the center of appropriating and </u>¶<u> distributing the oil rent to the rest of the society, had created the conditions for </u>¶<u> inherently more interventionist policies and political institutions</u> </mark>(Grinberg 2010). ¶ While domestically increasing state control over oil industry, internationally the ¶ government set itself out to strengthen OPEC in an effort to increase oil prices. ¶ Increased OPEC coordination and adhering to the production quotas, that were ¶ previously not followed by the PDVSA in an attempt to target market share rather ¶ than price, contributed to the increase in the price of oil (Lander 2008: 13). ¶ In 2001, oil royalties were increased from 16.6 percent to 30 percent. This was a ¶ significant increase given that most foreign oil companies had previously negotiated ¶ rates much lower than the 16.6 percent. Especially following the failed April 2002 ¶ coup and the 2002-2003 shutdown of the oil industry, PDVSA continuously ¶ increased its control in the oil sector. In 2005 private companies with operating ¶ agreements with the PDVSA were transformed into joint ventures, where the ¶ PDVSA would have a majority stake, with the exception of Exxon Mobile who ¶ refused to participate in this transformation and whose fields were as a result entirely ¶ taken over by the PDVSA (Wilpert 2007: 96). In 2007, the Orinoco Belt joint ¶ ventures were turned into PDVSA controlled projects and in May 2009, PDVSA ¶ further integrated subcontracting companies into its body in an effort to strengthen ¶ state control in the oil industry.¶ Increased control over the oil industry resulted in a greater share of the oil ¶ wealth flowing into the coffers of the PDVSA. The new hydrocarbons law aimed to ¶ use the income derived from oil to fund social projects in health and education and ¶ to allocate part of the income to a macroeconomic stabilization fund. The ¶ redistribution of this wealth to the poorest sections of the society was a priority for ¶ the Venezuelan government, given the widespread poverty and immense ¶ inequalities. This redistribution took the form of various extensive social programs, ¶ called missions, in health, education, provision of basic consumption goods and so [7] ¶ on. These<u> <mark>social programs were directly funded by the PDVSA’s oil revenues in </u>¶<u> order to bypass the state bureaucracy as the government considered the state to have </u>¶<u> inefficient administrative capabilities</u></mark> which could not be reformed quickly whereas it ¶ deemed these social programs urgent. ¶ By 2009, there were 25 different missions operating, among which health, ¶ education and food missions occupied a large place. Mision Barrio Adentro, which ¶ began in April 2003, brought 20,000 Cuban doctors to around 1,600 medical offices ¶ scattered around in poor neighborhoods to make essential health services accessible ¶ to everyone. Over time, <u><mark>this program expanded to bring more advanced health </u>¶<u> services and train Venezuelan doctors to replace the Cuban doctors.7</u>¶<u> Education </u>¶<u> missions included pre-school</u> </mark>(Mision Simoncito), <u><mark>literacy</u> </mark>(Mision Robinson 1), primary ¶ education (Mision Robinson 2), secondary education (Mision Ribas), higher education ¶ (Mision Sucre), and vocational training and job creation programs (Mision Vuelvan ¶ Caras). <u><mark>Other examples</u></mark> of these social programs <u><mark>included programs for peasant </u>¶<u> welfare</u> </mark>(Mision Zamora), mining communities (Mision Piar), indigenous populations ¶ (Mision Guacaipuro), <u><mark>and food distribution</u> </mark>(Mision Mercal). Mercal, one of the most ¶ ambitious of these programs, is a state-run food distribution network. It is estimated ¶ that 40-47 percent of the population buy food through it at prices that are on ¶ average 41-44 percent lower than market prices (Datanilisis 2006). According to the ¶ National Statistics Institute’s numbers, households that buy at least one item from ¶ Mercal constituted 54.21 percent of total households. A large number of programs ¶ were also run to provide infrastructure services such as water distribution, ¶ electrification, transportation, housing and so on. The combination of all these ¶ <u><mark>missions</u> </mark>was to become the ‘Christ’ mission whose <u><mark>central aim was defined as </u>¶<u> eradicating poverty</u></mark> by 2012.8¶ <u><mark>These social programs contributed to declining poverty rates, increased literacy </u>¶<u> and schooling, improved health indicators</u></mark> and so on. In addition to these, oil ¶ revenues have been used in many different areas, including supporting industrial ¶ initiatives, sponsoring the formation of cooperatives and financing the ¶ nationalizations. Part of the oil rent was distributed to other countries in various forms, including donations, lending and selling of oil with advantageous financing ¶ terms. For example, through PetroCaribe, a 14-country energy agreement launched ¶ in 2005, “Venezuela provides $9.7 billion worth of oil to member-states, of which ¶ $3.7 billion is financed over 25 years at 1% interest. This guarantees supply for ¶ countries with small economies” (PDVSA 2010).9</p> </s>

Won’t do it – pref our ev because it speaks to Obama’s political calculations

Mayer professor of political science at Wisconsin argues history is littered with x o s popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition Congress could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population despite the budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists

it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or reducing the immigrant detainee population, prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans with a compromise so close, alarms activists

On the other hand, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin and author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, argues history is littered with executive orders popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition.¶ "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is wonderful, it's about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But Congress could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable."¶ With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population, despite the budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.

<h4>Won’t do it – pref our ev because it speaks to <u>Obama’s political calculations</u> </h4><p>Keegan <strong>Hamilton</strong>, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today,” The Atlantic, 3-26-<strong>13</strong>, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/</p><p>On the other hand, Kenneth R. <u><strong>Mayer</u></strong>, a <u><strong>professor of political science at</u></strong> the University of <u><strong>Wisconsin</u></strong> and author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, <u><strong>argues</u></strong> <u><strong>history is littered with</u></strong> e<u><strong>x</u></strong>ecutive <u><strong>o</u></strong>rder<u><strong>s</u></strong> <u><strong>popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition</u></strong>.¶ "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is wonderful, it's about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But <u><strong>Congress could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable</u></strong>."¶ <u><strong>With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or</mark> even <mark>reducing the immigrant detainee population</u></strong>,</mark> <u><strong>despite the budgetary considerations.</u></strong> <u><strong>The <mark>prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans</mark>, especially <mark>with a compromise so close, alarms activists</u></strong></mark> like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.</p>

Keegan Hamilton, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today,” The Atlantic, 3-26-13, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Keegan Hamilton, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today,” The Atlantic, 3-26-13, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/ fulltext: On the other hand, Kenneth R. Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin and author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, argues history is littered with executive orders popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition.¶ "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is wonderful, it's about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But Congress could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable."¶ With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk, it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or even reducing the immigrant detainee population, despite the budgetary considerations. The prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans, especially with a compromise so close, alarms activists like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners. [/INST] <h4>Won’t do it – pref our ev because it speaks to <u>Obama’s political calculations</u> </h4><p>Keegan <strong>Hamilton</strong>, “How Obama Could (but Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today,” The Atlantic, 3-26-<strong>13</strong>, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-obama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/</p><p>On the other hand, Kenneth R. <u><strong>Mayer</u></strong>, a <u><strong>professor of political science at</u></strong> the University of <u><strong>Wisconsin</u></strong> and author of the book With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power, <u><strong>argues</u></strong> <u><strong>history is littered with</u></strong> e<u><strong>x</u></strong>ecutive <u><strong>o</u></strong>rder<u><strong>s</u></strong> <u><strong>popular with the president's party and condemned by the opposition</u></strong>.¶ "Democrats and liberals say, 'This is wonderful, it's about time,' while conservatives and Republicans are outraged, saying 'He's nullifying a law, he can't do that!'" Mayer says. "The answer is they're both right. In practice, the president can do this. But <u><strong>Congress could try to stop him, and the way they do that is raising the political cost to a degree the president doesn't find acceptable</u></strong>."¶ <u><strong>With immigration-reform legislation inching toward the president's desk,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>it's unlikely he'll waste political capital by halting deportations or</mark> even <mark>reducing the immigrant detainee population</u></strong>,</mark> <u><strong>despite the budgetary considerations.</u></strong> <u><strong>The <mark>prospect of doing anything that might alienate Republicans</mark>, especially <mark>with a compromise so close, alarms activists</u></strong></mark> like Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an advocacy group comprised largely of small-business owners.</p> </s>

Decline doesn’t cause war

Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis According to a study under- taken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... to an outbreak of violence

The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According to a study under- taken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis – as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth – bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).

<h4>Decline doesn’t cause war</h4><p><strong>Miller 00</strong> (Morris, Professor of Administration @ the University of Ottawa, ‘2K (Interdisciplinary Science Review, v 25 n4 2000 p ingenta connect)</p><p>The question may be reformulated. <u><strong>Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis</u></strong> that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. <u><strong>According to a study under- taken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries </u></strong>in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War <u><strong>they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis</u></strong> – as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth – <u><strong>bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... </u></strong>(or, in democratic states, rarely) <u><strong>to an outbreak of violence</u></strong> ... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).</p>

Miller 00 (Morris, Professor of Administration @ the University of Ottawa, ‘2K (Interdisciplinary Science Review, v 25 n4 2000 p ingenta connect)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Miller 00 (Morris, Professor of Administration @ the University of Ottawa, ‘2K (Interdisciplinary Science Review, v 25 n4 2000 p ingenta connect) fulltext: The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According to a study under- taken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis – as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth – bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another). [/INST] <h4>Decline doesn’t cause war</h4><p><strong>Miller 00</strong> (Morris, Professor of Administration @ the University of Ottawa, ‘2K (Interdisciplinary Science Review, v 25 n4 2000 p ingenta connect)</p><p>The question may be reformulated. <u><strong>Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis</u></strong> that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. <u><strong>According to a study under- taken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries </u></strong>in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War <u><strong>they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis</u></strong> – as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth – <u><strong>bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... </u></strong>(or, in democratic states, rarely) <u><strong>to an outbreak of violence</u></strong> ... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).</p> </s>

Chinese influence in Cuba key to prevent Taiwan independence-

While China’s strategic agenda with Latin America is driven primarily by economic interests, reunifying Taiwan with the mainland is the key tenet of China's Latin American strategy. Fearing Taiwan’s push for international recognition will lead to its declaration of independence, Beijing is determined to contain Taiwan in every corner of the world, especially in the Caribbean

(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 6.1 While China’s strategic agenda with Latin America is driven primarily by economic interests, reunifying Taiwan with the mainland is the key tenet of China's Latin American strategy. Fearing Taiwan’s push for international recognition will lead to its declaration of independence, Beijing is determined to contain Taiwan in every corner of the world, especially in Central America and the Caribbean, the stronghold of Taiwan. At present, Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries. Of those 23 states, 12 of them are located in Latin America and the Caribbean.

<h4><strong>Chinese influence in Cuba key to prevent Taiwan independence-</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>6.1 <u><strong>While China’s strategic agenda with Latin America is driven primarily by economic interests, reunifying Taiwan with the mainland is the key tenet of China's Latin American strategy. Fearing Taiwan’s push for international recognition will lead to its declaration of independence, Beijing is determined to contain Taiwan in every corner of the world, especially in</u></strong> Central America and <u><strong>the Caribbean</u>, the stronghold of Taiwan. At present, Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries. Of those 23 states, 12 of them are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. </p></strong>

He 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: He 08 fulltext: (LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm 6.1 While China’s strategic agenda with Latin America is driven primarily by economic interests, reunifying Taiwan with the mainland is the key tenet of China's Latin American strategy. Fearing Taiwan’s push for international recognition will lead to its declaration of independence, Beijing is determined to contain Taiwan in every corner of the world, especially in Central America and the Caribbean, the stronghold of Taiwan. At present, Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries. Of those 23 states, 12 of them are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. [/INST] <h4><strong>Chinese influence in Cuba key to prevent Taiwan independence-</h4><p>He 08</p><p></strong>(LI, EAI Background Brief, “China’s Growing Influence in Latin America: Challenges and Opportunities,” October 30, 2008, http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB411.pdf) /wyo-mm</p><p>6.1 <u><strong>While China’s strategic agenda with Latin America is driven primarily by economic interests, reunifying Taiwan with the mainland is the key tenet of China's Latin American strategy. Fearing Taiwan’s push for international recognition will lead to its declaration of independence, Beijing is determined to contain Taiwan in every corner of the world, especially in</u></strong> Central America and <u><strong>the Caribbean</u>, the stronghold of Taiwan. At present, Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries. Of those 23 states, 12 of them are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. </p></strong> </s>

Our obligation to prevent hunger outweighs even extinction

although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival. Having shown above that the principle of equity is morally superior to the principle of survival, we can conclude again that food should be shared equally even if this means the extinction of the human race

people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival equity is morally superior to survival food should be shared equally even if this means the extinction of the human race

The basic reason given for preserving a nation or the human species is that otherwise the milieu of morality would not exist. This is false so far as specific nations are concerned, but it is true that the existence of individuals depends on the existence of the species. However, although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival. Having shown above that the principle of equity is morally superior to the principle of survival, we can conclude again that food should be shared equally even if this means the extinction of the human race.

<h4>Our obligation to prevent hunger outweighs even extinction</h4><p>Richard <u><strong>Watson, 1977</u></strong> (professor of philosophy @ Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, pg. 122)</p><p>The basic reason given for preserving a nation or the human species is that otherwise the milieu of morality would not exist. This is false so far as specific nations are concerned, but it is true that the existence of individuals depends on the existence of the species. However, <u>although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that <mark>people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival</mark>. Having shown above that the principle of <mark>equity is morally superior to</mark> the principle of <mark>survival</mark>, we can conclude again that <mark>food should be shared equally even if this <strong>means the extinction of the human race</u></strong></mark>. </p>

Richard Watson, 1977 (professor of philosophy @ Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, pg. 122)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Richard Watson, 1977 (professor of philosophy @ Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, pg. 122) fulltext: The basic reason given for preserving a nation or the human species is that otherwise the milieu of morality would not exist. This is false so far as specific nations are concerned, but it is true that the existence of individuals depends on the existence of the species. However, although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival. Having shown above that the principle of equity is morally superior to the principle of survival, we can conclude again that food should be shared equally even if this means the extinction of the human race. [/INST] <h4>Our obligation to prevent hunger outweighs even extinction</h4><p>Richard <u><strong>Watson, 1977</u></strong> (professor of philosophy @ Washington University, World Hunger and Moral Obligation, pg. 122)</p><p>The basic reason given for preserving a nation or the human species is that otherwise the milieu of morality would not exist. This is false so far as specific nations are concerned, but it is true that the existence of individuals depends on the existence of the species. However, <u>although moral behavior is required of each individual, no principle requires that the realm of morality itself be preserved. Thus, we are reduced to the position that <mark>people’s interest in preserving the human species is based primarily on the interest of each in individual survival</mark>. Having shown above that the principle of <mark>equity is morally superior to</mark> the principle of <mark>survival</mark>, we can conclude again that <mark>food should be shared equally even if this <strong>means the extinction of the human race</u></strong></mark>. </p> </s>

-----Non-Unique: Oil prices will always stay high even without OPEC – production costs

Bernstein’s energy analysts have looked at the upstream costs for the 50 biggest listed oil producers and found that — surprise, surprise — “the era of cheap oil is over While we see near term downside to oil prices on weaker demand growth, the longer term outlook for higher oil prices continues to be supported by the rising costs of production Bernstein analyst Neil Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels of oil plays a big role in determining oil prices While OPEC plays a key role through production quotas it is the marginal cost of non-OPEC production which sets the oil price.

analysts looked at costs for the 50 biggest producers and found the era of cheap oil is over While we see near term downside on weaker demand longer term outlook continues by rising costs analyst Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels plays a big role in determining prices While OPEC plays a key role through production quotas the marginal cost of non-OPEC production sets the oil price

Bernstein’s energy analysts have looked at the upstream costs for the 50 biggest listed oil producers and found that — surprise, surprise — “the era of cheap oil is over”: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. While we see near term downside to oil prices on weaker demand growth, the longer term outlook for higher oil prices continues to be supported by the rising costs of production. This is important because, as Bernstein analyst Neil Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels of oil plays a big role in determining oil prices. We’d add that the expectations of said costs also play a big role, but that’s another story… and anyway, the Bernstein team argue their point pretty strongly with this chart: Also, this research obviously only covers non-Opec producers, and it mostly excludes Russia too. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the “swing producer”, how are the ex-Opec, ex-Former Soviet Union marginal oil production costs so correlated to Brent prices? Bernstein argues that it’s because they are, basically, more costly: While OPEC plays a key role in influencing price through production quotas, in the long run we believe that it is the marginal cost of non-OPEC production which sets the oil price. As global demand has surged over the past decade the marginal cost of production and oil prices have increased, as the industry has venture to increasingly higher cost (smaller, deeper fields) and more marginal regions (deep water, high arctic) to produce the incremental barrel of oil.

<h4>-----Non-Unique: Oil prices will always stay high even without OPEC – production costs</h4><p><strong><mark>MACKENZIE ’12</strong></mark> - Editor, FT Energy Source at Financial Times (Kate, “Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel”. May 2. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/)</p><p><u>Bernstein’s energy <mark>analysts</mark> have <mark>looked at</mark> the upstream <mark>costs for the 50 biggest</mark> listed oil <mark>producers and</mark> <mark>found</mark> that — surprise, surprise — “<mark>the era of cheap oil is over</u></mark>”: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. <u><mark>While we see near term downside</mark> to oil prices <mark>on weaker demand</mark> growth, the <mark>longer term outlook</mark> for higher oil prices <mark>continues</mark> to be supported <mark>by </mark>the <mark>rising costs</mark> of production</u>. This is important because, as <u>Bernstein <strong><mark>analyst</strong></mark> Neil <strong><mark>Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels</strong></mark> of oil <strong><mark>plays</strong> <strong>a</strong> <strong>big role in determining</strong></mark> oil <strong><mark>prices</u></strong></mark>. We’d add that the expectations of said costs also play a big role, but that’s another story… and anyway, the Bernstein team argue their point pretty strongly with this chart: Also, this research obviously only covers non-Opec producers, and it mostly excludes Russia too. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the “swing producer”, how are the ex-Opec, ex-Former Soviet Union marginal oil production costs so correlated to Brent prices? Bernstein argues that it’s because they are, basically, more costly: <u><mark>While OPEC plays a key role </u></mark>in influencing price<u> <mark>through production quotas</u></mark>, in the long run we believe that <u>it is <mark>the marginal cost of non-OPEC production</mark> which <strong><mark>sets the oil price</strong></mark>.</u> As global demand has surged over the past decade the marginal cost of production and oil prices have increased, as the industry has venture to increasingly higher cost (smaller, deeper fields) and more marginal regions (deep water, high arctic) to produce the incremental barrel of oil.</p>

MACKENZIE ’12 - Editor, FT Energy Source at Financial Times (Kate, “Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel”. May 2. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: MACKENZIE ’12 - Editor, FT Energy Source at Financial Times (Kate, “Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel”. May 2. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/) fulltext: Bernstein’s energy analysts have looked at the upstream costs for the 50 biggest listed oil producers and found that — surprise, surprise — “the era of cheap oil is over”: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. While we see near term downside to oil prices on weaker demand growth, the longer term outlook for higher oil prices continues to be supported by the rising costs of production. This is important because, as Bernstein analyst Neil Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels of oil plays a big role in determining oil prices. We’d add that the expectations of said costs also play a big role, but that’s another story… and anyway, the Bernstein team argue their point pretty strongly with this chart: Also, this research obviously only covers non-Opec producers, and it mostly excludes Russia too. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the “swing producer”, how are the ex-Opec, ex-Former Soviet Union marginal oil production costs so correlated to Brent prices? Bernstein argues that it’s because they are, basically, more costly: While OPEC plays a key role in influencing price through production quotas, in the long run we believe that it is the marginal cost of non-OPEC production which sets the oil price. As global demand has surged over the past decade the marginal cost of production and oil prices have increased, as the industry has venture to increasingly higher cost (smaller, deeper fields) and more marginal regions (deep water, high arctic) to produce the incremental barrel of oil. [/INST] <h4>-----Non-Unique: Oil prices will always stay high even without OPEC – production costs</h4><p><strong><mark>MACKENZIE ’12</strong></mark> - Editor, FT Energy Source at Financial Times (Kate, “Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel”. May 2. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/)</p><p><u>Bernstein’s energy <mark>analysts</mark> have <mark>looked at</mark> the upstream <mark>costs for the 50 biggest</mark> listed oil <mark>producers and</mark> <mark>found</mark> that — surprise, surprise — “<mark>the era of cheap oil is over</u></mark>”: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. <u><mark>While we see near term downside</mark> to oil prices <mark>on weaker demand</mark> growth, the <mark>longer term outlook</mark> for higher oil prices <mark>continues</mark> to be supported <mark>by </mark>the <mark>rising costs</mark> of production</u>. This is important because, as <u>Bernstein <strong><mark>analyst</strong></mark> Neil <strong><mark>Beveridge and colleagues note, the cost of producing marginal barrels</strong></mark> of oil <strong><mark>plays</strong> <strong>a</strong> <strong>big role in determining</strong></mark> oil <strong><mark>prices</u></strong></mark>. We’d add that the expectations of said costs also play a big role, but that’s another story… and anyway, the Bernstein team argue their point pretty strongly with this chart: Also, this research obviously only covers non-Opec producers, and it mostly excludes Russia too. Given Saudi Arabia’s role as the “swing producer”, how are the ex-Opec, ex-Former Soviet Union marginal oil production costs so correlated to Brent prices? Bernstein argues that it’s because they are, basically, more costly: <u><mark>While OPEC plays a key role </u></mark>in influencing price<u> <mark>through production quotas</u></mark>, in the long run we believe that <u>it is <mark>the marginal cost of non-OPEC production</mark> which <strong><mark>sets the oil price</strong></mark>.</u> As global demand has surged over the past decade the marginal cost of production and oil prices have increased, as the industry has venture to increasingly higher cost (smaller, deeper fields) and more marginal regions (deep water, high arctic) to produce the incremental barrel of oil.</p> </s>

[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power war

A terrorist nuclear attack major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. if the act came as a surprise American suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors consisting of North Korea, Iran Pakistan Russia and China The reverse might well apply too should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China Washington’s response raise the possibility of nuclear confrontation with Russia and/or China. in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack

nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them if the act came as a surprise American suspicion would shift to state possessors consisting of North Korea Iran Pakistan Russia and China a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China raise the possibility of nuclear confrontation in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.

<h4>[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power war</h4><p>Robert <strong>Ayson</strong>, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, <strong>2010</strong> (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)</p><p><u>A terrorist nuclear attack</u>, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the <u><strong>major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal</u></strong>, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of <u><strong><mark>nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them</mark>. </u></strong>In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, <u><strong><mark>if the act</u></strong></mark> of nuclear terrorism <u><strong><mark>came as a</u></strong></mark> complete <u><strong><mark>surprise</u></strong></mark>, and <u><strong><mark>American</u></strong></mark> officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) <u><strong><mark>suspicion would shift</mark> immediately <mark>to state possessors</u></strong></mark>. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list <u><strong><mark>consisting of North Korea</mark>,</u></strong> perhaps <u><strong><mark>Iran</u></strong></mark> if its program continues, and possibly <u><strong><mark>Pakistan</u></strong></mark>. But at what stage would <u><strong><mark>Russia and China</u></strong></mark> be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. <u><strong>The reverse might well apply too</u></strong>: <u><strong>should <mark>a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China</u></strong></mark> during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? <u><strong>Washington’s</u></strong> early <u><strong>response</u></strong> to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also <u><strong><mark>raise the possibility of</u></strong></mark> an unwanted (and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</u></strong></mark> aided) <u><strong><mark>confrontation</mark> with Russia and/or China.</u></strong> For example, <u><strong><mark>in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack</u></strong></mark>, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.</p>

Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, 2010 (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld) fulltext: A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. [/INST] <h4>[G.] Nuclear terrorist attack causes super power war</h4><p>Robert <strong>Ayson</strong>, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, <strong>2010</strong> (“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)</p><p><u>A terrorist nuclear attack</u>, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the <u><strong>major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal</u></strong>, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of <u><strong><mark>nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them</mark>. </u></strong>In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, <u><strong><mark>if the act</u></strong></mark> of nuclear terrorism <u><strong><mark>came as a</u></strong></mark> complete <u><strong><mark>surprise</u></strong></mark>, and <u><strong><mark>American</u></strong></mark> officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) <u><strong><mark>suspicion would shift</mark> immediately <mark>to state possessors</u></strong></mark>. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list <u><strong><mark>consisting of North Korea</mark>,</u></strong> perhaps <u><strong><mark>Iran</u></strong></mark> if its program continues, and possibly <u><strong><mark>Pakistan</u></strong></mark>. But at what stage would <u><strong><mark>Russia and China</u></strong></mark> be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. <u><strong>The reverse might well apply too</u></strong>: <u><strong>should <mark>a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China</u></strong></mark> during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? <u><strong>Washington’s</u></strong> early <u><strong>response</u></strong> to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also <u><strong><mark>raise the possibility of</u></strong></mark> an unwanted (and <u><strong><mark>nuclear</u></strong></mark> aided) <u><strong><mark>confrontation</mark> with Russia and/or China.</u></strong> For example, <u><strong><mark>in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack</u></strong></mark>, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response.</p> </s>

Lifting the embargo provides resources to Cuba to sustain the regime

“Tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran. This behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite political change Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba right here in our own backyard.” If the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years when opportunity is looming.

[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB According to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, “Tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran. It’s reported that 2.5 million tourists visit Cuba – 1.5 million from North America…1 million Canadians…More than 170,000 from England…More than 400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined – All bringing in $1.9 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.” This behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite political change. Furthermore, Sen. Menendez argues, “Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil because it enriches regimes in terrorist states like Iran, should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba right here in our own backyard.” If the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years when opportunity is looming.

<h4>Lifting the embargo provides <strong>resources to Cuba to sustain the regime</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>According to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, <u><strong>“Tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran.</u></strong> It’s reported that 2.5 million tourists visit Cuba – 1.5 million from North America…1 million Canadians…More than 170,000 from England…More than 400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined – All bringing in $1.9 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.” <u><strong>This behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite political change</u></strong>. Furthermore, Sen. Menendez argues, “<u><strong>Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil</u></strong> because it enriches regimes in terrorist states like Iran, <u><strong>should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba right here in our own backyard.”</u></strong> <u><strong>If the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years when opportunity is looming.</p></u></strong>

Bustillo, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bustillo, 2013 fulltext: [Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB According to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, “Tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran. It’s reported that 2.5 million tourists visit Cuba – 1.5 million from North America…1 million Canadians…More than 170,000 from England…More than 400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined – All bringing in $1.9 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.” This behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite political change. Furthermore, Sen. Menendez argues, “Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil because it enriches regimes in terrorist states like Iran, should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba right here in our own backyard.” If the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years when opportunity is looming. [/INST] <h4>Lifting the embargo provides <strong>resources to Cuba to sustain the regime</h4><p>Bustillo, 2013</p><p></strong>[Mitchell, International Policy Digest, Time to Strengthen the Cuban Embargo, 5-9-13, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2013/05/09/time-to-strengthen-the-cuban-embargo/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>According to U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, <u><strong>“Tourism to Cuba is a natural resource, akin to providing refined petroleum products to Iran.</u></strong> It’s reported that 2.5 million tourists visit Cuba – 1.5 million from North America…1 million Canadians…More than 170,000 from England…More than 400,000 from Spain, Italy, Germany, and France combined – All bringing in $1.9 billion in revenue to the Castro regime.” <u><strong>This behavior undermines the embargo, which is why the U.S. should urge other nations to adopt similar policies toward Cuba. A strong and unyielding embargo, supported by the U.S. and its allies, is necessary to incite political change</u></strong>. Furthermore, Sen. Menendez argues, “<u><strong>Those who lament our dependence on foreign oil</u></strong> because it enriches regimes in terrorist states like Iran, <u><strong>should not have a double standard when it comes to enriching a brutal dictatorship like Cuba right here in our own backyard.”</u></strong> <u><strong>If the policy of the U.S. is to challenge these behaviors, then it must also stand up to Cuba. It would be a disservice to squander the progress of the past 50 years when opportunity is looming.</p></u></strong> </s>

Doesn’t solve the DA – executive action causes a fight and gets rolled back

the important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point. n152 n153 n154 n155 Key players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill n159 n160 Congress may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate

(Law—NYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787) On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely because such details are ephemeral. Instead, the important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act n152 eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years. Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. n153 The bill would have put into place a procedure for executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and  [*1839]  foreign policy." n154 It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. n155 Key players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill. n159 [*1840]  The Hart-Celler experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. n160 As noted above, in the case of immigration, Congress may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate. To put the proposition in lofty terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the people.

<h4><strong>Doesn’t solve the DA – executive action causes a fight and gets rolled back</h4><p>Rodriguez, 10 </p><p></strong>(Law—NYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787)</p><p>On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely because such details are ephemeral. Instead, <u><strong>the important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point.</u></strong> The 1965 Hart-Celler Act <u>n152</u> eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years. Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. <u>n153</u> The bill would have put into place a procedure for executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and  [*1839]  foreign policy." <u>n154</u> It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. <u>n155</u> <u><strong>Key players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill</u></strong>. <u>n159</u> [*1840]  The Hart-Celler experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. <u>n160</u> As noted above, in the case of immigration, <u><strong>Congress may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate</u></strong>. To put the proposition in lofty terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the people.</p>

Rodriguez, 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Rodriguez, 10 fulltext: (Law—NYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787) On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely because such details are ephemeral. Instead, the important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act n152 eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years. Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. n153 The bill would have put into place a procedure for executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and  [*1839]  foreign policy." n154 It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. n155 Key players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill. n159 [*1840]  The Hart-Celler experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. n160 As noted above, in the case of immigration, Congress may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate. To put the proposition in lofty terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the people. [/INST] <h4><strong>Doesn’t solve the DA – executive action causes a fight and gets rolled back</h4><p>Rodriguez, 10 </p><p></strong>(Law—NYU, 59 Duke L.J. 1787)</p><p>On the first question of political feasibility, I leave aside whether the current mix of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the legislative priorities of the current president, and the legislative agenda as it is now unfolding would be conducive to the creation of an agency, largely because such details are ephemeral. Instead, <u><strong>the important question is whether Congress, as a general structural matter, will be willing to delegate its power. Historically, Congress has been resistant to executive meddling in the allocation of visas. During the 1965 immigration reforms, for example, a proposal to create a commission charged with allocating visas proved to be a sticking point.</u></strong> The 1965 Hart-Celler Act <u>n152</u> eliminated the national-origins quotas but phased in the new regime over a period of years. Members of the Johnson State Department were nonetheless concerned about the foreign policy implications of reducing the number of visas available to Northern European immigrants, even though the visas were underutilized. <u>n153</u> The bill would have put into place a procedure for executive reallocation of visas to provide "the flexibility needed to deal with unforeseeable problems of fairness and  [*1839]  foreign policy." <u>n154</u> It would have required the president to consult with a new Immigration Board, whose task would have been conducting continuous study of migration conditions and advising the president on criteria for admission. <u>n155</u> <u><strong>Key players in the House - primarily Representative Michael Feighan, Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary - resisted. n156 Feighan argued that the Board would "usurp [Congress's] statutory duty and functions" of regulating immigration, n157 transforming the president's limited power to keep immigrants out in emergencies into a power to let them in. n158 The administration ultimately bowed to the pressure engendered by the specter of executive micromanagement and dropped the Commission from the bill</u></strong>. <u>n159</u> [*1840]  The Hart-Celler experience raises the classic administrative law question of why Congress does or does not delegate. <u>n160</u> As noted above, in the case of immigration, <u><strong>Congress may be reluctant to delegate because of a general desire to protect its territory, as core immigration policy over time has become entrenched in Congress's bailiwick. Perhaps Congress regards immigrant admissions decisions as value judgments that do not require the expertise of agencies or bureaucrats - a key factor in the decision to delegate</u></strong>. To put the proposition in lofty terms, immigrant admissions constitute membership decisions, which belong to the legislative body standing in for the people.</p> </s>

Taiwan independence causes escalation and nuclear war

How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? .. if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict where two big nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the Chinese Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan go independent and not respond, they would be overthrown they would be willing to engage in what we might call "self-defeating military adventures the U S would intervene if force were used under most circumstances we have to deter Taiwan from engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the U S into a regional conflict declaration of independence would mean war military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy It would mean a substantial escalation of conflict

(David, director of China studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Interview, “Why the Taiwan Issue is so Dangerous,” 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/experts/taiwan.html) /wyo-mm How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? ... prior to the World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath, if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict, I would have said that the only probable place -- and it is probably still the only probable place -- where two big nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. In effect, the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the Chinese communist regime. Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan go independent and not respond, they would probably be overthrown by their own nationalistic people. Therefore, I think they would be willing to engage in what we might call "self-defeating military adventures" in order to prevent that result, even if they knew they were going to lose. So in my view, the key problem for the United States is how to deter the PRC from using force against Taiwan. We have to be very clear about that, because I think the United States would intervene if force were used under most circumstances I can imagine. But on the other hand, we have to deter Taiwan from engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the United States into a regional conflict. And what would provoke this -- for China? They have a list of things that would provoke, but basically, certainly a ... declaration of independence would be one of those things. I would think it would probably mean war. It would certainly mean some form of military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy. But let's put it this way: It would mean a substantial escalation of conflict ... the inevitable result of that..

<h4><strong>Taiwan independence causes escalation and nuclear war</h4><p>Lampton 01</p><p></strong>(David, director of China studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Interview, “Why the Taiwan Issue is so Dangerous,” 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/experts/taiwan.html) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? ..</u></strong>. prior to the World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath, <u><strong>if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict</u></strong>, I would have said that the only probable place -- and it is probably still the only probable place -- <u><strong>where two big nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. </u></strong>In effect, <u><strong>the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the Chinese</u></strong> communist regime. <u><strong>Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan go independent and not respond, they would</u></strong> probably <u><strong>be overthrown</u></strong> by their own nationalistic people. Therefore, I think <u><strong>they would be willing to engage in what we might call "self-defeating military adventures</u></strong>" in order to prevent that result, even if they knew they were going to lose. So in my view, the key problem for the United States is how to deter the PRC from using force against Taiwan. We have to be very clear about that, because I think <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>would intervene if force were used under most circumstances</u></strong> I can imagine. But on the other hand, <u><strong>we have to deter Taiwan from engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>into a regional conflict</u></strong>. And what would provoke this -- for China? They have a list of things that would provoke, but basically, certainly a ... <u><strong>declaration of independence</u></strong> would be one of those things. I would think it <u><strong>would</u></strong> probably <u><strong>mean war</u></strong>. It would certainly mean some form of <u><strong>military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy</u></strong>. But let's put it this way: <u><strong>It would mean a substantial escalation of conflict</u></strong> ... the inevitable result of that.. </p>

Lampton 01

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lampton 01 fulltext: (David, director of China studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Interview, “Why the Taiwan Issue is so Dangerous,” 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/experts/taiwan.html) /wyo-mm How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? ... prior to the World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath, if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict, I would have said that the only probable place -- and it is probably still the only probable place -- where two big nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. In effect, the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the Chinese communist regime. Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan go independent and not respond, they would probably be overthrown by their own nationalistic people. Therefore, I think they would be willing to engage in what we might call "self-defeating military adventures" in order to prevent that result, even if they knew they were going to lose. So in my view, the key problem for the United States is how to deter the PRC from using force against Taiwan. We have to be very clear about that, because I think the United States would intervene if force were used under most circumstances I can imagine. But on the other hand, we have to deter Taiwan from engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the United States into a regional conflict. And what would provoke this -- for China? They have a list of things that would provoke, but basically, certainly a ... declaration of independence would be one of those things. I would think it would probably mean war. It would certainly mean some form of military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy. But let's put it this way: It would mean a substantial escalation of conflict ... the inevitable result of that.. [/INST] <h4><strong>Taiwan independence causes escalation and nuclear war</h4><p>Lampton 01</p><p></strong>(David, director of China studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Interview, “Why the Taiwan Issue is so Dangerous,” 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/china/experts/taiwan.html) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>How dangerous is the Taiwan issue? ..</u></strong>. prior to the World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath, <u><strong>if you asked where in the world could two major nuclear powers come into conflict</u></strong>, I would have said that the only probable place -- and it is probably still the only probable place -- <u><strong>where two big nuclear powers could come into conflict would be the Taiwan Strait. </u></strong>In effect, <u><strong>the prevention of Taiwan going independent is absolutely critical to the legitimacy of the Chinese</u></strong> communist regime. <u><strong>Chinese leaders believe that, if they were to let Taiwan go independent and not respond, they would</u></strong> probably <u><strong>be overthrown</u></strong> by their own nationalistic people. Therefore, I think <u><strong>they would be willing to engage in what we might call "self-defeating military adventures</u></strong>" in order to prevent that result, even if they knew they were going to lose. So in my view, the key problem for the United States is how to deter the PRC from using force against Taiwan. We have to be very clear about that, because I think <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>would intervene if force were used under most circumstances</u></strong> I can imagine. But on the other hand, <u><strong>we have to deter Taiwan from engaging in such risky behavior that they precipitate an attack that will be destabilizing to Asia, destroy the Taiwan economy and drag the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>into a regional conflict</u></strong>. And what would provoke this -- for China? They have a list of things that would provoke, but basically, certainly a ... <u><strong>declaration of independence</u></strong> would be one of those things. I would think it <u><strong>would</u></strong> probably <u><strong>mean war</u></strong>. It would certainly mean some form of <u><strong>military conflict or economic embargo or an attempt by the PRC to destabilize Taiwan's economy</u></strong>. But let's put it this way: <u><strong>It would mean a substantial escalation of conflict</u></strong> ... the inevitable result of that.. </p> </s>

[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinction

The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive Nationalistic sentiment setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam "civilians will not be targeted." But Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict

The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive Nationalistic sentiment the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization . Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. It is our own circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enem they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict

The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.

<h4>[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinction</h4><p>Nicole <strong>Schwartz-Morgan</strong>, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/<strong>2001</strong>, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm</p><p><u><strong><mark>The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive</u></strong></mark> us to gather around clan chieftans. <u><strong><mark>Nationalistic sentiment</u></strong></mark> re-awakens, <u><strong>setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them</u></strong>," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, <u><strong><mark>the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization</mark>, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam</u></strong>," <u><strong>"civilians will not be targeted." But</u></strong> the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions<mark>. <u><strong>Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile</mark>. Another spectacular attack,</u></strong> <u><strong>coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe</u></strong>, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. <u><strong>This is the Sarajevo syndrome: <mark>an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war.</mark> We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will</u></strong> and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. <u><strong><mark>It is our own</mark> comfortable <mark>circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments</u></strong></mark>. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And <u><strong><mark>if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred</u></strong></mark> in the land of the free, <u><strong><mark>flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enem</mark>y</u></strong>. And <u><strong>on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations</u></strong> and tribes <u><strong>may be, <mark>they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict</u></strong></mark>, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.</p>

Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm fulltext: The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists. [/INST] <h4>[H.] Lashout will be widespread and cause extinction</h4><p>Nicole <strong>Schwartz-Morgan</strong>, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/<strong>2001</strong>, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm</p><p><u><strong><mark>The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive</u></strong></mark> us to gather around clan chieftans. <u><strong><mark>Nationalistic sentiment</u></strong></mark> re-awakens, <u><strong>setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them</u></strong>," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, <u><strong><mark>the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization</mark>, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam</u></strong>," <u><strong>"civilians will not be targeted." But</u></strong> the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions<mark>. <u><strong>Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile</mark>. Another spectacular attack,</u></strong> <u><strong>coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe</u></strong>, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. <u><strong>This is the Sarajevo syndrome: <mark>an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war.</mark> We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will</u></strong> and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. <u><strong><mark>It is our own</mark> comfortable <mark>circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments</u></strong></mark>. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And <u><strong><mark>if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred</u></strong></mark> in the land of the free, <u><strong><mark>flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enem</mark>y</u></strong>. And <u><strong>on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations</u></strong> and tribes <u><strong>may be, <mark>they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict</u></strong></mark>, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.</p> </s>

Maduro will allow new oil investment- foreign pressure works

Maduro will come under enormous foreign pressure Chavez has used PVDSA as a cash cow for his social reform plans the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In February 2007 President Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil production sites that were under foreign majority company control, to take effect on 1 May, allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms a new Maduro administration would hear about compensation issues during any first meeting with the U.S. ambassador Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist

Maduro will come under enormous foreign pressure the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In 2007 Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil sites allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist

So, if illness does sideline President Chavez, what might happen?¶ First, given the enormity of the nation’s energy reserves, it is most unlikely that foreign countries, starting with the U.S. will sit on their hands, but instead begin to manoeuvre behind the scenes to find and promote a pliable candidate and administration willing to work with them. As Maduro is largely unknown, in the event of Chavez being incapacitated, it is likely that he will come under enormous foreign pressure, little of which is likely to be made public.¶ Washington’s wish list would include two primary elements – an end to Venezuelan radical rhetoric and ties to such states as Cuba and Iran, and increased U.S. access to those oil reserves. In May 2011 the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PVDSA), and the country’s fiscal crown jewel. President Chavez has used PVDSA as a cash cow for his social reform plans - between 2004 and 2010 PDVSA contributed $61.4 billion to social development funds. According to PDVSA figures, Venezuela currently has 77.5 billion barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the Western Hemisphere. PDVSA has a production capacity, including its strategic associations and operating agreements, of 4 million barrels per day, the highest production capacity in the Western Hemisphere.¶ But it is President Chavez’s nationalist approach to the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In February 2007 President Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil production sites that were under foreign majority company control, to take effect on 1 May, allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms. Under the new regulations, the earlier joint ventures, involving ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Statoil, ConocoPhillips and BP, were transformed to give PDVSA a minimum 60 percent stake. The process completed a government initiative begun in 2005, when the Chavez administration transformed earlier “operating agreements” in Venezuela’s older oil fields into joint ventures with a wide variety of foreign companies. Thirty out of 32 such operating agreements were transformed, with only two being challenged in court. Most foreign companies accepted the new arrangements, including Chevron, Statoil, Total and BP, but America’s ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused. It therefore seems likely that a new Maduro administration would hear about compensation issues during any first meeting with the U.S. ambassador.¶ Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist.

<h4>Maduro will allow new oil investment- foreign pressure works</h4><p><strong>Daly ‘12</strong> [John Daly, CEO of U.S.-Central Asia Biofuels Ltd, Oilprice.com, “If Chavez Dies, What Next for U.S. - Venezuelan Energy Relations?” <u>http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/South-America/If-Chavez-Dies-What-Next-for-U.S.-Venezuelan-Energy-Relations.html</u>]</p><p>So, if illness does sideline President Chavez, what might happen?¶ First, given the enormity of the nation’s energy reserves, it is most unlikely that foreign countries, starting with the U.S. will sit on their hands, but instead begin to manoeuvre behind the scenes to find and promote a pliable candidate and administration willing to work with them. As <u><mark>Maduro</u> </mark>is largely unknown, in the event of Chavez being incapacitated, it is likely that he <u><mark>will come under enormous foreign pressure</u></mark>, little of which is likely to be made public.¶ Washington’s wish list would include two primary elements – an end to Venezuelan radical rhetoric and ties to such states as Cuba and Iran, and increased U.S. access to those oil reserves. In May 2011 the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PVDSA), and the country’s fiscal crown jewel. President <u>Chavez has used PVDSA as a cash cow for his social reform plans</u> - between 2004 and 2010 PDVSA contributed $61.4 billion to social development funds. According to PDVSA figures, Venezuela currently has 77.5 billion barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the Western Hemisphere. PDVSA has a production capacity, including its strategic associations and operating agreements, of 4 million barrels per day, the highest production capacity in the Western Hemisphere.¶ But it is President Chavez’s nationalist approach to <u><mark>the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In </mark>February <mark>2007 </mark>President <mark>Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil</mark> production <mark>sites </mark>that were under foreign majority company control, to take effect on 1 May, <mark>allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms</u></mark>. Under the new regulations, the earlier joint ventures, involving ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Statoil, ConocoPhillips and BP, were transformed to give PDVSA a minimum 60 percent stake. The process completed a government initiative begun in 2005, when the Chavez administration transformed earlier “operating agreements” in Venezuela’s older oil fields into joint ventures with a wide variety of foreign companies. Thirty out of 32 such operating agreements were transformed, with only two being challenged in court. Most foreign companies accepted the new arrangements, including Chevron, Statoil, Total and BP, but America’s ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused. It therefore seems likely that <u>a new Maduro administration would hear about compensation issues during any first meeting with the U.S. ambassador</u>.¶ <u><mark>Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist</u></mark>.</p>

Daly ‘12 [John Daly, CEO of U.S.-Central Asia Biofuels Ltd, Oilprice.com, “If Chavez Dies, What Next for U.S. - Venezuelan Energy Relations?” http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/South-America/If-Chavez-Dies-What-Next-for-U.S.-Venezuelan-Energy-Relations.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Daly ‘12 [John Daly, CEO of U.S.-Central Asia Biofuels Ltd, Oilprice.com, “If Chavez Dies, What Next for U.S. - Venezuelan Energy Relations?” http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/South-America/If-Chavez-Dies-What-Next-for-U.S.-Venezuelan-Energy-Relations.html] fulltext: So, if illness does sideline President Chavez, what might happen?¶ First, given the enormity of the nation’s energy reserves, it is most unlikely that foreign countries, starting with the U.S. will sit on their hands, but instead begin to manoeuvre behind the scenes to find and promote a pliable candidate and administration willing to work with them. As Maduro is largely unknown, in the event of Chavez being incapacitated, it is likely that he will come under enormous foreign pressure, little of which is likely to be made public.¶ Washington’s wish list would include two primary elements – an end to Venezuelan radical rhetoric and ties to such states as Cuba and Iran, and increased U.S. access to those oil reserves. In May 2011 the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PVDSA), and the country’s fiscal crown jewel. President Chavez has used PVDSA as a cash cow for his social reform plans - between 2004 and 2010 PDVSA contributed $61.4 billion to social development funds. According to PDVSA figures, Venezuela currently has 77.5 billion barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the Western Hemisphere. PDVSA has a production capacity, including its strategic associations and operating agreements, of 4 million barrels per day, the highest production capacity in the Western Hemisphere.¶ But it is President Chavez’s nationalist approach to the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In February 2007 President Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil production sites that were under foreign majority company control, to take effect on 1 May, allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms. Under the new regulations, the earlier joint ventures, involving ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Statoil, ConocoPhillips and BP, were transformed to give PDVSA a minimum 60 percent stake. The process completed a government initiative begun in 2005, when the Chavez administration transformed earlier “operating agreements” in Venezuela’s older oil fields into joint ventures with a wide variety of foreign companies. Thirty out of 32 such operating agreements were transformed, with only two being challenged in court. Most foreign companies accepted the new arrangements, including Chevron, Statoil, Total and BP, but America’s ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused. It therefore seems likely that a new Maduro administration would hear about compensation issues during any first meeting with the U.S. ambassador.¶ Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist. [/INST] <h4>Maduro will allow new oil investment- foreign pressure works</h4><p><strong>Daly ‘12</strong> [John Daly, CEO of U.S.-Central Asia Biofuels Ltd, Oilprice.com, “If Chavez Dies, What Next for U.S. - Venezuelan Energy Relations?” <u>http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/South-America/If-Chavez-Dies-What-Next-for-U.S.-Venezuelan-Energy-Relations.html</u>]</p><p>So, if illness does sideline President Chavez, what might happen?¶ First, given the enormity of the nation’s energy reserves, it is most unlikely that foreign countries, starting with the U.S. will sit on their hands, but instead begin to manoeuvre behind the scenes to find and promote a pliable candidate and administration willing to work with them. As <u><mark>Maduro</u> </mark>is largely unknown, in the event of Chavez being incapacitated, it is likely that he <u><mark>will come under enormous foreign pressure</u></mark>, little of which is likely to be made public.¶ Washington’s wish list would include two primary elements – an end to Venezuelan radical rhetoric and ties to such states as Cuba and Iran, and increased U.S. access to those oil reserves. In May 2011 the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PVDSA), and the country’s fiscal crown jewel. President <u>Chavez has used PVDSA as a cash cow for his social reform plans</u> - between 2004 and 2010 PDVSA contributed $61.4 billion to social development funds. According to PDVSA figures, Venezuela currently has 77.5 billion barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the Western Hemisphere. PDVSA has a production capacity, including its strategic associations and operating agreements, of 4 million barrels per day, the highest production capacity in the Western Hemisphere.¶ But it is President Chavez’s nationalist approach to <u><mark>the country’s energy assets that is likely to be the first target of foreign governments in a post-Chavez Venezuela. In </mark>February <mark>2007 </mark>President <mark>Chavez announced a new decree to nationalize the last remaining oil</mark> production <mark>sites </mark>that were under foreign majority company control, to take effect on 1 May, <mark>allowing the foreign companies to negotiate the nationalization terms</u></mark>. Under the new regulations, the earlier joint ventures, involving ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Statoil, ConocoPhillips and BP, were transformed to give PDVSA a minimum 60 percent stake. The process completed a government initiative begun in 2005, when the Chavez administration transformed earlier “operating agreements” in Venezuela’s older oil fields into joint ventures with a wide variety of foreign companies. Thirty out of 32 such operating agreements were transformed, with only two being challenged in court. Most foreign companies accepted the new arrangements, including Chevron, Statoil, Total and BP, but America’s ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused. It therefore seems likely that <u>a new Maduro administration would hear about compensation issues during any first meeting with the U.S. ambassador</u>.¶ <u><mark>Given relative inefficiency and capital starved nature of PDVSA for major expansion projects, calls to loosen up the country’s energy sector may be hard for Maduro to resist</u></mark>.</p> </s>

[insert no-link e.g. ]

<h4>[insert no-link e.g. ] </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>[insert no-link e.g. ] </h4> </s>

No risk of oil spills—no drilling in Cuba

After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida, a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.¶ Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches reefs and tourism

[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB WASHINGTON — After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida, a blow to the Castro regime but a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.¶ Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches, inlets, mangroves, reefs and multibillion-dollar tourism industry.

<h4><strong>No risk of oil spills—no drilling in Cuba</h4><p>Gibson, 4-14-13</p><p></strong>[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB</p><p>WASHINGTON — <u><strong>After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida,</u></strong> a blow to the Castro regime but <u><strong>a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches</u></strong>, inlets, mangroves, <u><strong>reefs</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong> multibillion-dollar <u><strong>tourism</u></strong> industry.</p>

Gibson, 4-14-13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Gibson, 4-14-13 fulltext: [William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB WASHINGTON — After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida, a blow to the Castro regime but a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.¶ Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches, inlets, mangroves, reefs and multibillion-dollar tourism industry. [/INST] <h4><strong>No risk of oil spills—no drilling in Cuba</h4><p>Gibson, 4-14-13</p><p></strong>[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB</p><p>WASHINGTON — <u><strong>After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida,</u></strong> a blow to the Castro regime but <u><strong>a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.¶</u></strong> <u><strong>Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches</u></strong>, inlets, mangroves, <u><strong>reefs</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong> multibillion-dollar <u><strong>tourism</u></strong> industry.</p> </s>

The guestworker provision is key to any meaningful immigration reform – even if some immigration legislation is inevitable, only political capital ensures a substantial change, which means there’s uniqueness for the DA in the context of our impacts

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform — Without a guest-worker program immigration reform will fail. immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions have historically opposed guest workers 2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years. Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform — a step so far ignored by the Obama administration.¶ Without a guest-worker program, quite simply, immigration reform will fail.¶ Overwhelmingly, immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally.¶ Policymakers seem to forget that there is recent evidence to this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement — and it did increase — couldn’t stem the tide.¶ It is foolish to expect legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need reforms that adapt to that reality.¶ Why is President Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions — one of the president’s most valued constituencies — have historically opposed guest workers. ¶ A 2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years. The amendment passed 49-48 — with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support, and the reform effort collapsed.

<h4>The guestworker provision is key to any <u>meaningful</u> immigration reform – even if some immigration legislation is inevitable, only <u>political capital</u> ensures a <u>substantial change</u>, which means there’s uniqueness for the DA in the context of our impacts</h4><p>Alex <strong>Nowrasteh</strong>, Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/<strong>13</strong> Real Clear Politics</p><p><u><strong>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration</u></strong> through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but <u><strong>this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform —</u></strong> a step so far ignored by the Obama administration.¶ <u><strong>Without a guest-worker program</u></strong>, quite simply, <u><strong>immigration reform will fail.</u></strong>¶ Overwhelmingly, <u><strong>immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally</u></strong>.¶ Policymakers seem to forget that there is recent evidence to this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement — and it did increase — couldn’t stem the tide.¶ It is foolish to expect legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need reforms that adapt to that reality.¶ Why is President <u><strong>Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions</u></strong> — one of the president’s most valued constituencies — <u><strong>have historically opposed guest workers</u></strong>. ¶ A <u><strong>2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years.</u></strong> The amendment passed 49-48 — with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, <u><strong>Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support</u></strong>, and the reform effort collapsed.</p>

Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/13 Real Clear Politics fulltext: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform — a step so far ignored by the Obama administration.¶ Without a guest-worker program, quite simply, immigration reform will fail.¶ Overwhelmingly, immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally.¶ Policymakers seem to forget that there is recent evidence to this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement — and it did increase — couldn’t stem the tide.¶ It is foolish to expect legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need reforms that adapt to that reality.¶ Why is President Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions — one of the president’s most valued constituencies — have historically opposed guest workers. ¶ A 2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years. The amendment passed 49-48 — with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support, and the reform effort collapsed. [/INST] <h4>The guestworker provision is key to any <u>meaningful</u> immigration reform – even if some immigration legislation is inevitable, only <u>political capital</u> ensures a <u>substantial change</u>, which means there’s uniqueness for the DA in the context of our impacts</h4><p>Alex <strong>Nowrasteh</strong>, Immigration at CATO. “Why A Guest Worker Program Is Crucial For Immigration Reform” 3/6/<strong>13</strong> Real Clear Politics</p><p><u><strong>The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO reached a tentative agreement to support increasing lawful migration</u></strong> through a guest-worker program for lower-skilled migrants. The details are obscure, but <u><strong>this agreement is an essential first step for successful immigration reform —</u></strong> a step so far ignored by the Obama administration.¶ <u><strong>Without a guest-worker program</u></strong>, quite simply, <u><strong>immigration reform will fail.</u></strong>¶ Overwhelmingly, <u><strong>immigrants come to the United States because they want jobs, and American businesses have jobs to give. Legalizing the unauthorized migrants already here is a sound policy, but without a legal channel for workers to come, others will continue to enter the country illegally</u></strong>.¶ Policymakers seem to forget that there is recent evidence to this effect. Ronald Reagan instituted an amnesty in 1986, but unauthorized immigration continued unabated. Increased border and immigration enforcement — and it did increase — couldn’t stem the tide.¶ It is foolish to expect legalization and enforcement alone to stop unauthorized immigration. The demand is too strong on both sides of the labor equation. We need reforms that adapt to that reality.¶ Why is President <u><strong>Obama ignoring a guest-worker visa program? Because unions</u></strong> — one of the president’s most valued constituencies — <u><strong>have historically opposed guest workers</u></strong>. ¶ A <u><strong>2007 immigration reform effort largely failed because of union efforts to kill it. Late in the game, Senate Democrats amended the bill to end its guest-worker program after five years.</u></strong> The amendment passed 49-48 — with then-Sen. Obama, ominously, voting in favor. As a result, <u><strong>Republicans and business interests that supported increased lawful immigration withdrew their support</u></strong>, and the reform effort collapsed.</p> </s>

Cuba-China relations high- trade

Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America, and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner China provides Cuba with a range of durable goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production its relations with Cuba are commercial

(William M., was the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent publisher and expert on Latin America, World Politics Review, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez,” April 2, 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez) /wyo-mm) As China's rapid growth has transformed it into a global powerhouse, Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America, and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner. China provides Cuba with a range of durable goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production. Like China's relations with the rest of the region, its relations with Cuba are fundamentally commercial rather than ideological, aimed at securing China's access to raw materials.

<h4><strong>Cuba-China relations high- trade</h4><p>LeoGrande 2013</p><p></strong>(William M., was the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent publisher and expert on Latin America, World Politics Review, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez,” April 2, 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez) /wyo-mm) </p><p>As China's rapid growth has transformed it into a global powerhouse, <u><strong>Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America, and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner</u></strong>. <u><strong>China provides Cuba with a range of durable goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production</u></strong>. Like China's relations with the rest of the region, <u><strong>its relations with Cuba are</u></strong> fundamentally <u><strong>commercial</u></strong> rather than ideological, aimed at securing China's access to raw materials.</p>

LeoGrande 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: LeoGrande 2013 fulltext: (William M., was the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent publisher and expert on Latin America, World Politics Review, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez,” April 2, 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez) /wyo-mm) As China's rapid growth has transformed it into a global powerhouse, Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America, and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner. China provides Cuba with a range of durable goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production. Like China's relations with the rest of the region, its relations with Cuba are fundamentally commercial rather than ideological, aimed at securing China's access to raw materials. [/INST] <h4><strong>Cuba-China relations high- trade</h4><p>LeoGrande 2013</p><p></strong>(William M., was the Dean of the American University School of Public Affairs and frequent publisher and expert on Latin America, World Politics Review, “The Danger of Dependence: Cuba's Foreign Policy After Chavez,” April 2, 2013, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12840/the-danger-of-dependence-cubas-foreign-policy-after-chavez) /wyo-mm) </p><p>As China's rapid growth has transformed it into a global powerhouse, <u><strong>Beijing has expanded its economic and diplomatic presence in Latin America, and is now Cuba's second-largest trade partner</u></strong>. <u><strong>China provides Cuba with a range of durable goods and capital equipment, and is investing in Cuban nickel and oil production</u></strong>. Like China's relations with the rest of the region, <u><strong>its relations with Cuba are</u></strong> fundamentally <u><strong>commercial</u></strong> rather than ideological, aimed at securing China's access to raw materials.</p> </s>

[A.] Deepwater drilling in Cuba makes oil spills likely, the embargo makes spill management impossible

Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory

Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective.¶ Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.¶ The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory.

<h4>[A.] <strong>Deepwater drilling in Cuba makes oil spills likely, the embargo makes spill management impossible</h4><p>Bert and Clayton, 2012</p><p></strong>[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security Council on Foreign relations, March 2012, Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States</u></strong>. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. <u><strong>The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features,</u></strong> situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. <u><strong>A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout</u></strong>. Moreover, <u><strong>the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in</u></strong>. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective.¶ Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.¶ <u><strong>The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory</u></strong>.</p>

Bert and Clayton, 2012 [Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security Council on Foreign relations, March 2012, Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bert and Clayton, 2012 [Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security Council on Foreign relations, March 2012, Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] /Wyo-MB fulltext: Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective.¶ Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.¶ The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory. [/INST] <h4>[A.] <strong>Deepwater drilling in Cuba makes oil spills likely, the embargo makes spill management impossible</h4><p>Bert and Clayton, 2012</p><p></strong>[Captain Melissa Bert, USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security Council on Foreign relations, March 2012, Addressing the Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill, http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United States</u></strong>. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. <u><strong>The failed Macondo well that triggered the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features,</u></strong> situated forty-eight miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. <u><strong>A spill off Florida's coast could ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry.¶ Washington cannot count on the technical know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well blowout</u></strong>. Moreover, <u><strong>the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned response teams to operate in</u></strong>. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response technologies like containment booms ineffective.¶ Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.¶ <u><strong>The complexity of U.S.-Cuba relations since the 1962 trade embargo complicates even limited efforts to put in place a spill response plan. Under U.S. law and with few exceptions, American companies cannot assist the Cuban government or provide equipment to foreign companies operating in Cuban territory</u></strong>.</p> </s>

No substantial Chinese investment- scaling back now

Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China has announced none since April Delays in funding threaten the ability of South America’s largest oil producer to reverse declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending

Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China has announced none since April Delays in funding threaten declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending

Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners, as concern mounts President Hugo Chavez’s battle with cancer is creating a political vacuum, people familiar with the matter said.¶ The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China when they’re signed, has announced none since April, according to a report released Jan. 13 by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, known as UNAM. Russian and Indian companies are withholding planned investments in Venezuelan oilfields, according to eight oil company executives and consultants who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to talk about the matter publicly.The cooling by governments allied to Chavez in his 14th year in office contrasts with growing interest among private investors. They’ve driven up bonds of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil producer known as PDVSA, to a record this month on bets Chavez’s successor will reduce state control of the economy. Delays in funding threaten the ability of South America’s largest oil producer to reverse declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending,” Margaret Myers, director of the China and Latin America program at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, said by phone from Washington. “It’s a wait-and-see mentality.”

<h4>No substantial Chinese investment- scaling back now</h4><p><strong>Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25</strong>-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” <u>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html</u>]</p><p><u><mark>Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners</u></mark>, as concern mounts President Hugo Chavez’s battle with cancer is creating a political vacuum, people familiar with the matter said.¶ <u><mark>The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China</u> </mark>when they’re signed, <u><mark>has announced none since April</u></mark>, according to a report released Jan. 13 by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, known as UNAM. Russian and Indian companies are withholding planned investments in Venezuelan oilfields, according to eight oil company executives and consultants who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to talk about the matter publicly.The cooling by governments allied to Chavez in his 14th year in office contrasts with growing interest among private investors. They’ve driven up bonds of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil producer known as PDVSA, to a record this month on bets Chavez’s successor will reduce state control of the economy. <u><mark>Delays in funding threaten </mark>the ability of South America’s largest oil producer to reverse <mark>declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending</u></mark>,” Margaret Myers, director of the China and Latin America program at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, said by phone from Washington. “It’s a wait-and-see mentality.”</p>

Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html] fulltext: Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners, as concern mounts President Hugo Chavez’s battle with cancer is creating a political vacuum, people familiar with the matter said.¶ The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China when they’re signed, has announced none since April, according to a report released Jan. 13 by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, known as UNAM. Russian and Indian companies are withholding planned investments in Venezuelan oilfields, according to eight oil company executives and consultants who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to talk about the matter publicly.The cooling by governments allied to Chavez in his 14th year in office contrasts with growing interest among private investors. They’ve driven up bonds of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil producer known as PDVSA, to a record this month on bets Chavez’s successor will reduce state control of the economy. Delays in funding threaten the ability of South America’s largest oil producer to reverse declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending,” Margaret Myers, director of the China and Latin America program at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, said by phone from Washington. “It’s a wait-and-see mentality.” [/INST] <h4>No substantial Chinese investment- scaling back now</h4><p><strong>Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25</strong>-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” <u>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html</u>]</p><p><u><mark>Venezuela’s $100 billion oil industry is seeing the first drop in funding in five years from some of its closest partners</u></mark>, as concern mounts President Hugo Chavez’s battle with cancer is creating a political vacuum, people familiar with the matter said.¶ <u><mark>The government, which for a decade has disclosed credit lines from China</u> </mark>when they’re signed, <u><mark>has announced none since April</u></mark>, according to a report released Jan. 13 by the National Autonomous University of Mexico, known as UNAM. Russian and Indian companies are withholding planned investments in Venezuelan oilfields, according to eight oil company executives and consultants who declined to be identified because they weren’t authorized to talk about the matter publicly.The cooling by governments allied to Chavez in his 14th year in office contrasts with growing interest among private investors. They’ve driven up bonds of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil producer known as PDVSA, to a record this month on bets Chavez’s successor will reduce state control of the economy. <u><mark>Delays in funding threaten </mark>the ability of South America’s largest oil producer to reverse <mark>declining output. “Given the precarious political situation in Venezuela, these countries are not increasing their lending</u></mark>,” Margaret Myers, director of the China and Latin America program at the Inter-American Dialogue think tank, said by phone from Washington. “It’s a wait-and-see mentality.”</p> </s>

No-Link: Demand on foreign oil decreasing now – domestic production

the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons since the early 2000s shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade onshore oil production in the United is about to stage an unexpected comeback analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption Rising recovery rates from old wells could also stem previous declines Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has faltered on the back of plentiful American natural gas supply A surplus of resources in the Americas is sending other foreign suppliers scrambling to line up buyers in Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for such exporters to assert themselves via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy

the capital of energy will have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons shale production has skyrocketed onshore production is about to comeback analysts are predicting production 8 percent of current consumption The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has faltered on plentiful American natural gas surplus is sending foreign suppliers scrambling to Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for exporters to assert themselves

By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically. But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus. Meanwhile, onshore oil production in the United States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, is about to stage an unexpected comeback. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon. The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America. The revolution-swept Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, will soon be facing up to an inconvenient truth about their own fossil-fuel legacy: Changes of government in the region have historically led to long and steep declines in oil production. Libya's oil output has never recovered to the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing when Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969; instead it has been stuck at under 2 million barrels a day for three decades and is now close to zero. Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years. Iraq's production has also suffered during its many years of turmoil and now sits at 2.7 million barrels a day, lower than the 3.5 million it produced before Saddam Hussein came to power. The Arab Spring stands to complicate matters even further: A 1979-style disruption in Middle Eastern oil exports is hardly out of the question, nor are work stoppages or strikes by oil workers caught up in the region's political zeitgeist. All in all, upwards of 21 million barrels a day of Arab oil production are at stake -- about a quarter of global demand. The boom in the Americas, meanwhile, should be food for thought for the Middle East's remaining autocrats: It means they may not be able to count on ever-rising oil prices to calm restive populations. This hydrocarbon-driven reordering of geopolitics is already taking place. The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has faltered on the back of plentiful American natural gas supply: A surplus of resources in the Americas is sending other foreign suppliers scrambling to line up buyers in Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for such exporters to assert themselves via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy." The U.S. energy industry may also be able to provide the technical assistance necessary for Europe and China to tap unconventional resources of their own, scuttling their need to kowtow to Moscow or the Persian Gulf. So watch this space: America may be back in the energy leadership saddle again.

<h4>No-Link: Demand on foreign oil decreasing now – domestic production</h4><p><strong><mark>MYERS ’11</strong></mark> - director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University (Jaffe, Amy Myers. “The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy”. October, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_americas_not_the_middle_east_will_be_the_world_capital_of_energy)</p><p>By the 2020s, <u><mark>the capital of energy will</mark> likely <mark>have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere</mark>, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia</u> and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that <u><strong><mark>the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons</strong></mark> </u>trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically. But <u>since the early 2000s</u>, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, <u><mark>shale </mark>gas <mark>production</mark> in the United States <mark>has skyrocketed</mark> from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade</u>. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus. Meanwhile, <u><mark>onshore</mark> oil <mark>production</mark> in the United</u> States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, <u><mark>is about to</mark> stage an unexpected <mark>comeback</u></mark>. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But <u><strong><mark>analysts are predicting production</strong></mark> of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of <strong><mark>8 percent of</mark> <mark>current</mark> </strong>U.S. oil <strong><mark>consumption</u></strong></mark>. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. <u>Rising recovery rates from old wells</u>, for example, <u>could also stem previous declines</u>. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon. The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. <u>Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits</u>. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America. The revolution-swept Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, will soon be facing up to an inconvenient truth about their own fossil-fuel legacy: Changes of government in the region have historically led to long and steep declines in oil production. Libya's oil output has never recovered to the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing when Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969; instead it has been stuck at under 2 million barrels a day for three decades and is now close to zero. Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years. Iraq's production has also suffered during its many years of turmoil and now sits at 2.7 million barrels a day, lower than the 3.5 million it produced before Saddam Hussein came to power. The Arab Spring stands to complicate matters even further: A 1979-style disruption in Middle Eastern oil exports is hardly out of the question, nor are work stoppages or strikes by oil workers caught up in the region's political zeitgeist. All in all, upwards of 21 million barrels a day of Arab oil production are at stake -- about a quarter of global demand. The boom in the Americas, meanwhile, should be food for thought for the Middle East's remaining autocrats: It means they may not be able to count on ever-rising oil prices to calm restive populations. This hydrocarbon-driven reordering of geopolitics is already taking place. <u><mark>The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has</mark> <mark>faltered on</mark> the back of <mark>plentiful American natural gas</mark> supply</u>: <u>A <mark>surplus</mark> of resources in the Americas <mark>is sending</mark> other <mark>foreign suppliers scrambling to</mark> line up buyers in <mark>Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for</mark> such <mark>exporters to assert themselves</mark> via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy</u>." The U.S. energy industry may also be able to provide the technical assistance necessary for Europe and China to tap unconventional resources of their own, scuttling their need to kowtow to Moscow or the Persian Gulf. So watch this space: America may be back in the energy leadership saddle again. </p>

MYERS ’11 - director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University (Jaffe, Amy Myers. “The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy”. October, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_americas_not_the_middle_east_will_be_the_world_capital_of_energy)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: MYERS ’11 - director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University (Jaffe, Amy Myers. “The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy”. October, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_americas_not_the_middle_east_will_be_the_world_capital_of_energy) fulltext: By the 2020s, the capital of energy will likely have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically. But since the early 2000s, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, shale gas production in the United States has skyrocketed from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus. Meanwhile, onshore oil production in the United States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, is about to stage an unexpected comeback. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But analysts are predicting production of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of 8 percent of current U.S. oil consumption. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. Rising recovery rates from old wells, for example, could also stem previous declines. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon. The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America. The revolution-swept Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, will soon be facing up to an inconvenient truth about their own fossil-fuel legacy: Changes of government in the region have historically led to long and steep declines in oil production. Libya's oil output has never recovered to the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing when Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969; instead it has been stuck at under 2 million barrels a day for three decades and is now close to zero. Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years. Iraq's production has also suffered during its many years of turmoil and now sits at 2.7 million barrels a day, lower than the 3.5 million it produced before Saddam Hussein came to power. The Arab Spring stands to complicate matters even further: A 1979-style disruption in Middle Eastern oil exports is hardly out of the question, nor are work stoppages or strikes by oil workers caught up in the region's political zeitgeist. All in all, upwards of 21 million barrels a day of Arab oil production are at stake -- about a quarter of global demand. The boom in the Americas, meanwhile, should be food for thought for the Middle East's remaining autocrats: It means they may not be able to count on ever-rising oil prices to calm restive populations. This hydrocarbon-driven reordering of geopolitics is already taking place. The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has faltered on the back of plentiful American natural gas supply: A surplus of resources in the Americas is sending other foreign suppliers scrambling to line up buyers in Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for such exporters to assert themselves via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy." The U.S. energy industry may also be able to provide the technical assistance necessary for Europe and China to tap unconventional resources of their own, scuttling their need to kowtow to Moscow or the Persian Gulf. So watch this space: America may be back in the energy leadership saddle again. [/INST] <h4>No-Link: Demand on foreign oil decreasing now – domestic production</h4><p><strong><mark>MYERS ’11</strong></mark> - director of the Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University (Jaffe, Amy Myers. “The Americas, Not the Middle East, Will Be the World Capital of Energy”. October, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/the_americas_not_the_middle_east_will_be_the_world_capital_of_energy)</p><p>By the 2020s, <u><mark>the capital of energy will</mark> likely <mark>have shifted back to the Western Hemisphere</mark>, where it was prior to the ascendancy of Middle Eastern megasuppliers such as Saudi Arabia</u> and Kuwait in the 1960s. The reasons for this shift are partly technological and partly political. Geologists have long known that <u><strong><mark>the Americas are home to plentiful hydrocarbons</strong></mark> </u>trapped in hard-to-reach offshore deposits, on-land shale rock, oil sands, and heavy oil formations. The U.S. endowment of unconventional oil is more than 2 trillion barrels, with another 2.4 trillion in Canada and 2 trillion-plus in South America -- compared with conventional Middle Eastern and North African oil resources of 1.2 trillion. The problem was always how to unlock them economically. But <u>since the early 2000s</u>, the energy industry has largely solved that problem. With the help of horizontal drilling and other innovations, <u><mark>shale </mark>gas <mark>production</mark> in the United States <mark>has skyrocketed</mark> from virtually nothing to 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply in less than a decade</u>. By 2040, it could account for more than half of it. This tremendous change in volume has turned the conversation in the U.S. natural gas industry on its head; where Americans once fretted about meeting the country's natural gas needs, they now worry about finding potential buyers for the country's surplus. Meanwhile, <u><mark>onshore</mark> oil <mark>production</mark> in the United</u> States, condemned to predictions of inexorable decline by analysts for two decades, <u><mark>is about to</mark> stage an unexpected <mark>comeback</u></mark>. Oil production from shale rock, a technically complex process of squeezing hydrocarbons from sedimentary deposits, is just beginning. But <u><strong><mark>analysts are predicting production</strong></mark> of as much as 1.5 million barrels a day in the next few years from resources beneath the Great Plains and Texas alone -- the equivalent of <strong><mark>8 percent of</mark> <mark>current</mark> </strong>U.S. oil <strong><mark>consumption</u></strong></mark>. The development raises the question of what else the U.S. energy industry might accomplish if prices remain high and technology continues to advance. <u>Rising recovery rates from old wells</u>, for example, <u>could also stem previous declines</u>. On top of all this, analysts expect an additional 1 to 2 million barrels a day from the Gulf of Mexico now that drilling is resuming. Peak oil? Not anytime soon. The picture elsewhere in the Americas is similarly promising. Brazil is believed to have the capacity to pump 2 million barrels a day from "pre-salt" deepwater resources, deposits of crude found more than a mile below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean that until the last couple of years were technologically inaccessible. <u>Similar gains are to be had in Canadian oil sands, where petroleum is extracted from tarry sediment in open pits</u>. And production of perhaps 3 million to 7 million barrels a day more is possible if U.S. in situ heavy oil, or kerogen, can be produced commercially, a process that involves heating rock to allow the oil contained within it to be pumped out in a liquid form. There is no question that such developments face environmental hurdles. But industry is starting to see that it must find ways to get over them, investing in nontoxic drilling fluids, less-invasive hydraulic-fracturing techniques, and new water-recycling processes, among other technologies, in hopes of shrinking the environmental impact of drilling. And like the U.S. oil industry, oil-thirsty China has also recognized the energy potential of the Americas, investing billions in Canada, the United States, and Latin America. The revolution-swept Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, will soon be facing up to an inconvenient truth about their own fossil-fuel legacy: Changes of government in the region have historically led to long and steep declines in oil production. Libya's oil output has never recovered to the 3.5 million barrels a day it was producing when Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969; instead it has been stuck at under 2 million barrels a day for three decades and is now close to zero. Iran produced more than 6 million barrels a day in the times of the shah, but saw oil production fall precipitously below 2 million barrels a day in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It failed to recover significantly during the 1980s and has only crept back to 4 million in recent years. Iraq's production has also suffered during its many years of turmoil and now sits at 2.7 million barrels a day, lower than the 3.5 million it produced before Saddam Hussein came to power. The Arab Spring stands to complicate matters even further: A 1979-style disruption in Middle Eastern oil exports is hardly out of the question, nor are work stoppages or strikes by oil workers caught up in the region's political zeitgeist. All in all, upwards of 21 million barrels a day of Arab oil production are at stake -- about a quarter of global demand. The boom in the Americas, meanwhile, should be food for thought for the Middle East's remaining autocrats: It means they may not be able to count on ever-rising oil prices to calm restive populations. This hydrocarbon-driven reordering of geopolitics is already taking place. <u><mark>The petropower of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela has</mark> <mark>faltered on</mark> the back of <mark>plentiful American natural gas</mark> supply</u>: <u>A <mark>surplus</mark> of resources in the Americas <mark>is sending</mark> other <mark>foreign suppliers scrambling to</mark> line up buyers in <mark>Europe and Asia, making it more difficult for</mark> such <mark>exporters to assert themselves</mark> via heavy-handed energy "diplomacy</u>." The U.S. energy industry may also be able to provide the technical assistance necessary for Europe and China to tap unconventional resources of their own, scuttling their need to kowtow to Moscow or the Persian Gulf. So watch this space: America may be back in the energy leadership saddle again. </p> </s>

Cuba won’t spill---they’ll be safe and U.S. involvement isn’t key

Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are overblown Cuba has at least as much incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices as does the U S and Cuba is taking safety seriously t]he Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill," they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized foreign sources have provided supplemental alternatives

Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of the proximity to the United States and the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are overblown. Cuba has at least as much incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices as does the United States, and reports indicate that Cuba is taking safety seriously. n64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, "[t]he Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill," and that "they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning and requirements." n65 Thus, while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized, foreign sources have provided supplemental alternatives. n66

<h4>Cuba won’t spill---they’ll be safe and U.S. involvement isn’t key </h4><p>Richard <strong>Sadowski 11</strong>, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, “IN THIS ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO,” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis </p><p><u><strong>Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of</u></strong> the proximity to the United States and <u><strong>the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are</u></strong> <u><strong>overblown</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cuba has</u></strong> <u><strong>at least as much incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices</u></strong> <u><strong>as does the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>and</u></strong> reports indicate that <u><strong>Cuba is taking safety seriously</u></strong>. n64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, "[<u><strong>t]he Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill,"</u></strong> and that "<u><strong>they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning</u></strong> and requirements." n65 Thus, <u><strong>while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized</u></strong>, <u><strong>foreign sources have provided supplemental alternatives</u>. n66</p></strong>

Richard Sadowski 11, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, “IN THIS ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO,” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Richard Sadowski 11, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, “IN THIS ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO,” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis fulltext: Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of the proximity to the United States and the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are overblown. Cuba has at least as much incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices as does the United States, and reports indicate that Cuba is taking safety seriously. n64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, "[t]he Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill," and that "they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning and requirements." n65 Thus, while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized, foreign sources have provided supplemental alternatives. n66 [/INST] <h4>Cuba won’t spill---they’ll be safe and U.S. involvement isn’t key </h4><p>Richard <strong>Sadowski 11</strong>, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, “IN THIS ISSUE: NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO,” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis </p><p><u><strong>Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of</u></strong> the proximity to the United States and <u><strong>the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are</u></strong> <u><strong>overblown</u></strong>. <u><strong>Cuba has</u></strong> <u><strong>at least as much incentive to ensure safe-drilling practices</u></strong> <u><strong>as does the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>and</u></strong> reports indicate that <u><strong>Cuba is taking safety seriously</u></strong>. n64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, "[<u><strong>t]he Cuban oil industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill,"</u></strong> and that "<u><strong>they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these principles into their safety and regulatory planning</u></strong> and requirements." n65 Thus, <u><strong>while the economic embargo of Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized</u></strong>, <u><strong>foreign sources have provided supplemental alternatives</u>. n66</p></strong> </s>

Cuba-China Influence high- trade

25th Meeting of the Cuba-China Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Trade Relations took place in Havana, where both countries expressed willingness to deepen ties Cuban President Castro visited the Asian giant at which time important agreements were signed in the areas of health, information technology, banking, agriculture and customs. At the end of the first half of this year, trade between the two countries exceeded $870 million, making China the second largest trading partner globally with the Island for the eighth consecutive year

HAVANA TIMES — The 25th Meeting of the Cuba-China Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Trade Relations took place yesterday in Havana, where both countries expressed their willingness to deepen ties. According to the Prensa Latina news agency, talks gave priority to issues such as the provision of spare parts for automotive equipment on the island, as well as China’s participation in the island’s program for the development of renewable energy. On the Chinese side, Commerce Minister Chen Deming said that sugar, nickel and biotechnology are the main items exported to his country from Cuba. Cuban President Raul Castro visited the Asian giant this past July, at which time important agreements were signed in the areas of health, information technology, banking, agriculture and customs. At the end of the first half of this year, trade between the two countries exceeded $870 million, making China the second largest trading partner globally with the Island for the eighth consecutive year.

<h4><strong>Cuba-China Influence high- trade</h4><p>Havana Times 12</p><p></strong>(Havana Times, “Cuba and China Strengthening Trade Relations,” September 27, 2012, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=79291) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA TIMES — The <u><strong>25th Meeting of the Cuba-China Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Trade Relations took place</u></strong> yesterday <u><strong>in Havana, where both countries expressed</u></strong> their <u><strong>willingness to deepen ties</u></strong>. According to the Prensa Latina news agency, talks gave priority to issues such as the provision of spare parts for automotive equipment on the island, as well as China’s participation in the island’s program for the development of renewable energy. On the Chinese side, Commerce Minister Chen Deming said that sugar, nickel and biotechnology are the main items exported to his country from Cuba. <u><strong>Cuban President</u></strong> Raul <u><strong>Castro visited the Asian giant</u></strong> this past July, <u><strong>at which time important agreements were signed in the areas of health, information technology, banking, agriculture and customs. At the end of the first half of this year, trade between the two countries exceeded $870 million, making</u></strong> <u><strong>China the second largest trading partner globally with the Island for the eighth consecutive year</u></strong>.</p>

Havana Times 12 (Havana Times, “Cuba and China Strengthening Trade Relations,” September 27, 2012, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=79291) /wyo-mm

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Havana Times 12 (Havana Times, “Cuba and China Strengthening Trade Relations,” September 27, 2012, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=79291) /wyo-mm fulltext: HAVANA TIMES — The 25th Meeting of the Cuba-China Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Trade Relations took place yesterday in Havana, where both countries expressed their willingness to deepen ties. According to the Prensa Latina news agency, talks gave priority to issues such as the provision of spare parts for automotive equipment on the island, as well as China’s participation in the island’s program for the development of renewable energy. On the Chinese side, Commerce Minister Chen Deming said that sugar, nickel and biotechnology are the main items exported to his country from Cuba. Cuban President Raul Castro visited the Asian giant this past July, at which time important agreements were signed in the areas of health, information technology, banking, agriculture and customs. At the end of the first half of this year, trade between the two countries exceeded $870 million, making China the second largest trading partner globally with the Island for the eighth consecutive year. [/INST] <h4><strong>Cuba-China Influence high- trade</h4><p>Havana Times 12</p><p></strong>(Havana Times, “Cuba and China Strengthening Trade Relations,” September 27, 2012, http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=79291) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA TIMES — The <u><strong>25th Meeting of the Cuba-China Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Trade Relations took place</u></strong> yesterday <u><strong>in Havana, where both countries expressed</u></strong> their <u><strong>willingness to deepen ties</u></strong>. According to the Prensa Latina news agency, talks gave priority to issues such as the provision of spare parts for automotive equipment on the island, as well as China’s participation in the island’s program for the development of renewable energy. On the Chinese side, Commerce Minister Chen Deming said that sugar, nickel and biotechnology are the main items exported to his country from Cuba. <u><strong>Cuban President</u></strong> Raul <u><strong>Castro visited the Asian giant</u></strong> this past July, <u><strong>at which time important agreements were signed in the areas of health, information technology, banking, agriculture and customs. At the end of the first half of this year, trade between the two countries exceeded $870 million, making</u></strong> <u><strong>China the second largest trading partner globally with the Island for the eighth consecutive year</u></strong>.</p> </s>

The plan drains capital

One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana

One reason for inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and political repression continues unabated. They see the embargo as a tool for coercing reforms or regime change. There would be a political price to pay by Obama for reconciliation with Havana

Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.

<h4><strong>The plan drains capital</h4><p></strong>Larry <strong>Birns and</strong> Frederick <strong>Mills</strong>, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and COHA Senior Research Fellow, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” 01/30/<strong>13</strong> </p><p>Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. <u><strong><mark>One reason for</mark> this <mark>inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in</mark> the US <mark>Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and</mark> that <mark>political repression continues unabated. They</mark> continue to <mark>see the embargo as a tool for coercing</mark> either more dramatic <mark>reforms or regime change.</u></strong></mark> It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. <u><strong><mark>There would</mark> probably <mark>be a political price to pay by</mark> the <mark>Obama</mark> administration <mark>for</mark> taking steps towards <mark>reconciliation with Havana</u></strong></mark>, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.</p>

Larry Birns and Frederick Mills, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and COHA Senior Research Fellow, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” 01/30/13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Larry Birns and Frederick Mills, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and COHA Senior Research Fellow, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” 01/30/13 fulltext: Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. One reason for this inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in the US Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and that political repression continues unabated. They continue to see the embargo as a tool for coercing either more dramatic reforms or regime change. It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. There would probably be a political price to pay by the Obama administration for taking steps towards reconciliation with Havana, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started. [/INST] <h4><strong>The plan drains capital</h4><p></strong>Larry <strong>Birns and</strong> Frederick <strong>Mills</strong>, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and COHA Senior Research Fellow, “Best Time for U.S.– Cuba Rapprochement Is Now,” 01/30/<strong>13</strong> </p><p>Despite the basic intransigence of US policy towards Cuba, in recent years, important changes have been introduced by Havana: state control over the economy has been diminished; most travel restrictions affecting both Americans and Cubans on the island have been lifted; and the “group of 75” Cuban dissidents detained in 2003 have been freed. Washington has all but ignored these positive changes by Havana, but when it comes to interacting with old foes such as those of Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia, somehow constructive dialogue is the order of the day. <u><strong><mark>One reason for</mark> this <mark>inconsistency is the continued opposition by the anti-Castro lobby to a change of course by Washington. The anti-Castro lobby and their allies in</mark> the US <mark>Congress argue that the reforms coming out of Havana are too little too late and</mark> that <mark>political repression continues unabated. They</mark> continue to <mark>see the embargo as a tool for coercing</mark> either more dramatic <mark>reforms or regime change.</u></strong></mark> It is true that the reformist tendency in Cuba does not include a qualitative move from a one party system to political pluralism. Lamentably, Cuba reportedly continues to use temporary detentions and the occasional jailing of non-violent dissidents to limit the parameters of political debate and total freedom of association. The authors agree that no non-violent Cuban dissident should be intimidated, detained or jailed. But continuing to maliciously turn the screws on Havana has never provided an incentive for more democracy in any sense of the word nor has it created a political opening into which Cuba, with confidence, could enter. The easing of tensions between Washington and Havana is more likely to contribute to the evolution of a more democratic form of socialism on the island, the early stages of which we may presently be witnessing. In any case the precise form of such change inevitably should and will be decided in Cuba, not in Washington or Miami. To further moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, the U.S. State Department should remove the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is an invention to depict Havana as a state sponsor of terrorism, a charge only levied by the State Department under pressure from Hill hardliners. As researcher Kevin Edmunds, quite properly points out: “This position is highly problematic, as the United States has actively engaged in over 50 years of economic and covert destabilization in Cuba, going so far as blindly protecting wanted terrorists such as Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch, both former CIA agents accused of dozens of terrorist attacks in Cuba and the United States ” (Nov. 15, 2012, Kevin Edmonds blog). It was precisely the propensity of some anti-Castro extremists to plan terrorist attacks against Cuba that urgently motivated the infiltration of such groups by the Cuban five as well as the close monitoring of these organizations by the FBI. Another gesture of good will would be for the White House to grant clemency to the Cuban five: Gerardo Hernandez, Ramón Labañino, Fernando Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and René Gonzalez. They are Cuban nationals who were convicted in a Miami court in 2001 and subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from 15 years to double life, mostly on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. Despite requests for a change of venue out of Miami, which at first was granted and later denied, the trial took place in a politically charged Miami atmosphere that arguably tainted the proceedings and compromised justice. Supporters maintain that the Cuban five had infiltrated extremist anti-Castro organizations in order to prevent terrorist attacks against Cuba and did not pose any security threat to the United States. It would be an important humanitarian gesture to let them go home. Perhaps such a gesture might facilitate reciprocity on the part of Cuban authorities when it comes to American engineer Alan Gross who is presently being detained in a Cuban jail. <u><strong><mark>There would</mark> probably <mark>be a political price to pay by</mark> the <mark>Obama</mark> administration <mark>for</mark> taking steps towards <mark>reconciliation with Havana</u></strong></mark>, but if Obama’s election to a second term means that there is to be a progressive dividend, surely such a dividend ought to include a change in US policy towards the island. Mirabile dictu, the Administration can build on the small steps it has already taken. Since 2009, Washington has lifted some of the restrictions on travel between the US and Cuba and now allows Cuban Americans to send remittances to relatives on the island. The Cuba Reconciliation Act (HR 214) introduced by Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY) on January 4, 2013, and sitting in a number of congressional committees, would repeal the harsh terms of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, both of which toughened the embargo during the special period in Cuba. The Cuba Reconciliation Act, however, is unlikely to get much traction, especially with ultra-hardliner Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairing the House Foreign Relations Committee, and her counterpart, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who is about to lead the Senate Foreign Relations Body. Some of the anti-Castro Cuban American community would likely view any of the three measures advocated here as a capitulation to the Castro brothers. But as we have argued, a pro-democracy and humanist position is not in any way undermined, but might in fact be advanced by détente. An end to the embargo has been long overdue, and the judgment of history may very well be that it ought never to have been started.</p> </s>

[B.] Spills collapse the marine environment – relations are key

recognized the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude. An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats in Florida and the Bahamas. any incident that threatens marine and coastal habitats Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical.

In a recent meeting with the Miami Herald's editorial board Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the head of United States Coast Guard Seventh District, recognized the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude. An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats in Florida and the Bahamas. The urgency for an agreement on protocols of cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba to respond quickly and effectively to any incident that threatens either country's marine and coastal habitats becomes evident as Spanish oil company Repsol moves closer in drilling the Jagüey prospect in Cuba's Strait of Florida waters. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, of which both Cuba and the United States are signatories, provides an umbrella under which both countries could develop such a bilateral agreement. Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical.

<h4>[B.] Spills collapse the marine environment – relations are key</h4><p><strong>Pinon 10<u> (Jorge, Former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and Member of the Brookings Cuba Task Force, "Deal needed to protect our seas," Miami Herald, October 5, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857743/deal-needed-to-protect-our-seas.html)</p><p></u></strong>In a recent meeting with the Miami Herald's editorial board Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the head of United States Coast Guard Seventh District, <u><strong>recognized the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude. An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats in Florida and the Bahamas. </u></strong>The urgency for an agreement on protocols of cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba to respond quickly and effectively to <u><strong>any incident that threatens</u></strong> either country's <u><strong>marine and coastal habitats</u></strong> becomes evident as Spanish oil company Repsol moves closer in drilling the Jagüey prospect in Cuba's Strait of Florida waters. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, of which both Cuba and the United States are signatories, provides an umbrella under which both countries could develop such a bilateral agreement. <u><strong>Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical.</p></u></strong>

Pinon 10 (Jorge, Former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and Member of the Brookings Cuba Task Force, "Deal needed to protect our seas," Miami Herald, October 5, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857743/deal-needed-to-protect-our-seas.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Pinon 10 (Jorge, Former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and Member of the Brookings Cuba Task Force, "Deal needed to protect our seas," Miami Herald, October 5, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857743/deal-needed-to-protect-our-seas.html) fulltext: In a recent meeting with the Miami Herald's editorial board Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the head of United States Coast Guard Seventh District, recognized the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude. An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats in Florida and the Bahamas. The urgency for an agreement on protocols of cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba to respond quickly and effectively to any incident that threatens either country's marine and coastal habitats becomes evident as Spanish oil company Repsol moves closer in drilling the Jagüey prospect in Cuba's Strait of Florida waters. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, of which both Cuba and the United States are signatories, provides an umbrella under which both countries could develop such a bilateral agreement. Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical. [/INST] <h4>[B.] Spills collapse the marine environment – relations are key</h4><p><strong>Pinon 10<u> (Jorge, Former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and Member of the Brookings Cuba Task Force, "Deal needed to protect our seas," Miami Herald, October 5, http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/05/1857743/deal-needed-to-protect-our-seas.html)</p><p></u></strong>In a recent meeting with the Miami Herald's editorial board Rear Admiral William D. Baumgartner, the head of United States Coast Guard Seventh District, <u><strong>recognized the fact that Cuba and the United States do not have an emergency response agreement for oil spills. The catastrophic Deepwater Horizon incident has demonstrated the challenge of managing oil spills along with their complexity and magnitude. An oil spill in Cuba's waters could threaten hundreds of miles of coastline and marine habitats in Florida and the Bahamas. </u></strong>The urgency for an agreement on protocols of cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba to respond quickly and effectively to <u><strong>any incident that threatens</u></strong> either country's <u><strong>marine and coastal habitats</u></strong> becomes evident as Spanish oil company Repsol moves closer in drilling the Jagüey prospect in Cuba's Strait of Florida waters. The 1983 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and the 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, of which both Cuba and the United States are signatories, provides an umbrella under which both countries could develop such a bilateral agreement. <u><strong>Closer relations with Cuba in the environmental arena would help to emphasize the need for contingency planning and cooperation in an effort to minimize the damage from potential oil spills which respect no boundaries, making joint cross-border programs critical.</p></u></strong> </s>

[insert no-internal link e.g.]

<h4>[insert no-internal link e.g.] </h4>

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: None fulltext: None [/INST] <h4>[insert no-internal link e.g.] </h4> </s>

More evidence

China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008. “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez

China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.¶ “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez

China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting held since 2001, a survey of Venezuelan government statements shows. Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.¶ “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans,” Thomas O’Donnell, a petroleum analyst affiliated with U.S.’ New School University, said by telephone from Berlin Jan. 12. “The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez.”

<h4>More evidence</h4><p><strong>Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25</strong>-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” <u>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html</u>]</p><p><u><mark>China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting </u></mark>held since 2001, a survey of Venezuelan government statements shows. <u><mark>Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.</u>¶<u> “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans</u></mark>,” Thomas O’Donnell, a petroleum analyst affiliated with U.S.’ New School University, said by telephone from Berlin Jan. 12. “<u><mark>The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez</u></mark>.”</p>

Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html] fulltext: China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting held since 2001, a survey of Venezuelan government statements shows. Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.¶ “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans,” Thomas O’Donnell, a petroleum analyst affiliated with U.S.’ New School University, said by telephone from Berlin Jan. 12. “The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez.” [/INST] <h4>More evidence</h4><p><strong>Kurmanaev and Bierman 1-25</strong>-13 [Anatoly Kurmanaev and Stephen Bierman, Bloomberg, “Chavez Cancer Freezes Venezuela’s Overseas Oil Funding,” <u>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/chavez-s-cancer-freezes-oil-funding-from-russia-to-india-energy.html</u>]</p><p><u><mark>China and Venezuela signed an average of 29 commercial agreements at each annual ministerial meeting </u></mark>held since 2001, a survey of Venezuelan government statements shows. <u><mark>Ramirez returned from Beijing in early December without announcing any new funding deals for the first time since 2008.</u>¶<u> “The meeting did not go well for the Venezuelans</u></mark>,” Thomas O’Donnell, a petroleum analyst affiliated with U.S.’ New School University, said by telephone from Berlin Jan. 12. “<u><mark>The Chinese have grown frustrated with the chaos surrounding Chavez</u></mark>.”</p> </s>

No impact to biodiversity

Although the earth stands on the brink of massive extinction it may not follow that human s will suffer Tudge challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, a theological one "the elimination of all but a tiny minorityof our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." biologists believe species are so fabulously redundant in the functions they perform that ecological processes will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. Yet as Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible only about 150 are extensively cultivated. Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. The most valuable things are quite useless

Although earth stands on the brink of extinction, it may not follow that human s will suffer the argument that humans need other species is theological elimination of all but a tiny minority does not affect humans one iota." human s could survive if 99.9% went extinct species are so redundant processes function well with fewer even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct the number and variety buffers that system against stress the number of species has been increasing species coming into ecosystems far exceed the number becoming extinct increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference

Note – Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc… PhD Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minorityof our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346   [*906]   The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349  Other biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processesin general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352   [*907]   To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they?  Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen.  One might argue thatthe sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for   [*912]  the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless.

<h4><strong>No impact to biodiversity</h4><p>Sagoff et al 97</strong>  Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N</p><p>Note – Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. </p><p>Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc… PhD </p><p><u><mark>Although</u></mark> one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that <u>the</u> <u><mark>earth stands on <strong>the brink of</u></strong></mark> an episode of <u><strong>massive <mark>extinction</u>, <u>it may not follow</u></strong></mark> from this grim fact <u><strong><mark>that human </u></strong></mark>being<u><strong><mark>s will suffer</u></strong></mark> as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin <u>Tudge </u>have <u>challenged biologists to explain <strong>why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth</strong>. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "<mark>the argument that humans need</mark> the variety of <mark>other species is</mark>,</u> when you think about it, <u>a <mark>theological</mark> one</u>." n343 Tudge observed that <u>"the <strong><mark>elimination of all but a tiny minority</mark>of our fellow creatures <mark>does not affect</mark> the material well-being of <mark>humans one iota."</u></mark> </strong>n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "<u><strong>The <mark>human</mark> specie<mark>s could survive</mark> just as well <mark>if 99.9% </mark>of our fellow creatures <mark>went extinct</mark>,</strong> provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need."</u> n346   [*906]   The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349  Other <u>biologists believe</u>, however, that <u><mark>species are so</mark> fabulously <mark>redundant</mark> in the </u>ecological <u>functions they perform that </u>the life-support systems and processes of the planet and<u> ecological <mark>processes</u></mark>in general<u> will <mark>function </mark>perfectly <mark>well with fewer</mark> of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain <strong><mark>even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct</strong></mark>. </u>n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352   [*907]   To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. <u>What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they?</u>  Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. <u>There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, <strong>one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes</strong>.</u> The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen.  One might argue that<u><mark>the</mark> sheer <mark>number and variety</mark> of creatures available to any ecosystem <mark>buffers that system against stress</mark>.</u> Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") <u>In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, <strong><mark>the number of species has been increasing </mark>dramatically</strong>, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic <mark>species coming into ecosystems</mark> in the United States <mark>far exceed the number</mark> of species that are <mark>becoming extinct</mark>.</u> Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 <u>The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. </u>n360 <u>Yet as</u> Simon <u>Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties."</u> n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, <u><strong>biodiversity matters only up to a point</strong>; above a certain level, <mark>increasing biodiversity is likely to make <strong>little difference</u></strong></mark>." n362 <u>What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible</u>," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "<u>only about 150 are extensively cultivated.</u>" n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? <u>Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet</u>? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] <u>The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild</u>. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, <u>protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures.</u> They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for   [*912]  the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. <u><strong>The most valuable things are quite useless</u>.</p></strong>

Sagoff et al 97  Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Sagoff et al 97  Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N fulltext: Note – Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc… PhD Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minorityof our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346   [*906]   The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349  Other biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processesin general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352   [*907]   To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they?  Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen.  One might argue thatthe sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for   [*912]  the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless. [/INST] <h4><strong>No impact to biodiversity</h4><p>Sagoff et al 97</strong>  Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N</p><p>Note – Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. </p><p>Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc… PhD </p><p><u><mark>Although</u></mark> one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that <u>the</u> <u><mark>earth stands on <strong>the brink of</u></strong></mark> an episode of <u><strong>massive <mark>extinction</u>, <u>it may not follow</u></strong></mark> from this grim fact <u><strong><mark>that human </u></strong></mark>being<u><strong><mark>s will suffer</u></strong></mark> as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin <u>Tudge </u>have <u>challenged biologists to explain <strong>why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth</strong>. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "<mark>the argument that humans need</mark> the variety of <mark>other species is</mark>,</u> when you think about it, <u>a <mark>theological</mark> one</u>." n343 Tudge observed that <u>"the <strong><mark>elimination of all but a tiny minority</mark>of our fellow creatures <mark>does not affect</mark> the material well-being of <mark>humans one iota."</u></mark> </strong>n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "<u><strong>The <mark>human</mark> specie<mark>s could survive</mark> just as well <mark>if 99.9% </mark>of our fellow creatures <mark>went extinct</mark>,</strong> provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need."</u> n346   [*906]   The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349  Other <u>biologists believe</u>, however, that <u><mark>species are so</mark> fabulously <mark>redundant</mark> in the </u>ecological <u>functions they perform that </u>the life-support systems and processes of the planet and<u> ecological <mark>processes</u></mark>in general<u> will <mark>function </mark>perfectly <mark>well with fewer</mark> of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain <strong><mark>even ifevery threatened organism becomes extinct</strong></mark>. </u>n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352   [*907]   To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. <u>What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they?</u>  Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. <u>There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, <strong>one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes</strong>.</u> The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen.  One might argue that<u><mark>the</mark> sheer <mark>number and variety</mark> of creatures available to any ecosystem <mark>buffers that system against stress</mark>.</u> Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") <u>In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, <strong><mark>the number of species has been increasing </mark>dramatically</strong>, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic <mark>species coming into ecosystems</mark> in the United States <mark>far exceed the number</mark> of species that are <mark>becoming extinct</mark>.</u> Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 <u>The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. </u>n360 <u>Yet as</u> Simon <u>Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties."</u> n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, <u><strong>biodiversity matters only up to a point</strong>; above a certain level, <mark>increasing biodiversity is likely to make <strong>little difference</u></strong></mark>." n362 <u>What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible</u>," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "<u>only about 150 are extensively cultivated.</u>" n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? <u>Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet</u>? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] <u>The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild</u>. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, <u>protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures.</u> They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for   [*912]  the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. <u><strong>The most valuable things are quite useless</u>.</p></strong> </s>

China expanding its sphere of influence in Cuba now- trade relations and tech expansion

The People’s Republic of China has a strong commercial presence in Latin America. The Asian giant is providing professional expertise and technology transfer while Latin American countries guarantee access to their natural resources Chinese technology enterprises have had a more open presence in Cuba- its largest trade partner in the Caribbean ( Through bilateral trade agreements, China has been expanding its sphere of influence. Huawei and ZTE Corporation are two the Chinese companies investing in

(Jennifer, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, “Chinese Technology Companies in Cuba,” March 13, 2013, http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue186.htm) //wyo-mm) The People’s Republic of China has a strong commercial presence in Latin America. The Asian giant is providing professional expertise and technology transfer while Latin American countries guarantee access to their natural resources. China has been particularly successful in securing oil from Venezuela by providing the Bolivarian country with components for its information technology infrastructure. In recent years, Chinese technology enterprises have had a more open presence in Cuba- its largest trade partner in the Caribbean (1). Several Trade Fairs have been held in Havana with the participation of numerous Chinese companies offering products from kitchen appliances to sophisticated information technology equipment, which have substantial demand in Cuba. China, in turn, has benefited from heavy investments in the island’s nickel industry, agricultural products such as rice and sugar, and oil exploration. Through bilateral trade agreements, China has been expanding its sphere of influence. Huawei and ZTE Corporation (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment) are two of the Chinese companies investing in Cuba. These two companies have been under rigorous investigation by the governments of Canada, United States, and Australia because of its equipment’s elevated vulnerability to cyber espionage.

<h4><strong>China expanding its sphere of influence in Cuba now- trade relations and tech expansion</h4><p>Hernandez 13</p><p></strong>(Jennifer, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, “Chinese Technology Companies in Cuba,” March 13, 2013, http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue186.htm) //wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>The People’s Republic of China has a strong commercial presence in Latin America. The Asian giant is providing professional expertise and technology transfer while Latin American countries guarantee access to their natural resources</u></strong>. China has been particularly successful in securing oil from Venezuela by providing the Bolivarian country with components for its information technology infrastructure. In recent years, <u><strong>Chinese technology enterprises have had a more open presence in Cuba- its largest trade partner</u></strong> <u><strong>in the Caribbean (</u></strong>1). Several Trade Fairs have been held in Havana with the participation of numerous Chinese companies offering products from kitchen appliances to sophisticated information technology equipment, which have substantial demand in Cuba. China, in turn, has benefited from heavy investments in the island’s nickel industry, agricultural products such as rice and sugar, and oil exploration. <u><strong>Through bilateral trade agreements, China has been expanding its sphere of influence. Huawei and ZTE Corporation</u></strong> (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment) <u><strong>are two</u></strong> of <u><strong>the Chinese companies investing in</u></strong> Cuba. These two companies have been under rigorous investigation by the governments of Canada, United States, and Australia because of its equipment’s elevated vulnerability to cyber espionage.</p>

Hernandez 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Hernandez 13 fulltext: (Jennifer, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, “Chinese Technology Companies in Cuba,” March 13, 2013, http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue186.htm) //wyo-mm) The People’s Republic of China has a strong commercial presence in Latin America. The Asian giant is providing professional expertise and technology transfer while Latin American countries guarantee access to their natural resources. China has been particularly successful in securing oil from Venezuela by providing the Bolivarian country with components for its information technology infrastructure. In recent years, Chinese technology enterprises have had a more open presence in Cuba- its largest trade partner in the Caribbean (1). Several Trade Fairs have been held in Havana with the participation of numerous Chinese companies offering products from kitchen appliances to sophisticated information technology equipment, which have substantial demand in Cuba. China, in turn, has benefited from heavy investments in the island’s nickel industry, agricultural products such as rice and sugar, and oil exploration. Through bilateral trade agreements, China has been expanding its sphere of influence. Huawei and ZTE Corporation (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment) are two of the Chinese companies investing in Cuba. These two companies have been under rigorous investigation by the governments of Canada, United States, and Australia because of its equipment’s elevated vulnerability to cyber espionage. [/INST] <h4><strong>China expanding its sphere of influence in Cuba now- trade relations and tech expansion</h4><p>Hernandez 13</p><p></strong>(Jennifer, An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami, “Chinese Technology Companies in Cuba,” March 13, 2013, http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FOCUS_Web/Issue186.htm) //wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>The People’s Republic of China has a strong commercial presence in Latin America. The Asian giant is providing professional expertise and technology transfer while Latin American countries guarantee access to their natural resources</u></strong>. China has been particularly successful in securing oil from Venezuela by providing the Bolivarian country with components for its information technology infrastructure. In recent years, <u><strong>Chinese technology enterprises have had a more open presence in Cuba- its largest trade partner</u></strong> <u><strong>in the Caribbean (</u></strong>1). Several Trade Fairs have been held in Havana with the participation of numerous Chinese companies offering products from kitchen appliances to sophisticated information technology equipment, which have substantial demand in Cuba. China, in turn, has benefited from heavy investments in the island’s nickel industry, agricultural products such as rice and sugar, and oil exploration. <u><strong>Through bilateral trade agreements, China has been expanding its sphere of influence. Huawei and ZTE Corporation</u></strong> (Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment) <u><strong>are two</u></strong> of <u><strong>the Chinese companies investing in</u></strong> Cuba. These two companies have been under rigorous investigation by the governments of Canada, United States, and Australia because of its equipment’s elevated vulnerability to cyber espionage.</p> </s>

The Cuba lobby hates the plan

Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him Menendez vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

<h4>The Cuba lobby hates the plan</h4><p><strong>The Register</strong>, “The Cuban chill”, April 21st, <strong>2013<u> </p><p>Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind</u></strong> a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, <u><strong>the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations</u></strong>, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. <u><strong>Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars</u></strong> than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, <u><strong>the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. </u></strong>One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. <u><strong>When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him</u></strong>. Sen. Robert <u><strong>Menendez</u></strong>, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, <u><strong>vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a</u></strong> $410 billion omnibus <u><strong>appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent,</u></strong> Treasury Secretary Timothy <u><strong>Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.</p></u></strong>

The Register, “The Cuban chill”, April 21st, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Register, “The Cuban chill”, April 21st, 2013 fulltext: Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. [/INST] <h4>The Cuba lobby hates the plan</h4><p><strong>The Register</strong>, “The Cuban chill”, April 21st, <strong>2013<u> </p><p>Policy toward Cuba is frozen in place by a domestic political lobby with roots in the electorally pivotal state of Florida. The Cuba Lobby combines the carrot of political money with the stick of political denunciation to keep wavering Congress members, government bureaucrats, and even presidents in line behind</u></strong> a policy that, as President Obama himself admits, has failed for half a century and is supported by virtually no other countries. (The last time it came to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly, only Israel and the Pacific island of Palau sided with the United States.) Of course, the news at this point is not that a Cuba Lobby exists, but that it astonishingly lives on — even during the presidency of Obama, who publicly vowed to pursue a new approach to Cuba, but whose policy has been stymied thus far. Like the China Lobby, <u><strong>the Cuba Lobby isn’t one organization but a loose-knit conglomerate of exiles, sympathetic members of Congress and nongovernmental organizations</u></strong>, some of which comprise a self-interested industry nourished by the flow of “democracy promotion” money from the U.S. Agency for International Development. And like its Sino-obsessed predecessor, the Cuba Lobby was launched at the instigation of conservative Republicans in government who needed outside backers to advance their partisan policy aims. In the 1950s, they were Republican members of Congress battling New Dealers in the Truman administration over Asia policy. In the 1980s, they were officials in Ronald Reagan’s administration battling congressional Democrats over Central America policy. At the Cuba Lobby’s request, Reagan created Radio Martí, modeled on Radio Free Europe, to broadcast propaganda to Cuba. He named Jorge Mas Canosa, founder of the Cuban American National Foundation, to lead the radio’s oversight board. President George H.W. Bush followed with TV Martí. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., authored the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, writing the economic embargo into law so no president could change it without congressional approval. Founded at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, CANF was the linchpin of the Cuba Lobby until Mas Canosa’s death in 1997. “No individual had more influence over United States policies toward Cuba over the past two decades than Jorge Mas Canosa,” The New York Times editorialized. In Washington, CANF built its reputation by spreading campaign contributions to bolster friends and punish enemies. In 1988, CANF money helped Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman defeat incumbent Sen. Lowell Weicker, whom Lieberman accused of being soft on Castro because he visited Cuba and advocated better relations. Weicker’s defeat sent a chilling message to other members of Congress: challenge the Cuba Lobby at your peril. In 1992, according to Peter Stone’s reporting in National Journal, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli, seduced by the Cuba Lobby’s political money, reversed his position on Havana and wrote the Cuban Democracy Act, tightening the embargo. <u><strong>Today, the political action arm of the Cuba Lobby is the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which hands out more campaign dollars</u></strong> than CANF’s political action arm did even at its height — more than $3 million since 1996. In Miami, conservative Cuban-Americans long have presumed to be the sole authentic voice of the community, silencing dissent by threats and, occasionally, violence. In the 1970s, anti-Castro terrorist groups such as Omega 7 and Alpha 66 set off dozens of bombs in Miami and assassinated two Cuban-Americans who advocated dialogue with Castro. Reports by Human Rights Watch in the 1990s documented the climate of fear in Miami and the role that elements of the Cuba Lobby, including CANF, played in creating it. Like the China Lobby, <u><strong>the Cuba Lobby has struck fear into the heart of the foreign-policy bureaucracy. The congressional wing of the Cuba Lobby, in concert with its friends in the executive branch, routinely punishes career civil servants who don’t toe the line. </u></strong>One of the Cuba Lobby’s early targets was John “Jay” Taylor, chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, who was given an unsatisfactory annual evaluation report in 1988 by Republican stalwart Elliott Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, because Taylor reported from Havana that the Cubans were serious about wanting to negotiate peace in southern Africa and Central America. In 1993, the Cuba Lobby opposed the appointment of President Bill Clinton’s first choice to be assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Mario Baeza, because he once had visited Cuba. Clinton dumped Baeza. Two years later, Clinton caved in to the lobby’s demand that he fire National Security Council official Morton Halperin, who was the architect of the successful 1995 migration accord with Cuba that created a safe, legal route for Cubans to emigrate to the United States. One chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Cuba told me he stopped sending sensitive cables to the State Department altogether because they so often leaked to Cuba Lobby supporters in Congress. Instead, the diplomat flew to Miami so he could report to the department by telephone. During George W. Bush’s administration, the Cuba Lobby completely captured the State Department’s Latin America bureau (renamed the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs). Bush’s first assistant secretary was Otto Reich, a Cuban-American veteran of the Reagan administration and favorite of Miami hard-liners. Reich had run Reagan’s “public diplomacy” operation demonizing opponents of the president’s Central America policy as communist sympathizers. In 2002, Bush’s undersecretary for arms control and international security, John Bolton, made the dubious charge that Cuba was developing biological weapons. When the national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, (along with other intelligence community analysts) objected to this mischaracterization of the community’s assessment, Bolton and Reich tried repeatedly to have him fired. <u><strong>When Obama was elected president, promising a “new beginning” in relations with Havana, the Cuba Lobby relied on its congressional wing to stop him</u></strong>. Sen. Robert <u><strong>Menendez</u></strong>, D-N.J., the senior Cuban-American Democrat in Congress and now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, <u><strong>vehemently opposes any opening to Cuba. In March 2009, he signaled his willingness to defy both his president and his party to get his way. Menendez voted with Republicans to block passage of a</u></strong> $410 billion omnibus <u><strong>appropriations bill, needed to keep the government running, because it relaxed the requirement that Cuba pay in advance for food purchases from U.S. suppliers and eased restrictions on travel to the island. To get Menendez to relent,</u></strong> Treasury Secretary Timothy <u><strong>Geithner had to promise in writing that the administration would consult Menendez on any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.</p></u></strong> </s>

[C.] Oil spills destroy the marine biodiversity

One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill them through suffocation Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain en oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain, representing a lot of work to fix the problem. oil spills affect marine life by interfering with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions. . If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be denuded of life

One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill them through suffocation. Oil spills also affect marine life such as birds by stripping the water resistant coating from their feathers. A bird weighed down by oil may have difficulty flying, and will develop hypothermia as a result of exposure to extremely cold water. Mammals also suffer, as oil can remove water resistant compounds from the coats of furred marine life like otters and seals. Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming them. When oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain, representing a lot of work to fix the problem. The inhalation and ingestion of compounds related to oil spills can also harm marine life, both in the long and short term. In the long term, oil spills affect marine life by interfering with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions. Toxins in oil can also cause cancers and other illnesses in the long term. If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be denuded of life. Fortunately, there are ways to clean up oil spills. In addition to chemicals, ecologists also use bacteria which thrive on the compounds in oil to digest it and render it less harmful.

<h4>[C.] Oil spills destroy the marine biodiversity</h4><p><u><strong>Smith 10</u></strong> (S.E., "How do Oil Spills Affect Marine Life," wiseGeek?, December 7, http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-oil-spills-affect-marine-life.htm)</p><p><u><strong>One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill them through suffocation</u></strong>. Oil spills also affect marine life such as birds by stripping the water resistant coating from their feathers. A bird weighed down by oil may have difficulty flying, and will develop hypothermia as a result of exposure to extremely cold water. Mammals also suffer, as oil can remove water resistant compounds from the coats of furred marine life like otters and seals. <u><strong>Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain</u></strong>. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming them. Wh<u><strong>en oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain, representing a lot of work to fix the problem.</u></strong> The inhalation and ingestion of compounds related to oil spills can also harm marine life, both in the long and short term. In the long term, <u><strong>oil spills affect marine life by interfering with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions.</u></strong> Toxins in oil can also cause cancers and other illnesses in the long term<u><strong>. If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be denuded of life</u></strong>. Fortunately, there are ways to clean up oil spills. In addition to chemicals, ecologists also use bacteria which thrive on the compounds in oil to digest it and render it less harmful.</p>

Smith 10 (S.E., "How do Oil Spills Affect Marine Life," wiseGeek?, December 7, http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-oil-spills-affect-marine-life.htm)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Smith 10 (S.E., "How do Oil Spills Affect Marine Life," wiseGeek?, December 7, http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-oil-spills-affect-marine-life.htm) fulltext: One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill them through suffocation. Oil spills also affect marine life such as birds by stripping the water resistant coating from their feathers. A bird weighed down by oil may have difficulty flying, and will develop hypothermia as a result of exposure to extremely cold water. Mammals also suffer, as oil can remove water resistant compounds from the coats of furred marine life like otters and seals. Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming them. When oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain, representing a lot of work to fix the problem. The inhalation and ingestion of compounds related to oil spills can also harm marine life, both in the long and short term. In the long term, oil spills affect marine life by interfering with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions. Toxins in oil can also cause cancers and other illnesses in the long term. If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be denuded of life. Fortunately, there are ways to clean up oil spills. In addition to chemicals, ecologists also use bacteria which thrive on the compounds in oil to digest it and render it less harmful. [/INST] <h4>[C.] Oil spills destroy the marine biodiversity</h4><p><u><strong>Smith 10</u></strong> (S.E., "How do Oil Spills Affect Marine Life," wiseGeek?, December 7, http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-oil-spills-affect-marine-life.htm)</p><p><u><strong>One of the most direct ways in which oil spills affect marine life is by essentially suffocating plants and animals. Marine plants can be covered in a film of oil which prevents oxygen and water exchange, causing the plants to die. Marine life which feed on this vegetation will in turn struggle to survive. Coatings of oil on the flesh of birds and mammals can literally kill them through suffocation</u></strong>. Oil spills also affect marine life such as birds by stripping the water resistant coating from their feathers. A bird weighed down by oil may have difficulty flying, and will develop hypothermia as a result of exposure to extremely cold water. Mammals also suffer, as oil can remove water resistant compounds from the coats of furred marine life like otters and seals. <u><strong>Oil spills affect marine life like filter feeders by concentrating in the flesh of these animals. Clams, mussels, and oysters may quickly accumulate toxins which can kill the animals or be passed on along the food chain</u></strong>. Human consumers often complain that shellfish harvested from an area impact by an oil spill taste heavy and oily. Animals that rely on these filter feeders for food may become sick and die as a result of consuming them. Wh<u><strong>en oil spills affect marine life, it usually happens at multiple levels of the food chain, representing a lot of work to fix the problem.</u></strong> The inhalation and ingestion of compounds related to oil spills can also harm marine life, both in the long and short term. In the long term, <u><strong>oil spills affect marine life by interfering with the ability to breed, reproduce, grow, or perform other vital functions.</u></strong> Toxins in oil can also cause cancers and other illnesses in the long term<u><strong>. If left untreated, the area around an oil spill can be denuded of life</u></strong>. Fortunately, there are ways to clean up oil spills. In addition to chemicals, ecologists also use bacteria which thrive on the compounds in oil to digest it and render it less harmful.</p> </s>

Relations are poor now

the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property

the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property

But the view from the top is more troubling. From this vantage point, the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another.¶ So far, it hasn’t happened. When the US Trade Representative published its lists on May 1st, it opted not to give China the Priority Foreign Country title. The decision puts China on notice that the most significant action is not far away.¶ Tackling a problem directly can, of course, be helpful. Sometimes simple acknowledgement can settle it or at least reduce its severity. For example, congressional complaints and drafting bills may well have forced US executive-branch and Chinese government attention to currency policy. China’s currency rate did rise by about 30 per cent, and for the time being, Chinese surpluses have narrowed and American deficits declined. Likewise, public warnings may suggest to those responsible for cyber-espionage that their actions carry a cost.¶ In a larger sense, though, the controversy over cyber-espionage suggests somber trends at the top of government. These are described in 2012 in Addressing Strategic Distrust, a Brookings Institution dialogue written jointly by Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi. The long-time eminences of Sino-American relations observe that despite 60 official “dialogues,” elaborate economic work-programs, regular presidential summits and consultations, the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism.”¶ If scholars like Lieberthal and Wang are correct, the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property.

<h4>Relations are poor now</h4><p><strong>Gresser 3-15</strong>-13 [Ed Gresser directs Progressive Economy, a trade and global-economy research programme, at GlobalWorks Foundation in Washington, DC., “Lopsided Sino-US ties,” http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2013/May/opinion_May29.xml&section=opinion]</p><p>But the view from the top is more troubling. From this vantage point, <u><mark>the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another</u></mark>.¶ So far, it hasn’t happened. When the US Trade Representative published its lists on May 1st, it opted not to give China the Priority Foreign Country title. The decision puts China on notice that the most significant action is not far away.¶ Tackling a problem directly can, of course, be helpful. Sometimes simple acknowledgement can settle it or at least reduce its severity. For example, congressional complaints and drafting bills may well have forced US executive-branch and Chinese government attention to currency policy. China’s currency rate did rise by about 30 per cent, and for the time being, Chinese surpluses have narrowed and American deficits declined. Likewise, public warnings may suggest to those responsible for cyber-espionage that their actions carry a cost.¶ In a larger sense, though, the controversy over cyber-espionage suggests somber trends at the top of government. These are described in 2012 in Addressing Strategic Distrust, a Brookings Institution dialogue written jointly by Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi. The long-time eminences of Sino-American relations observe that despite 60 official “dialogues,” elaborate economic work-programs, regular presidential summits and consultations, <u><mark>the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism</u></mark>.”¶ If scholars like Lieberthal and Wang are correct, <u><mark>the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property</u></mark>.</p>

Gresser 3-15-13 [Ed Gresser directs Progressive Economy, a trade and global-economy research programme, at GlobalWorks Foundation in Washington, DC., “Lopsided Sino-US ties,” http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2013/May/opinion_May29.xml&section=opinion]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Gresser 3-15-13 [Ed Gresser directs Progressive Economy, a trade and global-economy research programme, at GlobalWorks Foundation in Washington, DC., “Lopsided Sino-US ties,” http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2013/May/opinion_May29.xml&section=opinion] fulltext: But the view from the top is more troubling. From this vantage point, the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another.¶ So far, it hasn’t happened. When the US Trade Representative published its lists on May 1st, it opted not to give China the Priority Foreign Country title. The decision puts China on notice that the most significant action is not far away.¶ Tackling a problem directly can, of course, be helpful. Sometimes simple acknowledgement can settle it or at least reduce its severity. For example, congressional complaints and drafting bills may well have forced US executive-branch and Chinese government attention to currency policy. China’s currency rate did rise by about 30 per cent, and for the time being, Chinese surpluses have narrowed and American deficits declined. Likewise, public warnings may suggest to those responsible for cyber-espionage that their actions carry a cost.¶ In a larger sense, though, the controversy over cyber-espionage suggests somber trends at the top of government. These are described in 2012 in Addressing Strategic Distrust, a Brookings Institution dialogue written jointly by Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi. The long-time eminences of Sino-American relations observe that despite 60 official “dialogues,” elaborate economic work-programs, regular presidential summits and consultations, the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism.”¶ If scholars like Lieberthal and Wang are correct, the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property. [/INST] <h4>Relations are poor now</h4><p><strong>Gresser 3-15</strong>-13 [Ed Gresser directs Progressive Economy, a trade and global-economy research programme, at GlobalWorks Foundation in Washington, DC., “Lopsided Sino-US ties,” http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2013/May/opinion_May29.xml&section=opinion]</p><p>But the view from the top is more troubling. From this vantage point, <u><mark>the relationship’s troubles are multiplying, as long-established disputes over economics and security merge with one another</u></mark>.¶ So far, it hasn’t happened. When the US Trade Representative published its lists on May 1st, it opted not to give China the Priority Foreign Country title. The decision puts China on notice that the most significant action is not far away.¶ Tackling a problem directly can, of course, be helpful. Sometimes simple acknowledgement can settle it or at least reduce its severity. For example, congressional complaints and drafting bills may well have forced US executive-branch and Chinese government attention to currency policy. China’s currency rate did rise by about 30 per cent, and for the time being, Chinese surpluses have narrowed and American deficits declined. Likewise, public warnings may suggest to those responsible for cyber-espionage that their actions carry a cost.¶ In a larger sense, though, the controversy over cyber-espionage suggests somber trends at the top of government. These are described in 2012 in Addressing Strategic Distrust, a Brookings Institution dialogue written jointly by Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi. The long-time eminences of Sino-American relations observe that despite 60 official “dialogues,” elaborate economic work-programs, regular presidential summits and consultations, <u><mark>the central feature of the official US -China relations is “that strategic distrust is growing on both sides and that this perception can, if it festers, create a self-fulfilling prophecy of overall mutual antagonism</u></mark>.”¶ If scholars like Lieberthal and Wang are correct, <u><mark>the cyber-spying clash can be seen as a problem in a long succession of mileposts in the relationship’s long-term deterioration, and if the Mandiant report is correct, one that fuses security-based concerns about Chinese military policy with business-community anger over intellectual property</u></mark>.</p> </s>

----- No internal link -- High prices don’t lead to alternative transition

closer analysis shows that a series of steps and considerations must be taken to initiate efficient substitution of crude oil with alternative energy sources; rising price is just one of many factors Let’s say OPEC abruptly set the price of crude oil at $1,000 or even $2,000 per barrel substitution theory assumes that substituting crude oil with other energy sources could be done easily and immediately or, at least, over a relatively short period of time is not true because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking Not only would substitution not take place must initiate the substitution process regardless of whether we are to become oil independent The belief that rising oil prices would accelerate substitution is not realistic even in a fully functioning market economy When oil prices keep rising, the demand for oil drops; as a result, the price of oil drops. This process will continue indefinitely

closer analysis shows a series of steps must be taken to initiate efficient substitution rising price is just one of many factors substitution theory is not true because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking substitution is not realistic even in a fully functioning economy When prices keep rising demand drops; as a result, the price of oil drops This will continue indefinitely

But a closer analysis shows that a series of steps and considerations must be taken to initiate efficient substitution of crude oil with alternative energy sources; rising price is just one of many factors even if, in some cases, it turns out to be an important one. Here are a few scenarios related to the first assumption: • Let’s say the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) abruptly set the price of crude oil at $1,000 or even $2,000 per barrel. The substitution theory assumes that substituting crude oil with other energy sources could be done easily and immediately or, at least, over a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, this is not true because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking. Not only would substitution not take place; even worse, the world economy (which depends heavily on oil) would collapse overnight if a serious oil shortage occurred or if oil was withdrawn for political or economical reasons. The result would be an economic disaster of unimaginable magnitude. If crude oil stopped flowing because of high prices, few people would be able to afford it, as with the 2008 oil price increase. Unless oil was substituted with an alternative energy source, the world economy would collapse. On the other hand, rising oil prices would not trigger an automatic substitution process as most people assume. In other words, we must initiate the substitution process regardless of whether we are to become oil independent. It does not matter if the efforts toward oil independence come from domestic or foreign sources. Rising oil prices will not start the market mechanism for substitution of crude oil unless we implement an aggressive energy policy. • Suppose crude oil prices rose gradually and permanently. Even so, effective substitution would not occur unless the country implemented a rigorous energy policy to substitute crude oil with alternative energy sources and technologies. The belief that rising oil prices would accelerate substitution is not realistic even in a fully functioning market economy, which serves as a basic assumption. If oil prices rise, the demand for crude oil decreases as long as the possibility of substitution exists. Decreasing prices influence the substitution process; at the same time, energy consumption rises so that oil prices, in the end, fluctuate cyclically with an upward tendency. In other words, rising oil prices would have a limited effect, at best, on crude oil substitution from a microeconomic standpoint if companies or private households (because of cost comparisons) prefer one energy source over another. However, from a macroeconomic perspective, rising oil prices would not initiate an effective substitution process. When oil prices keep rising, the demand for oil drops; as a result, the price of oil drops. This process will continue indefinitely unless oil substitution occurs: the market price mechanism (in which oil prices increase when the demand exceeds supply and decrease when the supply exceeds demand) does not apply to oil. Therefore, we must implement oil substitution without any expectation from the market price mechanism. During 2008, oil prices rose from about $25 per barrel to $160 and then dropped down to $60. Similarly, gasoline prices went up $1 per gallon to $4.80 and then fell back to $2.50.

<h4>----- No internal link -- High prices don’t lead to alternative transition</h4><p><strong><mark>KHAVARI ’12</strong></mark> – Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Bremen; research associate at several economic institutes in Germany (Khavari, Farid A. “THE FINAL CRASH – THE END OF U.S. DOMINANCE IN 2013 – Part Three – Substitution of Crude Oil – The Overlooked Links”. April 11, 2012. http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-final-crash-the-end-of-u-s-dominance-in-2013-part-three-substitution-of-crude-oil-the-overlooked-links/#.T9A1RqVYsqJ)</p><p>But a <u><mark>closer analysis shows</mark> that <mark>a series of steps</mark> and considerations <mark>must be taken to initiate efficient substitution</mark> of crude oil with alternative energy sources; <strong><mark>rising price is just one of many factors</u></strong></mark> even if, in some cases, it turns out to be an important one. Here are a few scenarios related to the first assumption: • <u>Let’s say</u> the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (<u>OPEC</u>) <u>abruptly set the price of crude oil at $1,000 or even $2,000 per barrel</u>. The <u><mark>substitution theory</mark> assumes that substituting crude oil with other energy sources could be done easily and immediately or, at least, over a relatively short period of time</u>. Unfortunately, this <u><mark>is not true <strong>because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking</u></strong></mark>. <u>Not only would substitution not take place</u>; even worse, the world economy (which depends heavily on oil) would collapse overnight if a serious oil shortage occurred or if oil was withdrawn for political or economical reasons. The result would be an economic disaster of unimaginable magnitude. If crude oil stopped flowing because of high prices, few people would be able to afford it, as with the 2008 oil price increase. Unless oil was substituted with an alternative energy source, the world economy would collapse. On the other hand, rising oil prices would not trigger an automatic substitution process as most people assume. In other words, we <u>must initiate the substitution process regardless of whether we are to become oil independent</u>. It does not matter if the efforts toward oil independence come from domestic or foreign sources. Rising oil prices will not start the market mechanism for substitution of crude oil unless we implement an aggressive energy policy. • Suppose crude oil prices rose gradually and permanently. Even so, effective substitution would not occur unless the country implemented a rigorous energy policy to substitute crude oil with alternative energy sources and technologies. <u>The belief that rising oil prices would accelerate <mark>substitution is not realistic <strong>even in a fully functioning</strong></mark> market <strong><mark>economy</u></strong></mark>, which serves as a basic assumption. If oil prices rise, the demand for crude oil decreases as long as the possibility of substitution exists. Decreasing prices influence the substitution process; at the same time, energy consumption rises so that oil prices, in the end, fluctuate cyclically with an upward tendency. In other words, rising oil prices would have a limited effect, at best, on crude oil substitution from a microeconomic standpoint if companies or private households (because of cost comparisons) prefer one energy source over another. However, from a macroeconomic perspective, rising oil prices would not initiate an effective substitution process. <u><mark>When</mark> oil <mark>prices keep rising</mark>, the <mark>demand</mark> for oil <mark>drops; as a result, the price of oil drops</mark>. <strong><mark>This</strong></mark> process <strong><mark>will continue indefinitely</u></strong></mark> unless oil substitution occurs: the market price mechanism (in which oil prices increase when the demand exceeds supply and decrease when the supply exceeds demand) does not apply to oil. Therefore, we must implement oil substitution without any expectation from the market price mechanism. During 2008, oil prices rose from about $25 per barrel to $160 and then dropped down to $60. Similarly, gasoline prices went up $1 per gallon to $4.80 and then fell back to $2.50. </p>

KHAVARI ’12 – Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Bremen; research associate at several economic institutes in Germany (Khavari, Farid A. “THE FINAL CRASH – THE END OF U.S. DOMINANCE IN 2013 – Part Three – Substitution of Crude Oil – The Overlooked Links”. April 11, 2012. http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-final-crash-the-end-of-u-s-dominance-in-2013-part-three-substitution-of-crude-oil-the-overlooked-links/#.T9A1RqVYsqJ)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: KHAVARI ’12 – Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Bremen; research associate at several economic institutes in Germany (Khavari, Farid A. “THE FINAL CRASH – THE END OF U.S. DOMINANCE IN 2013 – Part Three – Substitution of Crude Oil – The Overlooked Links”. April 11, 2012. http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-final-crash-the-end-of-u-s-dominance-in-2013-part-three-substitution-of-crude-oil-the-overlooked-links/#.T9A1RqVYsqJ) fulltext: But a closer analysis shows that a series of steps and considerations must be taken to initiate efficient substitution of crude oil with alternative energy sources; rising price is just one of many factors even if, in some cases, it turns out to be an important one. Here are a few scenarios related to the first assumption: • Let’s say the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) abruptly set the price of crude oil at $1,000 or even $2,000 per barrel. The substitution theory assumes that substituting crude oil with other energy sources could be done easily and immediately or, at least, over a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, this is not true because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking. Not only would substitution not take place; even worse, the world economy (which depends heavily on oil) would collapse overnight if a serious oil shortage occurred or if oil was withdrawn for political or economical reasons. The result would be an economic disaster of unimaginable magnitude. If crude oil stopped flowing because of high prices, few people would be able to afford it, as with the 2008 oil price increase. Unless oil was substituted with an alternative energy source, the world economy would collapse. On the other hand, rising oil prices would not trigger an automatic substitution process as most people assume. In other words, we must initiate the substitution process regardless of whether we are to become oil independent. It does not matter if the efforts toward oil independence come from domestic or foreign sources. Rising oil prices will not start the market mechanism for substitution of crude oil unless we implement an aggressive energy policy. • Suppose crude oil prices rose gradually and permanently. Even so, effective substitution would not occur unless the country implemented a rigorous energy policy to substitute crude oil with alternative energy sources and technologies. The belief that rising oil prices would accelerate substitution is not realistic even in a fully functioning market economy, which serves as a basic assumption. If oil prices rise, the demand for crude oil decreases as long as the possibility of substitution exists. Decreasing prices influence the substitution process; at the same time, energy consumption rises so that oil prices, in the end, fluctuate cyclically with an upward tendency. In other words, rising oil prices would have a limited effect, at best, on crude oil substitution from a microeconomic standpoint if companies or private households (because of cost comparisons) prefer one energy source over another. However, from a macroeconomic perspective, rising oil prices would not initiate an effective substitution process. When oil prices keep rising, the demand for oil drops; as a result, the price of oil drops. This process will continue indefinitely unless oil substitution occurs: the market price mechanism (in which oil prices increase when the demand exceeds supply and decrease when the supply exceeds demand) does not apply to oil. Therefore, we must implement oil substitution without any expectation from the market price mechanism. During 2008, oil prices rose from about $25 per barrel to $160 and then dropped down to $60. Similarly, gasoline prices went up $1 per gallon to $4.80 and then fell back to $2.50. [/INST] <h4>----- No internal link -- High prices don’t lead to alternative transition</h4><p><strong><mark>KHAVARI ’12</strong></mark> – Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Bremen; research associate at several economic institutes in Germany (Khavari, Farid A. “THE FINAL CRASH – THE END OF U.S. DOMINANCE IN 2013 – Part Three – Substitution of Crude Oil – The Overlooked Links”. April 11, 2012. http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-final-crash-the-end-of-u-s-dominance-in-2013-part-three-substitution-of-crude-oil-the-overlooked-links/#.T9A1RqVYsqJ)</p><p>But a <u><mark>closer analysis shows</mark> that <mark>a series of steps</mark> and considerations <mark>must be taken to initiate efficient substitution</mark> of crude oil with alternative energy sources; <strong><mark>rising price is just one of many factors</u></strong></mark> even if, in some cases, it turns out to be an important one. Here are a few scenarios related to the first assumption: • <u>Let’s say</u> the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (<u>OPEC</u>) <u>abruptly set the price of crude oil at $1,000 or even $2,000 per barrel</u>. The <u><mark>substitution theory</mark> assumes that substituting crude oil with other energy sources could be done easily and immediately or, at least, over a relatively short period of time</u>. Unfortunately, this <u><mark>is not true <strong>because sufficient amounts of immediate alternatives are lacking</u></strong></mark>. <u>Not only would substitution not take place</u>; even worse, the world economy (which depends heavily on oil) would collapse overnight if a serious oil shortage occurred or if oil was withdrawn for political or economical reasons. The result would be an economic disaster of unimaginable magnitude. If crude oil stopped flowing because of high prices, few people would be able to afford it, as with the 2008 oil price increase. Unless oil was substituted with an alternative energy source, the world economy would collapse. On the other hand, rising oil prices would not trigger an automatic substitution process as most people assume. In other words, we <u>must initiate the substitution process regardless of whether we are to become oil independent</u>. It does not matter if the efforts toward oil independence come from domestic or foreign sources. Rising oil prices will not start the market mechanism for substitution of crude oil unless we implement an aggressive energy policy. • Suppose crude oil prices rose gradually and permanently. Even so, effective substitution would not occur unless the country implemented a rigorous energy policy to substitute crude oil with alternative energy sources and technologies. <u>The belief that rising oil prices would accelerate <mark>substitution is not realistic <strong>even in a fully functioning</strong></mark> market <strong><mark>economy</u></strong></mark>, which serves as a basic assumption. If oil prices rise, the demand for crude oil decreases as long as the possibility of substitution exists. Decreasing prices influence the substitution process; at the same time, energy consumption rises so that oil prices, in the end, fluctuate cyclically with an upward tendency. In other words, rising oil prices would have a limited effect, at best, on crude oil substitution from a microeconomic standpoint if companies or private households (because of cost comparisons) prefer one energy source over another. However, from a macroeconomic perspective, rising oil prices would not initiate an effective substitution process. <u><mark>When</mark> oil <mark>prices keep rising</mark>, the <mark>demand</mark> for oil <mark>drops; as a result, the price of oil drops</mark>. <strong><mark>This</strong></mark> process <strong><mark>will continue indefinitely</u></strong></mark> unless oil substitution occurs: the market price mechanism (in which oil prices increase when the demand exceeds supply and decrease when the supply exceeds demand) does not apply to oil. Therefore, we must implement oil substitution without any expectation from the market price mechanism. During 2008, oil prices rose from about $25 per barrel to $160 and then dropped down to $60. Similarly, gasoline prices went up $1 per gallon to $4.80 and then fell back to $2.50. </p> </s>

Species adapt and migrate

resilience attributed to genetic composition of species Molecular genetic diversity within a species, species diversity within a forested community, and community or ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent expressions of biological diversity at different scales individuals at each level of ecological organization contribute to the adaptive capacityor re- silience Diversity at each of these levels has fostered natural regeneration Genetic diversity within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes as they adapt to en- vironmental changes evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes and genetic strategies for reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change In the face of rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal,

Molecular genetic diversity within a species, community, and ecosystem represent diversity at different scales Diversity at each of these levels has fostered regeneration evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes ), reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration

While resilience can be attributed to many levels of organization of biodiversity, the genetic composition of species is the most fundamental. Molecular genetic diversity within a species, species diversity within a forested community, and community or ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent expressions of biological diversity at different scales. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic variation found in populations. The individuals that comprise populations at each level of ecological organization are subject to natural se- lection and contribute to the adaptive capacityor re- silienceof tree species and forest ecosystems (Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). Diversity at each of these levels has fostered natural (and artificial) regeneration of forest ecosystems and facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by: DeHayes et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic climate warming. Genetic diversity (e.g., additive genetic variance) within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes within popu- lations and species as they respond or adapt to en- vironmental changes (Fisher 1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al. 2008). The potential for evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes based on artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989),and genetic strategies for reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change must focus on maintaining species diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). In the face of rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation within each population of a species (Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may be doomed to extinction (Lynch and Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental eco-physiological tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal mechanisms, constitute the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al. 1989, Halpin 1997). In the past, plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration (Davis and Shaw 2001). The capacity for long-distance migration of plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and probably all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal, despite morphological dispersal syndromes that would indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of mean migration rates found no significant differences be- tween wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Long-distance migration can also be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate change. The discrepancy between estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted for by the underestimation of long-distance disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace with projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al. 2002). However, these models refer to fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions.

<h4><strong>Species adapt and migrate</h4><p></strong>Ian <u><strong>Thompson et al.</u></strong>, Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 20<u><strong>09</u></strong>, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity</p><p> While <u>resilience</u> can be <u>attributed to</u> many levels of organization of biodiversity, the <u>genetic composition of species </u>is the most fundamental. <u><mark>Molecular genetic diversity within a species,</mark> species diversity within a forested <mark>community, and</mark> community or <mark>ecosystem</mark> diversity across a landscape and bioregion <mark>represent</mark> expressions of biological <mark>diversity at different scales</u></mark>. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic variation found in populations. The <u>individuals</u> that comprise populations <u>at each level of ecological organization</u> are subject to natural se- lection and <u>contribute to the adaptive capacityor re- silience</u>of tree species and forest ecosystems (Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). <u><mark>Diversity at each of these levels has fostered</mark> natural</u> (and artificial) <u><mark>regeneration</u></mark> of forest ecosystems and facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by: DeHayes et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic climate warming. <u>Genetic diversity</u> (e.g., additive genetic variance) <u>within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes</u> within popu- lations and species <u>as they</u> respond or <u>adapt to en- vironmental changes</u> (Fisher 1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al. 2008). The potential for <u><mark>evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes</u></mark> based on artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989<mark>),<u></mark>and genetic strategies for <mark>reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change</u></mark> must focus on maintaining species diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). <u>In the face of rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation</u> within each population of a species (Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may be doomed to extinction (Lynch and Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental eco-physiological tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal mechanisms, constitute the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al. 1989, Halpin 1997). In the past, <u><mark>plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration</u></mark> (Davis and Shaw 2001). The capacity for long-distance migration of plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and probably <u>all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal,</u> despite morphological dispersal syndromes that would indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of mean migration rates found no significant differences be- tween wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Long-distance migration can also be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate change. The discrepancy between estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted for by the underestimation of long-distance disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace with projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al. 2002). However, these models refer to fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions. </p>

Ian Thompson et al., Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ian Thompson et al., Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity fulltext: While resilience can be attributed to many levels of organization of biodiversity, the genetic composition of species is the most fundamental. Molecular genetic diversity within a species, species diversity within a forested community, and community or ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent expressions of biological diversity at different scales. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic variation found in populations. The individuals that comprise populations at each level of ecological organization are subject to natural se- lection and contribute to the adaptive capacityor re- silienceof tree species and forest ecosystems (Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). Diversity at each of these levels has fostered natural (and artificial) regeneration of forest ecosystems and facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by: DeHayes et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic climate warming. Genetic diversity (e.g., additive genetic variance) within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes within popu- lations and species as they respond or adapt to en- vironmental changes (Fisher 1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al. 2008). The potential for evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes based on artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989),and genetic strategies for reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change must focus on maintaining species diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). In the face of rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation within each population of a species (Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may be doomed to extinction (Lynch and Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental eco-physiological tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal mechanisms, constitute the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al. 1989, Halpin 1997). In the past, plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration (Davis and Shaw 2001). The capacity for long-distance migration of plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and probably all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal, despite morphological dispersal syndromes that would indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of mean migration rates found no significant differences be- tween wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Long-distance migration can also be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate change. The discrepancy between estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted for by the underestimation of long-distance disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace with projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al. 2002). However, these models refer to fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions. [/INST] <h4><strong>Species adapt and migrate</h4><p></strong>Ian <u><strong>Thompson et al.</u></strong>, Canadian Forest Service, Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service, Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 20<u><strong>09</u></strong>, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity</p><p> While <u>resilience</u> can be <u>attributed to</u> many levels of organization of biodiversity, the <u>genetic composition of species </u>is the most fundamental. <u><mark>Molecular genetic diversity within a species,</mark> species diversity within a forested <mark>community, and</mark> community or <mark>ecosystem</mark> diversity across a landscape and bioregion <mark>represent</mark> expressions of biological <mark>diversity at different scales</u></mark>. The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic variation found in populations. The <u>individuals</u> that comprise populations <u>at each level of ecological organization</u> are subject to natural se- lection and <u>contribute to the adaptive capacityor re- silience</u>of tree species and forest ecosystems (Mull- er-Starck et al. 2005). <u><mark>Diversity at each of these levels has fostered</mark> natural</u> (and artificial) <u><mark>regeneration</u></mark> of forest ecosystems and facilitated their adaptation to dramatic climate changes that occurred during the quaternary period (review by: DeHayes et al. 2000); this diversity must be maintained in the face of antici- pated changes from anthropogenic climate warming. <u>Genetic diversity</u> (e.g., additive genetic variance) <u>within a species is important because it is the basis for the natural selection of genotypes</u> within popu- lations and species <u>as they</u> respond or <u>adapt to en- vironmental changes</u> (Fisher 1930, Pitelka 1988, Pease et al. 1989, Burger and Lynch 1995, Burdon and Thrall, 2001, Etterson 2004, Reusch et al. 2005, Schaberg et al. 2008). The potential for <u><mark>evolutionary change has been demonstrated in numerous long- term programmes</u></mark> based on artificial selection (Fal- coner 1989<mark>),<u></mark>and genetic strategies for <mark>reforestation in the presence of rapid climate change</u></mark> must focus on maintaining species diversity and genetic diversi- ty within species (Ledig and Kitzmiller 1992). <u>In the face of rapid environmental change, it is important to understand that the genetic diversity and adap- tive capacity of forested ecosystems depends largely on in situ genetic variation</u> within each population of a species (Bradshaw 1991). Populations exposed to a rate of environmental change exceeding the rate at which populations can adapt, or disperse, may be doomed to extinction (Lynch and Lande 1993, Burger and Lynch 1995). Genetic diversity deter- mines the range of fundamental eco-physiological tolerances of a species. It governs inter-specific competitive interactions, which, together with dispersal mechanisms, constitute the fundamental de- terminants of potential species responses to change (Pease et al. 1989, Halpin 1997). In the past, <u><mark>plants have responded to dramatic changes in climate both through adaptation and migration</u></mark> (Davis and Shaw 2001). The capacity for long-distance migration of plants by seed dispersal is particularly important in the event of rapid environmental change. Most, and probably <u>all, species are capable of long-distance seed disper- sal,</u> despite morphological dispersal syndromes that would indicate morphological adaptations primarily for short-distance dispersal (Cwyner and MacDon- ald 1986, Higgins et al. 2003). Assessments of mean migration rates found no significant differences be- tween wind and animal dispersed plants (Wilkinson 1997, Higgins et al. 2003). Long-distance migration can also be strongly influenced by habitat suitabil- ity (Higgins and Richardson 1999) suggesting that rapid migration may become more frequent and vis- ible with rapid changes in habitat suitability under scenarios of rapid climate change. The discrepancy between estimated and observed migration rates during re-colonization of northern temperate forests following the retreat of glaciers can be accounted for by the underestimation of long-distance disper- sal rates and events (Brunet and von Oheimb 1998, Clark 1998, Cain et al. 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, concerns persist that potential migration and ad- aptation rates of many tree species may not be able to keep pace with projected global warming (Davis 1989, Huntley 1991, Dyer 1995, Collingham et al. 1996, Malcolm et al. 2002). However, these models refer to fundamental niches and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions. </p> </s>

Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight

Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances and reducing travel restrictions Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming from the GOP with some Democrats campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since

Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming, mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift

<h4>Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight</h4><p><strong>Think Progress</strong>, “How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, <strong>2013</p><p></strong>Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President <u><strong>Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions</u></strong> the previous administration placed <u><strong>on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances</u></strong> from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home <u><strong>and reducing travel restrictions</u></strong> on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. <u><strong>Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming</u></strong>, mostly <u><strong>from the GOP</u></strong> <u><strong>with some Democrats</u></strong> joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, <u><strong>campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies</u></strong>. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the <u><strong>nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action</u></strong> <u><strong>Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since</u></strong> 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift</p>

Think Progress, “How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Think Progress, “How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, 2013 fulltext: Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming, mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift [/INST] <h4>Reforming Cuba policy will be a fight</h4><p><strong>Think Progress</strong>, “How the GOP Response to Beyoncé’s Cuba Trip Highlights Broken Policy”, April 9th, <strong>2013</p><p></strong>Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President <u><strong>Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions</u></strong> the previous administration placed <u><strong>on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances</u></strong> from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home <u><strong>and reducing travel restrictions</u></strong> on Americans with immediate family in Cuba. <u><strong>Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming</u></strong>, mostly <u><strong>from the GOP</u></strong> <u><strong>with some Democrats</u></strong> joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, <u><strong>campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies</u></strong>. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the <u><strong>nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action</u></strong> <u><strong>Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since</u></strong> 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift</p> </s>

China expanding its influence in LAC while US-relations decline

China’s presence in LAC has mushroomed in the last decade The region experienced a dramatic increase in economic, political, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties with China these ties are likely to deepen in the future US market share of LAC trade is declining, Chinese financing in the region is increasing, and Chinese investments in LAC have grown In addition to a broader economic relationship with China, we have found evidence that some LAC countries are experiencing increased military activity with China Specifically focusing on the Caribbean, which we argue has been largely ignored by the United States, China has expanded its presence in the region China’s motivations for its recent interest in the Caribbean range from acquiring raw materials to seeking support from specific nations in international organizations, such as the U N

(Jon, Nicole Adams, Christina Dinh, Devin Kleinfield-Hayes Wanlin Ren Andrew Tuck, Derek Hottle, Nav Aujla, and Kirsten Kaufman, American University School of International Service, December 2012, http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Chinese-Engagement-in-LAC-AU_US-Congress-FINAL.pdf) /wyo-mm) China’s presence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has mushroomed in the last decade. The region has experienced a dramatic increase in economic, political, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties with China. Our research indicates that while these ties are not an imminent threat to the United States., the China-LAC relationship should be monitored closely, as these ties are likely to deepen in the future. China’s emphasis on building South-South cooperation has given governments and businesses in the LAC region an alternative to the United States. While the United States is still viewed as a preferred economic partner to many LAC nations, we have found evidence that US market share of LAC trade is declining, Chinese financing in the region is increasing, and Chinese investments in LAC have grown. In addition to a broader economic relationship with China, we have found evidence that some LAC countries are experiencing increased military activity with China. LAC’s rising number of small arms transactions, high-level defense visits, and military student exchange programs with China are of interest to the United States. Our research has also concluded that LAC countries are interacting with China through other platforms, such as high-level visits by Chinese officials, the establishment of Confucius Institutes, and participation in LAC regional organizations. Specifically focusing on the Caribbean, which we argue has been largely ignored by the United States, China has expanded its presence in the region. We contend China’s motivations for its recent interest in the Caribbean range from acquiring raw materials to seeking support from specific nations in international organizations, such as the United Nations.

<h4>China expanding its influence<strong> in LAC while US-relations decline</h4><p>Brandt et al. 12</p><p></strong>(Jon, Nicole Adams, Christina Dinh, Devin Kleinfield-Hayes Wanlin Ren</p><p>Andrew Tuck, Derek Hottle, Nav Aujla, and Kirsten Kaufman, American University School of International Service, December 2012, http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Chinese-Engagement-in-LAC-AU_US-Congress-FINAL.pdf) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China’s presence in</u></strong> Latin America and the Caribbean (<u><strong>LAC</u></strong>) <u><strong>has mushroomed in the last decade</u></strong>.<u><strong> The region</u></strong> has <u><strong>experienced a dramatic increase in economic, political, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties with China</u></strong>. Our research indicates that while these ties are not an imminent threat to the United States., the China-LAC relationship should be monitored closely, as <u><strong>these ties are likely to deepen in the future</u></strong>. China’s emphasis on building South-South cooperation has given governments and businesses in the LAC region an alternative to the United States. While the United States is still viewed as a preferred economic partner to many LAC nations, we have found evidence that <u><strong>US market share of LAC trade is declining, Chinese financing in the region is increasing, and Chinese investments in LAC have grown</u></strong>.<u><strong> In addition to a broader economic relationship with China, we have found evidence that some LAC countries are experiencing increased military activity with China</u></strong>. LAC’s rising number of small arms transactions, high-level defense visits, and military student exchange programs with China are of interest to the United States. Our research has also concluded that LAC countries are interacting with China through other platforms, such as high-level visits by Chinese officials, the establishment of Confucius Institutes, and participation in LAC regional organizations. <u><strong>Specifically focusing on the Caribbean, which we argue has been largely ignored by the United States, China has expanded its presence in the region</u></strong>. We contend <u><strong>China’s motivations for its recent interest in the Caribbean range from acquiring raw materials to seeking support from specific nations in international organizations, such as the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>N</u></strong>ations. </p>

Brandt et al. 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brandt et al. 12 fulltext: (Jon, Nicole Adams, Christina Dinh, Devin Kleinfield-Hayes Wanlin Ren Andrew Tuck, Derek Hottle, Nav Aujla, and Kirsten Kaufman, American University School of International Service, December 2012, http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Chinese-Engagement-in-LAC-AU_US-Congress-FINAL.pdf) /wyo-mm) China’s presence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has mushroomed in the last decade. The region has experienced a dramatic increase in economic, political, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties with China. Our research indicates that while these ties are not an imminent threat to the United States., the China-LAC relationship should be monitored closely, as these ties are likely to deepen in the future. China’s emphasis on building South-South cooperation has given governments and businesses in the LAC region an alternative to the United States. While the United States is still viewed as a preferred economic partner to many LAC nations, we have found evidence that US market share of LAC trade is declining, Chinese financing in the region is increasing, and Chinese investments in LAC have grown. In addition to a broader economic relationship with China, we have found evidence that some LAC countries are experiencing increased military activity with China. LAC’s rising number of small arms transactions, high-level defense visits, and military student exchange programs with China are of interest to the United States. Our research has also concluded that LAC countries are interacting with China through other platforms, such as high-level visits by Chinese officials, the establishment of Confucius Institutes, and participation in LAC regional organizations. Specifically focusing on the Caribbean, which we argue has been largely ignored by the United States, China has expanded its presence in the region. We contend China’s motivations for its recent interest in the Caribbean range from acquiring raw materials to seeking support from specific nations in international organizations, such as the United Nations. [/INST] <h4>China expanding its influence<strong> in LAC while US-relations decline</h4><p>Brandt et al. 12</p><p></strong>(Jon, Nicole Adams, Christina Dinh, Devin Kleinfield-Hayes Wanlin Ren</p><p>Andrew Tuck, Derek Hottle, Nav Aujla, and Kirsten Kaufman, American University School of International Service, December 2012, http://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Chinese-Engagement-in-LAC-AU_US-Congress-FINAL.pdf) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China’s presence in</u></strong> Latin America and the Caribbean (<u><strong>LAC</u></strong>) <u><strong>has mushroomed in the last decade</u></strong>.<u><strong> The region</u></strong> has <u><strong>experienced a dramatic increase in economic, political, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties with China</u></strong>. Our research indicates that while these ties are not an imminent threat to the United States., the China-LAC relationship should be monitored closely, as <u><strong>these ties are likely to deepen in the future</u></strong>. China’s emphasis on building South-South cooperation has given governments and businesses in the LAC region an alternative to the United States. While the United States is still viewed as a preferred economic partner to many LAC nations, we have found evidence that <u><strong>US market share of LAC trade is declining, Chinese financing in the region is increasing, and Chinese investments in LAC have grown</u></strong>.<u><strong> In addition to a broader economic relationship with China, we have found evidence that some LAC countries are experiencing increased military activity with China</u></strong>. LAC’s rising number of small arms transactions, high-level defense visits, and military student exchange programs with China are of interest to the United States. Our research has also concluded that LAC countries are interacting with China through other platforms, such as high-level visits by Chinese officials, the establishment of Confucius Institutes, and participation in LAC regional organizations. <u><strong>Specifically focusing on the Caribbean, which we argue has been largely ignored by the United States, China has expanded its presence in the region</u></strong>. We contend <u><strong>China’s motivations for its recent interest in the Caribbean range from acquiring raw materials to seeking support from specific nations in international organizations, such as the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>N</u></strong>ations. </p> </s>

[D.] Marine biodiversity is key to ecosystem health and global biodiversity

the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change. well-balanced species communities are becoming increasingly unstable only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more difficult to record and evaluate than on land marine biodiversity performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms One of the most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from sunlight and nutrients which represents the basic food source for all life in the ocean, and ultimately also for human Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does biological diversity in the oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on the structure of the habitat

For a long time the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans was unclear. It is now known to play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems. It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change. But the well-balanced species communities are becoming increasingly unstable. The rapid disappearance of species¶ Biological diversity in the oceans has decreased dramatically since industrialization began in the 19th century. The primary causes for the losses include the destruction of habitats by trawler fishing, pollution and eutrophication of the seas, as well as the steady progress of climate change. Biological diversity is probably declining more rapidly than ever before in the history of the Earth. But at the same time, only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more difficult to record and evaluate than on land.¶ Why is marine biodiversity important?¶ Every ecosystem performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms. One of the most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from sunlight and nutrients (primary productivity), which represents the basic food source for all life in the ocean, and ultimately also for humans. Around half of the worldwide primary productivity is achieved by microscopically small plants, the phytoplankton, which grow and divide in the ocean. Another function performed by ecosystems is the creation of habitats, or structures, in coastal ecosystems. For example, macroalgae, seagrass and corals form large undersea forests, meadows or reefs that provide habitats for many other species such as molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Kelp forests and seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea are vital habitats for the fry and juvenile fish that grow up here before swimming into the open ocean as adults. Gastropods and small crustaceans likewise feed on microalgae growing on the kelp or seagrass. They thereby ensure that the structure-forming plants are not smothered, and are allowed to grow – that is their contribution to the ecosystem. The molluscs and crustaceans that feed on microalgae are the basic food source for larger predatory crustaceans and fish.¶ Seagrass and kelp itself have relatively long life spans because they are poor food sources for grazing crustaceans and molluscs. They store nutrients in their biomass for a long time, including nitrogen and phosphorous compounds transported by rivers from agricultural areas to the sea. Seagrass and macroalgae thus function as a kind of biological purification system in coastal ecosystems.¶ Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does. Experiments in coastal ecosystems, particularly seagrass meadows and kelp forests, have shown that biological diversity in the oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above. Species diversity was decreased in various ways during these experiments in order to compare the ecosystem functions of species-rich with species-poor areas. In one field experiment, for example, the number of seaweed species was artificially reduced by removing some at the beginning of the growth period. The total algal biomass in this species-poor area did, in fact, decrease, thereby resulting in a decline in the food for consumers as well as the number of available habitats. In another experiment, the number of grazing species that feed on the microalgae growing on seagrass was reduced. It was found that the species-poor grazer communities consumed fewer microalgae than species-rich communities. The shortage of grazing species resulted in a slower growth of seagrass because the increased growth of microalgae repressed photosynthesis in the seagrass.¶ These two experiments indicate that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on the structure of the habitat, regardless of whether the number of species of producers (macroalgae) or consumers (grazers) is reduced.

<h4>[D.] <strong>Marine biodiversity is key to ecosystem health and global biodiversity</h4><p>W.O.R., 2010</p><p></strong>[World Ocean reveiew, 2010, Marine biodiversity – a vital resource, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/marine-ecosystem/biodiversity/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>For a long time <u><strong>the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans </u></strong>was unclear. It is now known to <u><strong>play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems</u></strong>. <u><strong>It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change.</u></strong> But the <u><strong>well-balanced species communities are becoming increasingly unstable</u></strong>. The rapid disappearance of species¶ Biological diversity in the oceans has decreased dramatically since industrialization began in the 19th century. The primary causes for the losses include the destruction of habitats by trawler fishing, pollution and eutrophication of the seas, as well as the steady progress of climate change. Biological diversity is probably declining more rapidly than ever before in the history of the Earth. But at the same time, <u><strong>only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more difficult to record and evaluate than on land</u></strong>.¶ Why is <u><strong>marine biodiversity</u></strong> important?¶ Every ecosystem <u><strong>performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms</u></strong>. <u><strong>One of the most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from sunlight and nutrients</u></strong> (primary productivity), <u><strong>which represents the basic food source for all life in the ocean, and ultimately also for human</u></strong>s. Around half of the worldwide primary productivity is achieved by microscopically small plants, the phytoplankton, which grow and divide in the ocean. Another function performed by ecosystems is the creation of habitats, or structures, in coastal ecosystems. For example, macroalgae, seagrass and corals form large undersea forests, meadows or reefs that provide habitats for many other species such as molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Kelp forests and seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea are vital habitats for the fry and juvenile fish that grow up here before swimming into the open ocean as adults. Gastropods and small crustaceans likewise feed on microalgae growing on the kelp or seagrass. They thereby ensure that the structure-forming plants are not smothered, and are allowed to grow – that is their contribution to the ecosystem. The molluscs and crustaceans that feed on microalgae are the basic food source for larger predatory crustaceans and fish.¶ Seagrass and kelp itself have relatively long life spans because they are poor food sources for grazing crustaceans and molluscs. They store nutrients in their biomass for a long time, including nitrogen and phosphorous compounds transported by rivers from agricultural areas to the sea. Seagrass and macroalgae thus function as a kind of biological purification system in coastal ecosystems.¶ <u><strong>Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does</u></strong>. Experiments in coastal ecosystems, particularly seagrass meadows and kelp forests, have shown that <u><strong>biological diversity in the oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above</u></strong>. Species diversity was decreased in various ways during these experiments in order to compare the ecosystem functions of species-rich with species-poor areas. In one field experiment, for example, the number of seaweed species was artificially reduced by removing some at the beginning of the growth period. The total algal biomass in this species-poor area did, in fact, decrease, thereby resulting in a decline in the food for consumers as well as the number of available habitats. In another experiment, the number of grazing species that feed on the microalgae growing on seagrass was reduced. It was found that the species-poor grazer communities consumed fewer microalgae than species-rich communities. The shortage of grazing species resulted in a slower growth of seagrass because the increased growth of microalgae repressed photosynthesis in the seagrass.¶ These two experiments indicate that<u><strong> a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on the structure of the habitat</u></strong>, regardless of whether the number of species of producers (macroalgae) or consumers (grazers) is reduced.</p>

W.O.R., 2010 [World Ocean reveiew, 2010, Marine biodiversity – a vital resource, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/marine-ecosystem/biodiversity/] /Wyo-MB

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: W.O.R., 2010 [World Ocean reveiew, 2010, Marine biodiversity – a vital resource, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/marine-ecosystem/biodiversity/] /Wyo-MB fulltext: For a long time the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans was unclear. It is now known to play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems. It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change. But the well-balanced species communities are becoming increasingly unstable. The rapid disappearance of species¶ Biological diversity in the oceans has decreased dramatically since industrialization began in the 19th century. The primary causes for the losses include the destruction of habitats by trawler fishing, pollution and eutrophication of the seas, as well as the steady progress of climate change. Biological diversity is probably declining more rapidly than ever before in the history of the Earth. But at the same time, only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more difficult to record and evaluate than on land.¶ Why is marine biodiversity important?¶ Every ecosystem performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms. One of the most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from sunlight and nutrients (primary productivity), which represents the basic food source for all life in the ocean, and ultimately also for humans. Around half of the worldwide primary productivity is achieved by microscopically small plants, the phytoplankton, which grow and divide in the ocean. Another function performed by ecosystems is the creation of habitats, or structures, in coastal ecosystems. For example, macroalgae, seagrass and corals form large undersea forests, meadows or reefs that provide habitats for many other species such as molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Kelp forests and seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea are vital habitats for the fry and juvenile fish that grow up here before swimming into the open ocean as adults. Gastropods and small crustaceans likewise feed on microalgae growing on the kelp or seagrass. They thereby ensure that the structure-forming plants are not smothered, and are allowed to grow – that is their contribution to the ecosystem. The molluscs and crustaceans that feed on microalgae are the basic food source for larger predatory crustaceans and fish.¶ Seagrass and kelp itself have relatively long life spans because they are poor food sources for grazing crustaceans and molluscs. They store nutrients in their biomass for a long time, including nitrogen and phosphorous compounds transported by rivers from agricultural areas to the sea. Seagrass and macroalgae thus function as a kind of biological purification system in coastal ecosystems.¶ Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does. Experiments in coastal ecosystems, particularly seagrass meadows and kelp forests, have shown that biological diversity in the oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above. Species diversity was decreased in various ways during these experiments in order to compare the ecosystem functions of species-rich with species-poor areas. In one field experiment, for example, the number of seaweed species was artificially reduced by removing some at the beginning of the growth period. The total algal biomass in this species-poor area did, in fact, decrease, thereby resulting in a decline in the food for consumers as well as the number of available habitats. In another experiment, the number of grazing species that feed on the microalgae growing on seagrass was reduced. It was found that the species-poor grazer communities consumed fewer microalgae than species-rich communities. The shortage of grazing species resulted in a slower growth of seagrass because the increased growth of microalgae repressed photosynthesis in the seagrass.¶ These two experiments indicate that a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on the structure of the habitat, regardless of whether the number of species of producers (macroalgae) or consumers (grazers) is reduced. [/INST] <h4>[D.] <strong>Marine biodiversity is key to ecosystem health and global biodiversity</h4><p>W.O.R., 2010</p><p></strong>[World Ocean reveiew, 2010, Marine biodiversity – a vital resource, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/marine-ecosystem/biodiversity/] /Wyo-MB</p><p>For a long time <u><strong>the significance of biological diversity in the world’s oceans </u></strong>was unclear. It is now known to <u><strong>play a vital role in maintaining the functionality and productivity of ecosystems</u></strong>. <u><strong>It also makes habitats more resilient to environmental change.</u></strong> But the <u><strong>well-balanced species communities are becoming increasingly unstable</u></strong>. The rapid disappearance of species¶ Biological diversity in the oceans has decreased dramatically since industrialization began in the 19th century. The primary causes for the losses include the destruction of habitats by trawler fishing, pollution and eutrophication of the seas, as well as the steady progress of climate change. Biological diversity is probably declining more rapidly than ever before in the history of the Earth. But at the same time, <u><strong>only a small fraction of the species in the deep sea and polar oceans have so far been identified, making the loss of species in the oceans much more difficult to record and evaluate than on land</u></strong>.¶ Why is <u><strong>marine biodiversity</u></strong> important?¶ Every ecosystem <u><strong>performs certain functions that are critically important for organisms</u></strong>. <u><strong>One of the most important functions of marine ecosystems is the production of plant biomass from sunlight and nutrients</u></strong> (primary productivity), <u><strong>which represents the basic food source for all life in the ocean, and ultimately also for human</u></strong>s. Around half of the worldwide primary productivity is achieved by microscopically small plants, the phytoplankton, which grow and divide in the ocean. Another function performed by ecosystems is the creation of habitats, or structures, in coastal ecosystems. For example, macroalgae, seagrass and corals form large undersea forests, meadows or reefs that provide habitats for many other species such as molluscs, crustaceans and fish. Kelp forests and seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea are vital habitats for the fry and juvenile fish that grow up here before swimming into the open ocean as adults. Gastropods and small crustaceans likewise feed on microalgae growing on the kelp or seagrass. They thereby ensure that the structure-forming plants are not smothered, and are allowed to grow – that is their contribution to the ecosystem. The molluscs and crustaceans that feed on microalgae are the basic food source for larger predatory crustaceans and fish.¶ Seagrass and kelp itself have relatively long life spans because they are poor food sources for grazing crustaceans and molluscs. They store nutrients in their biomass for a long time, including nitrogen and phosphorous compounds transported by rivers from agricultural areas to the sea. Seagrass and macroalgae thus function as a kind of biological purification system in coastal ecosystems.¶ <u><strong>Scientists have addressed the question of whether the dramatic decline in biological diversity has consequences for the stable functioning of ecosystems. After 10 years of intensive study, the answer is clear – yes, it does</u></strong>. Experiments in coastal ecosystems, particularly seagrass meadows and kelp forests, have shown that <u><strong>biological diversity in the oceans is essential for maintaining the ecosystem functions described above</u></strong>. Species diversity was decreased in various ways during these experiments in order to compare the ecosystem functions of species-rich with species-poor areas. In one field experiment, for example, the number of seaweed species was artificially reduced by removing some at the beginning of the growth period. The total algal biomass in this species-poor area did, in fact, decrease, thereby resulting in a decline in the food for consumers as well as the number of available habitats. In another experiment, the number of grazing species that feed on the microalgae growing on seagrass was reduced. It was found that the species-poor grazer communities consumed fewer microalgae than species-rich communities. The shortage of grazing species resulted in a slower growth of seagrass because the increased growth of microalgae repressed photosynthesis in the seagrass.¶ These two experiments indicate that<u><strong> a decrease in biological diversity has a negative impact on the structure of the habitat</u></strong>, regardless of whether the number of species of producers (macroalgae) or consumers (grazers) is reduced.</p> </s>

China will cooperate over Venezuelan oil investment

China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations China and the U.S. focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106 security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries China is likely to fall back on U.S. protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil China would clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S., and instead focus most of its efforts in securing its oil routes to find alternative links over land through pipelines and railways

China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping ¶ with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations China and the U.S. ¶ focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and ¶ Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106¶ security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the ¶ Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries China is likely to fall back on U.S. ¶ protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil China would ¶ clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S.,

However, it seems that China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping ¶ with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations. First of all, this is due to the fact that China’s ¶ domestic energy consumption is still formed primarily for its demand for coal. In recent years, China ¶ showed initiatives to reduce the usage of coal and increase the consumption of oil and gas. China has a ¶ domestic oil production, certainly not enough to absorb its oil demand, but this nevertheless means that ¶ China is not very dependent on its oil imports, due to its strategy of diversifying its supplies and suppliers ¶ of oil which reduces its oil dependence. As China has been rising rapidly over the last decades, oil has ¶ become an important component to empower its economy, but its oil diplomacy towards the oil-producing ¶ countries should not be valued as aggressive or threatening. This is due to the fact that China and the U.S. ¶ focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and ¶ Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106¶ security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the ¶ Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries. China is aware of the entanglement in these highly geopolitical ¶ areas, and the fierce competition for oil with other consuming countries. This is the reason why China aims ¶ to diversify its oil supplies allowing not to be heavily depending on oil imports from these areas. Therefore, ¶ China seeks bilateral oil trade with different parts of the world such as with Venezuela. Certainly, the U.S. ¶ also imports oil from Arab OPEC countries, but this includes a quite modest share of its total oil import. ¶ And so in this case, China is not really contravening the U.S. in its ability to import oil from that region, ¶ nor is it really affecting the U.S. in Latin America as it concerns oil business. In short, according to both ¶ China and the U.S.’ oil diplomacy towards other nations, they both have different focus and suppliers. The ¶ two countries are both oil-importing countries and will benefit both from limited power for oil-producing ¶ countries (and thus OPEC), and share the goal of keeping international oil prices low. In this light, the U.S. and China are likely to cooperate on energy issues rather than to compete ¶ with and hinder each other. An oil crisis for one country, often affects other countries in a wider context. ¶ However, the fact that China is a rising super power is more of a challenge to the U.S.’ global position. The ¶ expansion of political relations between China and controversial regimes in the world can cause a threat to ¶ the U.S.’ national security. The situation around Iran might cause friction between China and the U.S., as ¶ Iran is China’s second largest source of imported oil and the U.S. has been boycotting Iran to some extent. ¶ Another important fact is that China has a limited naval capability. China’s attempt of safeguarding and/or ¶ disrupting sea-lanes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, would at first mean strong counter-moves by other ¶ countries and, second, could be very counterproductive. In fact, China is likely to fall back on U.S. ¶ protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil (Hongyi, 2007: 531). And thus, China would ¶ clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S., and instead focus most of its efforts in ¶ securing its oil routes to find alternative links over land through pipelines and railways.

<h4>China will cooperate over Venezuelan oil investment</h4><p><strong>Tania ’12</strong> [Maxime, Master of Science (M.Sc.), International Relations and Affairs from the University of Amsterdam, master’s thesis on China’s energy security in Venezuelan politics, “China’s energy security¶ strategy towards Venezuela,” July 1, http://epa.iias.asia/files/Maxime%20Tania%20-%20Chinas%20energy%20security%20strategy%20towards%20Venezuela%20-%20Transnationalization%20and%20the%20geopolitical%20impact%20of%20the%20Sino-Venezuelan%20relationship.pdf]</p><p>However, it seems that <u><mark>China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping </u>¶<u> with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations</u></mark>. First of all, this is due to the fact that China’s ¶ domestic energy consumption is still formed primarily for its demand for coal. In recent years, China ¶ showed initiatives to reduce the usage of coal and increase the consumption of oil and gas. China has a ¶ domestic oil production, certainly not enough to absorb its oil demand, but this nevertheless means that ¶ China is not very dependent on its oil imports, due to its strategy of diversifying its supplies and suppliers ¶ of oil which reduces its oil dependence. As China has been rising rapidly over the last decades, oil has ¶ become an important component to empower its economy, but its oil diplomacy towards the oil-producing ¶ countries should not be valued as aggressive or threatening. This is due to the fact that <u><mark>China and the U.S. </u>¶<u> focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and </u>¶<u> Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106</u>¶<u> security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the </u>¶<u> Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries</u></mark>. China is aware of the entanglement in these highly geopolitical ¶ areas, and the fierce competition for oil with other consuming countries. This is the reason why China aims ¶ to diversify its oil supplies allowing not to be heavily depending on oil imports from these areas. Therefore, ¶ China seeks bilateral oil trade with different parts of the world such as with Venezuela. Certainly, the U.S. ¶ also imports oil from Arab OPEC countries, but this includes a quite modest share of its total oil import. ¶ And so in this case, China is not really contravening the U.S. in its ability to import oil from that region, ¶ nor is it really affecting the U.S. in Latin America as it concerns oil business. In short, according to both ¶ China and the U.S.’ oil diplomacy towards other nations, they both have different focus and suppliers. The ¶ two countries are both oil-importing countries and will benefit both from limited power for oil-producing ¶ countries (and thus OPEC), and share the goal of keeping international oil prices low. In this light, the U.S. and China are likely to cooperate on energy issues rather than to compete ¶ with and hinder each other. An oil crisis for one country, often affects other countries in a wider context. ¶ However, the fact that China is a rising super power is more of a challenge to the U.S.’ global position. The ¶ expansion of political relations between China and controversial regimes in the world can cause a threat to ¶ the U.S.’ national security. The situation around Iran might cause friction between China and the U.S., as ¶ Iran is China’s second largest source of imported oil and the U.S. has been boycotting Iran to some extent. ¶ Another important fact is that China has a limited naval capability. China’s attempt of safeguarding and/or ¶ disrupting sea-lanes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, would at first mean strong counter-moves by other ¶ countries and, second, could be very counterproductive. In fact, <u><mark>China is likely to fall back on U.S. </u>¶<u> protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil</u></mark> (Hongyi, 2007: 531). And thus, <u><mark>China would </u>¶<u> clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S.,</mark> and instead focus most of its efforts in </u>¶<u> securing its oil routes to find alternative links over land through pipelines and railways</u>.</p>

Tania ’12 [Maxime, Master of Science (M.Sc.), International Relations and Affairs from the University of Amsterdam, master’s thesis on China’s energy security in Venezuelan politics, “China’s energy security¶ strategy towards Venezuela,” July 1, http://epa.iias.asia/files/Maxime%20Tania%20-%20Chinas%20energy%20security%20strategy%20towards%20Venezuela%20-%20Transnationalization%20and%20the%20geopolitical%20impact%20of%20the%20Sino-Venezuelan%20relationship.pdf]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tania ’12 [Maxime, Master of Science (M.Sc.), International Relations and Affairs from the University of Amsterdam, master’s thesis on China’s energy security in Venezuelan politics, “China’s energy security¶ strategy towards Venezuela,” July 1, http://epa.iias.asia/files/Maxime%20Tania%20-%20Chinas%20energy%20security%20strategy%20towards%20Venezuela%20-%20Transnationalization%20and%20the%20geopolitical%20impact%20of%20the%20Sino-Venezuelan%20relationship.pdf] fulltext: However, it seems that China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping ¶ with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations. First of all, this is due to the fact that China’s ¶ domestic energy consumption is still formed primarily for its demand for coal. In recent years, China ¶ showed initiatives to reduce the usage of coal and increase the consumption of oil and gas. China has a ¶ domestic oil production, certainly not enough to absorb its oil demand, but this nevertheless means that ¶ China is not very dependent on its oil imports, due to its strategy of diversifying its supplies and suppliers ¶ of oil which reduces its oil dependence. As China has been rising rapidly over the last decades, oil has ¶ become an important component to empower its economy, but its oil diplomacy towards the oil-producing ¶ countries should not be valued as aggressive or threatening. This is due to the fact that China and the U.S. ¶ focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and ¶ Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106¶ security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the ¶ Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries. China is aware of the entanglement in these highly geopolitical ¶ areas, and the fierce competition for oil with other consuming countries. This is the reason why China aims ¶ to diversify its oil supplies allowing not to be heavily depending on oil imports from these areas. Therefore, ¶ China seeks bilateral oil trade with different parts of the world such as with Venezuela. Certainly, the U.S. ¶ also imports oil from Arab OPEC countries, but this includes a quite modest share of its total oil import. ¶ And so in this case, China is not really contravening the U.S. in its ability to import oil from that region, ¶ nor is it really affecting the U.S. in Latin America as it concerns oil business. In short, according to both ¶ China and the U.S.’ oil diplomacy towards other nations, they both have different focus and suppliers. The ¶ two countries are both oil-importing countries and will benefit both from limited power for oil-producing ¶ countries (and thus OPEC), and share the goal of keeping international oil prices low. In this light, the U.S. and China are likely to cooperate on energy issues rather than to compete ¶ with and hinder each other. An oil crisis for one country, often affects other countries in a wider context. ¶ However, the fact that China is a rising super power is more of a challenge to the U.S.’ global position. The ¶ expansion of political relations between China and controversial regimes in the world can cause a threat to ¶ the U.S.’ national security. The situation around Iran might cause friction between China and the U.S., as ¶ Iran is China’s second largest source of imported oil and the U.S. has been boycotting Iran to some extent. ¶ Another important fact is that China has a limited naval capability. China’s attempt of safeguarding and/or ¶ disrupting sea-lanes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, would at first mean strong counter-moves by other ¶ countries and, second, could be very counterproductive. In fact, China is likely to fall back on U.S. ¶ protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil (Hongyi, 2007: 531). And thus, China would ¶ clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S., and instead focus most of its efforts in ¶ securing its oil routes to find alternative links over land through pipelines and railways. [/INST] <h4>China will cooperate over Venezuelan oil investment</h4><p><strong>Tania ’12</strong> [Maxime, Master of Science (M.Sc.), International Relations and Affairs from the University of Amsterdam, master’s thesis on China’s energy security in Venezuelan politics, “China’s energy security¶ strategy towards Venezuela,” July 1, http://epa.iias.asia/files/Maxime%20Tania%20-%20Chinas%20energy%20security%20strategy%20towards%20Venezuela%20-%20Transnationalization%20and%20the%20geopolitical%20impact%20of%20the%20Sino-Venezuelan%20relationship.pdf]</p><p>However, it seems that <u><mark>China is conducting either a defensive oil diplomacy strategy of coping </u>¶<u> with the U.S. and would prefer to avoid confrontations</u></mark>. First of all, this is due to the fact that China’s ¶ domestic energy consumption is still formed primarily for its demand for coal. In recent years, China ¶ showed initiatives to reduce the usage of coal and increase the consumption of oil and gas. China has a ¶ domestic oil production, certainly not enough to absorb its oil demand, but this nevertheless means that ¶ China is not very dependent on its oil imports, due to its strategy of diversifying its supplies and suppliers ¶ of oil which reduces its oil dependence. As China has been rising rapidly over the last decades, oil has ¶ become an important component to empower its economy, but its oil diplomacy towards the oil-producing ¶ countries should not be valued as aggressive or threatening. This is due to the fact that <u><mark>China and the U.S. </u>¶<u> focus on different sources of supply to import their oil. The U.S.’ main oil imports sources are Canada and </u>¶<u> Mexico as they are located much closer with less risks involved. As China is concerned about its energy 106</u>¶<u> security and finds ways to diversify its supplies, China obtains its oil imports from, among others, the </u>¶<u> Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries</u></mark>. China is aware of the entanglement in these highly geopolitical ¶ areas, and the fierce competition for oil with other consuming countries. This is the reason why China aims ¶ to diversify its oil supplies allowing not to be heavily depending on oil imports from these areas. Therefore, ¶ China seeks bilateral oil trade with different parts of the world such as with Venezuela. Certainly, the U.S. ¶ also imports oil from Arab OPEC countries, but this includes a quite modest share of its total oil import. ¶ And so in this case, China is not really contravening the U.S. in its ability to import oil from that region, ¶ nor is it really affecting the U.S. in Latin America as it concerns oil business. In short, according to both ¶ China and the U.S.’ oil diplomacy towards other nations, they both have different focus and suppliers. The ¶ two countries are both oil-importing countries and will benefit both from limited power for oil-producing ¶ countries (and thus OPEC), and share the goal of keeping international oil prices low. In this light, the U.S. and China are likely to cooperate on energy issues rather than to compete ¶ with and hinder each other. An oil crisis for one country, often affects other countries in a wider context. ¶ However, the fact that China is a rising super power is more of a challenge to the U.S.’ global position. The ¶ expansion of political relations between China and controversial regimes in the world can cause a threat to ¶ the U.S.’ national security. The situation around Iran might cause friction between China and the U.S., as ¶ Iran is China’s second largest source of imported oil and the U.S. has been boycotting Iran to some extent. ¶ Another important fact is that China has a limited naval capability. China’s attempt of safeguarding and/or ¶ disrupting sea-lanes, primarily in the Persian Gulf, would at first mean strong counter-moves by other ¶ countries and, second, could be very counterproductive. In fact, <u><mark>China is likely to fall back on U.S. </u>¶<u> protection to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes for oil</u></mark> (Hongyi, 2007: 531). And thus, <u><mark>China would </u>¶<u> clearly prefer to avoid confrontation around oil issues with the U.S.,</mark> and instead focus most of its efforts in </u>¶<u> securing its oil routes to find alternative links over land through pipelines and railways</u>.</p> </s>

Warming won’t cause extinction

climate change does not threaten the survival of the human species biodiversity is being depleted now due to other reasons It will alter critical ecosystems this is also happening now for reasons unrelated to climate change Catastrophic” climate change is not certain. large changes such as sea level rise will likely take centuries to unfold, giving societies time to adjust. abrupt climate change is unlikely to be ruinous. Even in a worse case scenario climate change is not the equivalent of the mega-asteroid. if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming.

climate change does not threaten survival of human species biodiversity depleted now due to other reasons Catastrophic” climate change is not certain changes will take centuries to unfold, giving time to adjust. abrupt climate change is unlikely to be ruinous

First, climate change does not threaten the survival of the human species.5 If unchecked, it will cause other species to become extinction (though biodiversity is being depleted now due to other reasons). It will alter critical ecosystems (though this is also happening now, and for reasons unrelated to climate change). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations. “Catastrophic” climate change is possible, but not certain. Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, large changes (such as sea level rise of, say, ten meters) will likely take centuries to unfold, giving societies time to adjust. “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or two. However, abrupt climate change (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious, is unlikely to be ruinous. Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of its consequences. Even in a worse case scenario, however, global climate change is not the equivalent of the Earth being hit by mega-asteroid. Indeed, if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful, then our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming. The challenge would still be more difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now.

<h4>Warming won’t cause extinction</h4><p><strong>Barrett</strong> <strong>‘7</strong> professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, (Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction)</p><p>First, <u><strong><mark>climate change does not threaten</mark> the <mark>survival of</mark> the <mark>human species</u></strong></mark>.5 If unchecked, it will cause other species to become extinction (though <u><mark>biodiversity</mark> is being <mark>depleted now due to other reasons</u></mark>). <u>It will alter critical ecosystems</u> (though <u>this is also happening now</u>, and <u>for reasons unrelated to climate change</u>). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations. “<u><mark>Catastrophic” climate change is</u></mark> possible, but <u><mark>not certain</mark>.</u> Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, <u>large <mark>changes</u></mark> (<u>such as sea level rise</u> of, say, ten meters) <u><strong><mark>will</mark> likely <mark>take centuries to unfold, giving</mark> societies <mark>time to adjust.</u></strong></mark> “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or two. However, <u><strong><mark>abrupt climate change</u></strong></mark> (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious, <u><strong><mark>is unlikely to be ruinous</mark>.</u></strong> Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of its consequences. <u>Even in a worse case scenario</u>, however, global <u>climate change is not the equivalent of the</u> Earth being hit by <u>mega-asteroid.</u> Indeed, <u>if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful</u>, then <u>our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming.</u> The challenge would still be more difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now. </p>

Barrett ‘7 professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, (Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Barrett ‘7 professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, (Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction) fulltext: First, climate change does not threaten the survival of the human species.5 If unchecked, it will cause other species to become extinction (though biodiversity is being depleted now due to other reasons). It will alter critical ecosystems (though this is also happening now, and for reasons unrelated to climate change). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations. “Catastrophic” climate change is possible, but not certain. Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, large changes (such as sea level rise of, say, ten meters) will likely take centuries to unfold, giving societies time to adjust. “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or two. However, abrupt climate change (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious, is unlikely to be ruinous. Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of its consequences. Even in a worse case scenario, however, global climate change is not the equivalent of the Earth being hit by mega-asteroid. Indeed, if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful, then our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming. The challenge would still be more difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now. [/INST] <h4>Warming won’t cause extinction</h4><p><strong>Barrett</strong> <strong>‘7</strong> professor of natural resource economics – Columbia University, (Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, introduction)</p><p>First, <u><strong><mark>climate change does not threaten</mark> the <mark>survival of</mark> the <mark>human species</u></strong></mark>.5 If unchecked, it will cause other species to become extinction (though <u><mark>biodiversity</mark> is being <mark>depleted now due to other reasons</u></mark>). <u>It will alter critical ecosystems</u> (though <u>this is also happening now</u>, and <u>for reasons unrelated to climate change</u>). It will reduce land area as the seas rise, and in the process displace human populations. “<u><mark>Catastrophic” climate change is</u></mark> possible, but <u><mark>not certain</mark>.</u> Moreover, and unlike an asteroid collision, <u>large <mark>changes</u></mark> (<u>such as sea level rise</u> of, say, ten meters) <u><strong><mark>will</mark> likely <mark>take centuries to unfold, giving</mark> societies <mark>time to adjust.</u></strong></mark> “Abrupt” climate change is also possible, and will occur more rapidly, perhaps over a decade or two. However, <u><strong><mark>abrupt climate change</u></strong></mark> (such as a weakening in the North Atlantic circulation), though potentially very serious, <u><strong><mark>is unlikely to be ruinous</mark>.</u></strong> Human-induced climate change is an experiment of planetary proportions, and we cannot be sur of its consequences. <u>Even in a worse case scenario</u>, however, global <u>climate change is not the equivalent of the</u> Earth being hit by <u>mega-asteroid.</u> Indeed, <u>if it were as damaging as this, and if we were sure that it would be this harmful</u>, then <u>our incentive to address this threat would be overwhelming.</u> The challenge would still be more difficult than asteroid defense, but we would have done much more about it by now. </p> </s>

Overfishing makes marine biodiversity and ecosystem destruction inevitable

marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue, The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks.

[Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800] /Wyo-MB Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.¶ The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.¶ According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.

<h4><strong>Overfishing makes marine biodiversity and ecosystem destruction inevitable</h4><p>Nuttall, 2004</p><p></strong>[Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, <u><strong>marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns</u></strong>. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that <u><strong>global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy</u></strong>, <u><strong>increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue,</u></strong>” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “<u><strong>The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.”</u></strong> The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.¶ <u><strong>The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat.</u></strong> As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.¶ According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, <u><strong>over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems.</u></strong> FAO reports that <u><strong>illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. </u></strong>Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.</p>

Nuttall, 2004

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nuttall, 2004 fulltext: [Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800] /Wyo-MB Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue,” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.¶ The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.¶ According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests. [/INST] <h4><strong>Overfishing makes marine biodiversity and ecosystem destruction inevitable</h4><p>Nuttall, 2004</p><p></strong>[Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800] /Wyo-MB</p><p>Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, <u><strong>marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns</u></strong>. Fishing is central to the livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more sobering, statistics reveal that <u><strong>global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy</u></strong>, <u><strong>increasingly pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation.¶ “Overfishing cannot continue,</u></strong>” warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which took place in Johannesburg. “<u><strong>The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people.”</u></strong> The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.¶ <u><strong>The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of meat.</u></strong> As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.¶ According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, <u><strong>over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems.</u></strong> FAO reports that <u><strong>illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. </u></strong>Few, if any, developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests.</p> </s>

The plan’s perceived as a concession to Cuba – congress prefers the hardline

Obama is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba policies fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups incl to share expertise as well as life experiences. the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy some saw the proposals as too politically volatile political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. “This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,” promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.

[“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&] The Obama administration is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those policies, officials said, fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups — including universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — to share expertise as well as life experiences. Policy analysts said the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy. In early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that some administration officials still saw the proposals as too politically volatile to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby — backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes. “This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,” he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.”

<h4><strong>The plan’s perceived as a concession to Cuba – congress prefers the hardline </h4><p>NY Times 10 </p><p></strong>[“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&] </p><p>The <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> administration <u><strong>is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba</u></strong>, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those <u><strong>policies</u></strong>, officials said, <u><strong>fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups</u></strong> — <u><strong>incl</u></strong>uding universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — <u><strong>to share expertise as well as life experiences. </u></strong>Policy analysts said <u><strong>the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy</u></strong>. In early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that <u><strong>some</u></strong> administration officials still <u><strong>saw the proposals as too politically volatile</u></strong> to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a <u><strong>political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby</u></strong> — backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — <u><strong>that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. </u></strong>Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes. <u><strong>“This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,”</u></strong> he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that <u><strong>promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.</u></strong>”</p>

NY Times 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: NY Times 10 fulltext: [“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&] The Obama administration is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those policies, officials said, fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups — including universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — to share expertise as well as life experiences. Policy analysts said the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy. In early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that some administration officials still saw the proposals as too politically volatile to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby — backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes. “This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,” he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.” [/INST] <h4><strong>The plan’s perceived as a concession to Cuba – congress prefers the hardline </h4><p>NY Times 10 </p><p></strong>[“U.S. Said to Plan Easing Rules for Travel to Cuba”, August 16th, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/world/americas/17cuba.html?_r=3&hp&] </p><p>The <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> administration <u><strong>is planning to expand opportunities for Americans to travel to Cuba</u></strong>, the latest step aimed at encouraging more contact between people in both countries, while leaving intact the decades-old embargo against the island’s Communist government, according to Congressional and administration officials. The officials, who asked not to be identified because they had not been authorized to discuss the policy before it was announced, said it was meant to loosen restrictions on academic, religious and cultural groups that were adopted under President George W. Bush, and return to the “people to people” policies followed under President Bill Clinton. Those <u><strong>policies</u></strong>, officials said, <u><strong>fostered robust exchanges between the United States and Cuba, allowing groups</u></strong> — <u><strong>incl</u></strong>uding universities, sports teams, museums and chambers of commerce — <u><strong>to share expertise as well as life experiences. </u></strong>Policy analysts said <u><strong>the intended changes would mark a significant shift in Cuba policy</u></strong>. In early 2009, President Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances only for Americans with relatives on the island. Congressional aides cautioned that <u><strong>some</u></strong> administration officials still <u><strong>saw the proposals as too politically volatile</u></strong> to announce until after the coming midterm elections, and they said revisions could still be made. But others said the policy, which does not need legislative approval, would be announced before Congress returned from its break in mid-September, partly to avoid a <u><strong>political backlash from outspoken groups within the Cuban American lobby</u></strong> — backed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey — <u><strong>that oppose any softening in Washington’s position toward Havana. </u></strong>Those favoring the change said that with a growing number of polls showing that Cuban-Americans’ attitudes toward Cuba had softened as well, the administration did not expect much of a backlash. “They have made the calculation that if you put a smarter Cuba policy on the table, it will not harm us in the election cycle,” said one Democratic Congressional aide who has been working with the administration on the policy. “That, I think, is what animates this.” Mr. Menendez, in a statement, objected to the anticipated changes. <u><strong>“This is not the time to ease pressure on the Castro regime,”</u></strong> he said, referring to President Raúl Castro of Cuba, who took office in 2006 after his brother, Fidel, fell ill. Mr. Menendez added that <u><strong>promoting travel would give Havana a “much needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression.</u></strong>”</p> </s>

Cuba-China relations at highest in history- recent diplomatic talks, economic agreement, and cooperation

Cuban leader Castro met (CPC) official and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development The new Chinese leadership led by Jinping cherishes traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations Hailing the Cuba-China relations as being at their best time in history, Castro said Havana is ready to strengthen communication

(Sukant, London Political Analyst, Sons of Malcolm, “’Cuba-China Relations Best Ever in History,” June 4, 2013, http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2013/06/cuba-china-relations-best-ever-in.html) /wyo-mm HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a kind of traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said. In addition, China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions, he said. In the future, China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations, he added. Hailing the Cuba-China relations as being at their best time in history, Castro said Havana is ready to strengthen communication between the two countries over party building and state governance, and to jointly explore a path of socialist development suitable to their national conditions.

<h4>Cuba-China relations at highest in history- recent diplomatic talks, economic agreement, and <strong>cooperation</h4><p>Chandan 6/4</p><p></strong>(Sukant, London Political Analyst, Sons of Malcolm, “’Cuba-China Relations Best Ever in History,” June 4, 2013, http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2013/06/cuba-china-relations-best-ever-in.html) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- <u><strong>Cuban leader</u></strong> Raul <u><strong>Castro met</u></strong> a senior Communist Party of China <u><strong>(CPC) official</u></strong> Saturday afternoon <u><strong>and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries</u></strong>. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that <u><strong>over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development</u></strong>. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. <u><strong>The new Chinese leadership led by</u></strong> General Secretary Xi <u><strong>Jinping</u></strong> deeply <u><strong>cherishes</u></strong> such a kind of <u><strong>traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said</u></strong>. In addition, <u><strong>China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions</u></strong>, he said. In the future, <u><strong>China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations</u></strong>, he added. <u><strong>Hailing the Cuba-China relations as being at their</u></strong> <u><strong>best time in history, Castro said Havana is ready to strengthen communication</u></strong> between the two countries over party building and state governance, and to jointly explore a path of socialist development suitable to their national conditions.</p>

Chandan 6/4

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Chandan 6/4 fulltext: (Sukant, London Political Analyst, Sons of Malcolm, “’Cuba-China Relations Best Ever in History,” June 4, 2013, http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2013/06/cuba-china-relations-best-ever-in.html) /wyo-mm HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a kind of traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said. In addition, China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions, he said. In the future, China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations, he added. Hailing the Cuba-China relations as being at their best time in history, Castro said Havana is ready to strengthen communication between the two countries over party building and state governance, and to jointly explore a path of socialist development suitable to their national conditions. [/INST] <h4>Cuba-China relations at highest in history- recent diplomatic talks, economic agreement, and <strong>cooperation</h4><p>Chandan 6/4</p><p></strong>(Sukant, London Political Analyst, Sons of Malcolm, “’Cuba-China Relations Best Ever in History,” June 4, 2013, http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2013/06/cuba-china-relations-best-ever-in.html) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- <u><strong>Cuban leader</u></strong> Raul <u><strong>Castro met</u></strong> a senior Communist Party of China <u><strong>(CPC) official</u></strong> Saturday afternoon <u><strong>and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries</u></strong>. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that <u><strong>over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development</u></strong>. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. <u><strong>The new Chinese leadership led by</u></strong> General Secretary Xi <u><strong>Jinping</u></strong> deeply <u><strong>cherishes</u></strong> such a kind of <u><strong>traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said</u></strong>. In addition, <u><strong>China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions</u></strong>, he said. In the future, <u><strong>China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations</u></strong>, he added. <u><strong>Hailing the Cuba-China relations as being at their</u></strong> <u><strong>best time in history, Castro said Havana is ready to strengthen communication</u></strong> between the two countries over party building and state governance, and to jointly explore a path of socialist development suitable to their national conditions.</p> </s>

[E.] BIODIVERSITY LOSS RISKS EXTINCTION

Extinctions are dangerous for humans, Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss.

Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.

<h4>[E.] BIODIVERSITY LOSS RISKS EXTINCTION</h4><p>Peter <u><strong>Montague</u></strong>, “The Four Horsemen—Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,” Rachel’s Enviornment & Health News, December 14, 19<u><strong>95</u></strong>, <u>http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651</u>.</p><p><u>Extinctions are dangerous for humans<strong>,</u></strong> but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION,<u><strong> </strong>Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species</u> with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential to our well being, yet <u>it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive.<strong> </u></strong>Therefore <u>each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss.<strong> </u></strong>In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.</p>

Peter Montague, “The Four Horsemen—Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,” Rachel’s Enviornment & Health News, December 14, 1995, http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Peter Montague, “The Four Horsemen—Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,” Rachel’s Enviornment & Health News, December 14, 1995, http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651. fulltext: Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator. [/INST] <h4>[E.] BIODIVERSITY LOSS RISKS EXTINCTION</h4><p>Peter <u><strong>Montague</u></strong>, “The Four Horsemen—Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity,” Rachel’s Enviornment & Health News, December 14, 19<u><strong>95</u></strong>, <u>http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651</u>.</p><p><u>Extinctions are dangerous for humans<strong>,</u></strong> but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION,<u><strong> </strong>Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species</u> with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential to our well being, yet <u>it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive.<strong> </u></strong>Therefore <u>each time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss.<strong> </u></strong>In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.</p> </s>

Relations are resilient

U.S.-China relations are in fundamentally sound condition President Jintao’s visit was generally assessed as realistic and achieving successes in a relationship that will always be marked by frictions two sides have cooperated on major security issues The U S and China have developed reasonable expectations about both the possibilities and limits of cooperation which will reduce the chances of future miscalculation

U.S.-China relations are fundamentally sound success in a relationship that will always be marked by frictions two sides have cooperated on major issues The U S and China developed reasonable expectations about limits of coop which will reduce chances of miscalc

The S&ED comes at a time when U.S.-China relations are in fundamentally sound condition. President Hu Jintao’s visit to the United States was generally assessed as setting a realistic tone and achieving successes in a relationship that will always be marked by frictions. President Obama, who will be involved in the S&ED, has put a high priority on U.S.-China relations, and the two sides have cooperated, within limits, on major security issues, including Iran, Korea, Sudan, Libya, and nuclear security. From the U.S. perspective, it will certainly not hurt that the meeting comes only a week after the successful raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden, which sends a message of U.S. strength and credibility in a relationship where those qualities are always the subject of Chinese scrutiny. The United States and China have developed reasonable expectations about both the possibilities and limits of cooperation, which will reduce the chances of future miscalculation. All of these subjects, plus broader developments in the Middle East, will be on the agenda of the S&ED.

<h4>Relations are resilient</h4><p><strong>Bader ’11 </strong>(Jeffrey A. Bader 11, visiting scholar at the China Center at Brookings, “U.S.-China Senior Dialogue: Maintaining the Balance”, May 6, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_strategic_economic_dialogue_bader.aspx</p><p>The S&ED comes at a time when <u><mark>U.S.-China relations are</mark> in <mark>fundamentally sound</mark> condition</u>. <u>President</u> Hu <u>Jintao’s visit</u> to the United States <u>was generally assessed as</u> setting a <u>realistic</u> tone <u>and</u> <u>achieving <mark>success</mark>es <mark>in a relationship that will</mark> <mark>always be marked by frictions</u></mark>. President Obama, who will be involved in the S&ED, has put a high priority on U.S.-China relations, and the <u><mark>two sides have cooperated</u></mark>, within limits, <u><mark>on major</mark> security <mark>issues</u></mark>, including Iran, Korea, Sudan, Libya, and nuclear security. From the U.S. perspective, it will certainly not hurt that the meeting comes only a week after the successful raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden, which sends a message of U.S. strength and credibility in a relationship where those qualities are always the subject of Chinese scrutiny. <u><mark>The</mark> <mark>U</u></mark>nited <u><mark>S</u></mark>tates <u><mark>and</mark> <mark>China</mark> have <mark>developed</mark> <mark>reasonable expectations about</mark> both the possibilities and <mark>limits of</mark> <mark>coop</mark>eration</u>, <u><mark>which will</mark> <mark>reduce</mark> the <mark>chances of</mark> future <mark>miscalc</mark>ulation</u>. All of these subjects, plus broader developments in the Middle East, will be on the agenda of the S&ED.</p>

Bader ’11 (Jeffrey A. Bader 11, visiting scholar at the China Center at Brookings, “U.S.-China Senior Dialogue: Maintaining the Balance”, May 6, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_strategic_economic_dialogue_bader.aspx

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bader ’11 (Jeffrey A. Bader 11, visiting scholar at the China Center at Brookings, “U.S.-China Senior Dialogue: Maintaining the Balance”, May 6, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_strategic_economic_dialogue_bader.aspx fulltext: The S&ED comes at a time when U.S.-China relations are in fundamentally sound condition. President Hu Jintao’s visit to the United States was generally assessed as setting a realistic tone and achieving successes in a relationship that will always be marked by frictions. President Obama, who will be involved in the S&ED, has put a high priority on U.S.-China relations, and the two sides have cooperated, within limits, on major security issues, including Iran, Korea, Sudan, Libya, and nuclear security. From the U.S. perspective, it will certainly not hurt that the meeting comes only a week after the successful raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden, which sends a message of U.S. strength and credibility in a relationship where those qualities are always the subject of Chinese scrutiny. The United States and China have developed reasonable expectations about both the possibilities and limits of cooperation, which will reduce the chances of future miscalculation. All of these subjects, plus broader developments in the Middle East, will be on the agenda of the S&ED. [/INST] <h4>Relations are resilient</h4><p><strong>Bader ’11 </strong>(Jeffrey A. Bader 11, visiting scholar at the China Center at Brookings, “U.S.-China Senior Dialogue: Maintaining the Balance”, May 6, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_strategic_economic_dialogue_bader.aspx</p><p>The S&ED comes at a time when <u><mark>U.S.-China relations are</mark> in <mark>fundamentally sound</mark> condition</u>. <u>President</u> Hu <u>Jintao’s visit</u> to the United States <u>was generally assessed as</u> setting a <u>realistic</u> tone <u>and</u> <u>achieving <mark>success</mark>es <mark>in a relationship that will</mark> <mark>always be marked by frictions</u></mark>. President Obama, who will be involved in the S&ED, has put a high priority on U.S.-China relations, and the <u><mark>two sides have cooperated</u></mark>, within limits, <u><mark>on major</mark> security <mark>issues</u></mark>, including Iran, Korea, Sudan, Libya, and nuclear security. From the U.S. perspective, it will certainly not hurt that the meeting comes only a week after the successful raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden, which sends a message of U.S. strength and credibility in a relationship where those qualities are always the subject of Chinese scrutiny. <u><mark>The</mark> <mark>U</u></mark>nited <u><mark>S</u></mark>tates <u><mark>and</mark> <mark>China</mark> have <mark>developed</mark> <mark>reasonable expectations about</mark> both the possibilities and <mark>limits of</mark> <mark>coop</mark>eration</u>, <u><mark>which will</mark> <mark>reduce</mark> the <mark>chances of</mark> future <mark>miscalc</mark>ulation</u>. All of these subjects, plus broader developments in the Middle East, will be on the agenda of the S&ED.</p> </s>

[A2: No Extinction] Nuclear war causes extinction- new studies

new scientific research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can still end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies, performed at several U.S. universities, predict the detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal within large urban centers will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer

new research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies, predict detonation of even a tiny fraction of arsenal will cause catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction protective ozone layer

Despite a two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, new scientific research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can still end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies, performed at several U.S. universities, predict the detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal within large urban centers will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer.

<h4>[A2: No Extinction] Nuclear war causes extinction- new studies</h4><p><strong>Starr ‘9</strong> (Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, October 2009, by Steven Starr Steven Starr is a Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. </p><p>Despite a two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, <u><mark>new </mark>scientific <mark>research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can</mark> still <mark>end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies,</mark> performed at several U.S. universities, <mark>predict</mark> the <mark>detonation of even a tiny fraction of</mark> the global nuclear <mark>arsenal</mark> within large urban centers <mark>will cause catastrophic disruptions of</mark> the <mark>global climate and massive destruction </mark>of the <mark>protective</mark> stratospheric <mark>ozone layer</u></mark>. </p>

Starr ‘9 (Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, October 2009, by Steven Starr Steven Starr is a Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Starr ‘9 (Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, October 2009, by Steven Starr Steven Starr is a Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. fulltext: Despite a two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, new scientific research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can still end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies, performed at several U.S. universities, predict the detonation of even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal within large urban centers will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer. [/INST] <h4>[A2: No Extinction] Nuclear war causes extinction- new studies</h4><p><strong>Starr ‘9</strong> (Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict, October 2009, by Steven Starr Steven Starr is a Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. </p><p>Despite a two-thirds reduction in global nuclear arsenals since 1986, <u><mark>new </mark>scientific <mark>research makes it clear that the environmental consequences of nuclear war can</mark> still <mark>end human history. A series of peer-reviewed studies,</mark> performed at several U.S. universities, <mark>predict</mark> the <mark>detonation of even a tiny fraction of</mark> the global nuclear <mark>arsenal</mark> within large urban centers <mark>will cause catastrophic disruptions of</mark> the <mark>global climate and massive destruction </mark>of the <mark>protective</mark> stratospheric <mark>ozone layer</u></mark>. </p> </s>

We Can Increase Biodiversity with Biotechnology

authors have argued that biodiversity loss irreversible While the loss of certain biological variants is effectively irreversible, some components of biodiversity can increase quite rapidly Biodiversity is not only species richness, but includes diversity within species and between ecosystems and landscapes. Humans can maintain and produce biological diversity just as we can maintain and produce other goods An example of human preferences directly or indirectly enhancing biodiversity and contributing to the size and growth of the economy is the biotechnology industry. The biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. Reflecting this value, the worldwide revenues of the biotechnology industry were about $89 billion in 2008, up from $63 billion in 2005 and $8 billion in 1992 ). In all these instances human activities create new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set If we're talking about doomsday the end of human civilization many scenarios simply don't measure up Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain.

human preferences directly indirectly enhancing biodiversity biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy. If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain

Some authors have argued that biodiversity loss is effectively irreversible because speciation is very slow (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Dietz and Adger 2003). While the loss of certain biological variants is effectively irreversible, some components of biodiversity can increase quite rapidly. Biodiversity is not only about global species richness, but includes diversity within species and between ecosystems and landscapes. Humans can maintain and produce biological diversity just as we can maintain and produce other goods. We add new biological variants to ecosystems via selective breeding, genetic engineering, hybridization and ecological management. We thus contribute to the biodiversity of the biosphere, while making it less ‘pristine’. An example of human preferences directly or indirectly enhancing biodiversity and contributing to the size and growth of the economy is the biotechnology industry. The biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. Reflecting this value, the worldwide revenues of the biotechnology industry were about $89 billion in 2008, up from $63 billion in 2005 and $8 billion in 1992 (Ernst & Young 2006, 2009). Other examples include the traditional breeding of domestic organisms (Darwin 1868; Helms and Brugmann 2007)—with dogs now displaying as much morphological diversity as does the whole class Carnivora according to Drake and Klingenberg (2010)—or the creation of new ecological communities and landscapes for food and fiber production and recreation (Rosenzweig 2003; Palmer et al. 2004; Hobbs et al. 2006; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008). In all these instances human activities create new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy. Biodiversity loss won’t cause extinction Easterbrook 3 (Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=) If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.

<h4>We Can Increase Biodiversity with<strong> Biotechnology</h4><p>Fuentes 11</p><p></strong><mark>[Marcelino Fuentes, Professor of Ecology, Universidade da Coruña, Human Ecology - Conservation Biology, “Economic growth and biodiversity”, 30 July 2011, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011, \\wyo-bb]</p><p></mark>Some <u><strong>authors have argued that biodiversity loss</u></strong> is effectively <u><strong>irreversible</u></strong> because speciation is very slow (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Dietz and Adger 2003). <u><strong>While the loss of certain biological variants is effectively irreversible, some components of biodiversity can increase quite rapidly</u></strong>. <u><strong>Biodiversity is not</u></strong> <u><strong>only</u></strong> about global <u><strong>species richness, but includes diversity within species and between ecosystems and landscapes. Humans can maintain and produce biological diversity just as we can maintain and produce other goods</u></strong>. We add new biological variants to ecosystems via selective breeding, genetic engineering, hybridization and ecological management. We thus contribute to the biodiversity of the biosphere, while making it less ‘pristine’. <u><strong>An example of <mark>human preferences directly </mark>or <mark>indirectly enhancing biodiversity </mark>and contributing to the size and growth of the economy is the biotechnology industry. The <mark>biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. </mark>Reflecting this value, the worldwide revenues of the biotechnology industry were about $89 billion in 2008, up from $63 billion in 2005 and $8 billion in 1992</u></strong> (Ernst & Young 2006, 2009). Other examples include the traditional breeding of domestic organisms (Darwin 1868; Helms and Brugmann 2007)—with dogs now displaying as much morphological diversity as does the whole class Carnivora according to Drake and Klingenberg (2010)—or the creation of new ecological communities and landscapes for food and fiber production and recreation (Rosenzweig 2003; Palmer et al. 2004; Hobbs et al. 2006; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008<u><strong>). In all these instances human activities create <mark>new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy</u>.</p><p></mark>Biodiversity loss won’t cause extinction</p><p></strong>Easterbrook 3<strong> </strong>(Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”, <u>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set</u>=)</p><p><u><strong><mark>If we're talking about doomsday</u></strong> - <u><strong>the end of human civilization</u></strong> - <u><strong>many scenarios simply don't measure up</u></strong></mark>. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. <u><strong><mark>Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain</mark>.</u></strong> Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.</p>

Fuentes 11 [Marcelino Fuentes, Professor of Ecology, Universidade da Coruña, Human Ecology - Conservation Biology, “Economic growth and biodiversity”, 30 July 2011, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011, \\wyo-bb]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Fuentes 11 [Marcelino Fuentes, Professor of Ecology, Universidade da Coruña, Human Ecology - Conservation Biology, “Economic growth and biodiversity”, 30 July 2011, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011, \\wyo-bb] fulltext: Some authors have argued that biodiversity loss is effectively irreversible because speciation is very slow (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Dietz and Adger 2003). While the loss of certain biological variants is effectively irreversible, some components of biodiversity can increase quite rapidly. Biodiversity is not only about global species richness, but includes diversity within species and between ecosystems and landscapes. Humans can maintain and produce biological diversity just as we can maintain and produce other goods. We add new biological variants to ecosystems via selective breeding, genetic engineering, hybridization and ecological management. We thus contribute to the biodiversity of the biosphere, while making it less ‘pristine’. An example of human preferences directly or indirectly enhancing biodiversity and contributing to the size and growth of the economy is the biotechnology industry. The biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. Reflecting this value, the worldwide revenues of the biotechnology industry were about $89 billion in 2008, up from $63 billion in 2005 and $8 billion in 1992 (Ernst & Young 2006, 2009). Other examples include the traditional breeding of domestic organisms (Darwin 1868; Helms and Brugmann 2007)—with dogs now displaying as much morphological diversity as does the whole class Carnivora according to Drake and Klingenberg (2010)—or the creation of new ecological communities and landscapes for food and fiber production and recreation (Rosenzweig 2003; Palmer et al. 2004; Hobbs et al. 2006; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008). In all these instances human activities create new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy. Biodiversity loss won’t cause extinction Easterbrook 3 (Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=) If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed. [/INST] <h4>We Can Increase Biodiversity with<strong> Biotechnology</h4><p>Fuentes 11</p><p></strong><mark>[Marcelino Fuentes, Professor of Ecology, Universidade da Coruña, Human Ecology - Conservation Biology, “Economic growth and biodiversity”, 30 July 2011, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011, \\wyo-bb]</p><p></mark>Some <u><strong>authors have argued that biodiversity loss</u></strong> is effectively <u><strong>irreversible</u></strong> because speciation is very slow (Asafu-Adjaye 2003; Dietz and Adger 2003). <u><strong>While the loss of certain biological variants is effectively irreversible, some components of biodiversity can increase quite rapidly</u></strong>. <u><strong>Biodiversity is not</u></strong> <u><strong>only</u></strong> about global <u><strong>species richness, but includes diversity within species and between ecosystems and landscapes. Humans can maintain and produce biological diversity just as we can maintain and produce other goods</u></strong>. We add new biological variants to ecosystems via selective breeding, genetic engineering, hybridization and ecological management. We thus contribute to the biodiversity of the biosphere, while making it less ‘pristine’. <u><strong>An example of <mark>human preferences directly </mark>or <mark>indirectly enhancing biodiversity </mark>and contributing to the size and growth of the economy is the biotechnology industry. The <mark>biotechnology industry produces new biodiversity that has value for us. </mark>Reflecting this value, the worldwide revenues of the biotechnology industry were about $89 billion in 2008, up from $63 billion in 2005 and $8 billion in 1992</u></strong> (Ernst & Young 2006, 2009). Other examples include the traditional breeding of domestic organisms (Darwin 1868; Helms and Brugmann 2007)—with dogs now displaying as much morphological diversity as does the whole class Carnivora according to Drake and Klingenberg (2010)—or the creation of new ecological communities and landscapes for food and fiber production and recreation (Rosenzweig 2003; Palmer et al. 2004; Hobbs et al. 2006; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008<u><strong>). In all these instances human activities create <mark>new biodiversity that is valuable to humans, and the act of value creation adds to the size of the economy</u>.</p><p></mark>Biodiversity loss won’t cause extinction</p><p></strong>Easterbrook 3<strong> </strong>(Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”, <u>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set</u>=)</p><p><u><strong><mark>If we're talking about doomsday</u></strong> - <u><strong>the end of human civilization</u></strong> - <u><strong>many scenarios simply don't measure up</u></strong></mark>. A single nuclear bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. <u><strong><mark>Environmental collapse might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be the final curtain</mark>.</u></strong> Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.</p> </s>

Time is key to passage – introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise

bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels pressure to act the ad hoc group on immigration reform realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ time is of the essence the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month time is running short There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves Lawmakers say .), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month Leahy has turned over authorship but his patience is limited April is the markup month and then to the floor in May Leahy’s really committed to getting this done I don’t think his patience will be endless, One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it the problem for immigration reform will be about access to future labor

A bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the essence. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month.¶ Either way, time is running short. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April is probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”

<h4><u>Time</u> is key to passage – introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise</h4><p>Alex <strong>Bolton</strong>, Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/<strong>13</p><p></strong>A <u><strong>bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation,</u></strong> <u><strong>as it feels</u></strong> subtle <u><strong>pressure</u></strong> from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee <u><strong>to act</u></strong>.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of <u><strong>the ad hoc group on immigration reform</u></strong>, says he and his colleagues <u><strong>realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶</u></strong> “We know <u><strong>time is of the essence</u></strong>. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said <u><strong>the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month</u></strong>.¶ Either way, <u><strong>time is running short</u></strong>. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. <u><strong>There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves </u></strong>for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ <u><strong>Lawmakers</u></strong> and groups advocating for reform<u><strong> say</u></strong> McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo<u><strong>.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month</u></strong>.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat <u><strong>Leahy</u></strong> (D-Vt.) <u><strong>has turned over authorship</u></strong> of immigration reform to the group <u><strong>but his patience is limited</u></strong>. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think <u><strong>April is</u></strong> probably <u><strong>the markup month</u></strong> they’re looking at <u><strong>and then to the floor in</u></strong> either <u><strong>May</u></strong> or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “<u><strong>Leahy’s really committed to getting this done</u></strong> and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “<u><strong>I don’t think his patience will be endless,</u></strong>” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ <u><strong>One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it</u></strong> in 2007.¶ “I think <u><strong>the problem for immigration reform will be about</u></strong> future flow, <u><strong>access to future labor</u></strong>,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”</p>

Alex Bolton, Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Alex Bolton, Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/13 fulltext: A bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation, as it feels subtle pressure from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to act.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of the ad hoc group on immigration reform, says he and his colleagues realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶ “We know time is of the essence. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month.¶ Either way, time is running short. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ Lawmakers and groups advocating for reform say McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has turned over authorship of immigration reform to the group but his patience is limited. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think April is probably the markup month they’re looking at and then to the floor in either May or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “Leahy’s really committed to getting this done and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “I don’t think his patience will be endless,” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it in 2007.¶ “I think the problem for immigration reform will be about future flow, access to future labor,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.” [/INST] <h4><u>Time</u> is key to passage – introducing the plan clogs the agenda and derails compromise</h4><p>Alex <strong>Bolton</strong>, Politics for the Hill. “Pressure builds on Senate group to unveil immigration reform specifics” The Hill, 3/4/<strong>13</p><p></strong>A <u><strong>bipartisan Senate group working on immigration reform plans to set a timeline for unveiling legislation,</u></strong> <u><strong>as it feels</u></strong> subtle <u><strong>pressure</u></strong> from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee <u><strong>to act</u></strong>.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a lead negotiator of <u><strong>the ad hoc group on immigration reform</u></strong>, says he and his colleagues <u><strong>realize the clock is ticking. They hope to soon have a timeline for unveiling legislation.¶</u></strong> “We know <u><strong>time is of the essence</u></strong>. Sometime in the next few weeks we will have a definite timeline. We got a couple of very big issues to resolve,” McCain told The Hill.¶ A Democratic source familiar with the talks said <u><strong>the group may unveil the bill itself before the end of the month</u></strong>.¶ Either way, <u><strong>time is running short</u></strong>. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), McCain’s negotiating partner, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill sometime in March. <u><strong>There are only three weeks left until Congress leaves </u></strong>for a two-week Easter recess on March 22.¶ <u><strong>Lawmakers</u></strong> and groups advocating for reform<u><strong> say</u></strong> McCain, Schumer and their partners, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo<u><strong>.), need to show substantial progress before the end of the month</u></strong>.¶ Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat <u><strong>Leahy</u></strong> (D-Vt.) <u><strong>has turned over authorship</u></strong> of immigration reform to the group <u><strong>but his patience is limited</u></strong>. He is eager to move shortly after the committee marks up a series of gun-violence bills this month.¶ Leahy put pressure on Schumer and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to speed up their talks over expanding background checks for private gun sales when he scheduled a legislative markup this past week. The chairman delayed the session to give Schumer more time but the message was clear: time is in short supply.¶ The same is true of immigration reform.¶ “I think <u><strong>April is</u></strong> probably <u><strong>the markup month</u></strong> they’re looking at <u><strong>and then to the floor in</u></strong> either <u><strong>May</u></strong> or June,” said Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.¶ Kelley said Leahy wants to see real progress from Schumer, McCain and Rubio before the recess.¶ “<u><strong>Leahy’s really committed to getting this done</u></strong> and he’s going to watch it carefully and he’s going to want to keep measuring progress. You may not get the final grade but you’ll get an interim report before the recess. I would expect they’re going to want to see real progress,” she said.¶ “<u><strong>I don’t think his patience will be endless,</u></strong>” a Democratic aide said of Leahy.¶ <u><strong>One of the biggest challenges in the immigration negotiations is how to handle future flows of immigrant workers. Controversy over a guest-worker program derailed comprehensive reform when the Senate last debated it</u></strong> in 2007.¶ “I think <u><strong>the problem for immigration reform will be about</u></strong> future flow, <u><strong>access to future labor</u></strong>,” said Graham. “The reason you have 11 million illegal workers is that lot of employers can’t find labor, so we got to address that.”</p> </s>

Chinese influence in Cuba high now- cooperation and diplomatic talks

new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations

(Mu, Xinhuanet News, “Raul Castro meets senior Chinese communist party official,” 2013, news.M.com/english/china/2013-06/02/c_124799756.htm) /wyo-mm HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a kind of traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said. In addition, China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions, he said. In the future, China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations, he added.

<h4><strong>Chinese influence in Cuba high now- cooperation and diplomatic talks</h4><p>Xuequan 13</p><p></strong>(Mu, Xinhuanet News, “Raul Castro meets senior Chinese communist party official,” 2013, news.M.com/english/china/2013-06/02/c_124799756.htm) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The <u><strong>new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a</u></strong> kind of traditional <u><strong>friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said</u></strong>. In addition, <u><strong>China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions</u></strong>, he said. In the future, <u><strong>China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen</u></strong> the traditional <u><strong>friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations</u></strong>, he added.</p>

Xuequan 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Xuequan 13 fulltext: (Mu, Xinhuanet News, “Raul Castro meets senior Chinese communist party official,” 2013, news.M.com/english/china/2013-06/02/c_124799756.htm) /wyo-mm HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a kind of traditional friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said. In addition, China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions, he said. In the future, China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen the traditional friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations, he added. [/INST] <h4><strong>Chinese influence in Cuba high now- cooperation and diplomatic talks</h4><p>Xuequan 13</p><p></strong>(Mu, Xinhuanet News, “Raul Castro meets senior Chinese communist party official,” 2013, news.M.com/english/china/2013-06/02/c_124799756.htm) /wyo-mm</p><p>HAVANA, June 2 (Xinhua) -- Cuban leader Raul Castro met a senior Communist Party of China (CPC) official Saturday afternoon and pledged to enhance communication between the two countries. Guo Jinlong, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, said that over the past 53 years since the two countries established diplomatic ties, China and Cuba have been offering understanding, sympathy and support to each other in building socialism, safeguarding world peace and promoting common development. "The two countries have in the process nurtured deep friendship between them," said Guo, who is also the party chief of Beijing Municipality. The <u><strong>new Chinese leadership led by General Secretary Xi Jinping deeply cherishes such a</u></strong> kind of traditional <u><strong>friendship and will support the efforts of the Cuban party, government and people in the just cause of defending their state sovereignty and fighting against foreign intervention, Guo said</u></strong>. In addition, <u><strong>China's leadership supports the Cuban party and government in exploring a socialist development path suitable to the country's own national conditions</u></strong>, he said. In the future, <u><strong>China is ready to work with Cuba to deepen</u></strong> the traditional <u><strong>friendship between the two countries, expand practical cooperation in all areas, and push forward the continuous development of bilateral relations</u></strong>, he added.</p> </s>

Relations are low- cyber-attacks

cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said Denmark It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington

cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said Denmark It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington

Signs are growing that the sustained surge in cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue.¶ The Pentagon this week said China appeared to be cyberspying against the U.S. government, the first time it has made such an assertion in its annual report on Chinese military power. A bill introduced in the Senate on Tuesday would require the president to block imports of products using stolen U.S. technology or made by companies implicated in computer theft.¶ Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets. Amid growing evidence that the People's Liberation Army and other state-backed groups are behind the infiltrations, Beijing's statements that the cyberhacking allegations are groundless -- repeated anew Wednesday by the Chinese Defense Ministry -- are being broadly dismissed.¶ "Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said Abe Denmark, senior director of the National Bureau of Asian Research, an independent U.S.-based think tank. "It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington."

<h4>Relations are low- cyber-attacks</h4><p><strong>Businessweek 5-8</strong>-13 [“Cyberattacks a growing irritant in US-China ties,” http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/cyberattacks-a-growing-irritant-in-us-china-ties]</p><p>Signs are growing that the sustained surge in <u><mark>cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue</u></mark>.¶ The Pentagon this week said China appeared to be cyberspying against the U.S. government, the first time it has made such an assertion in its annual report on Chinese military power. A bill introduced in the Senate on Tuesday would require the president to block imports of products using stolen U.S. technology or made by companies implicated in computer theft.¶ <u><mark>Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets</u></mark>. Amid growing evidence that the People's Liberation Army and other state-backed groups are behind the infiltrations, Beijing's statements that the cyberhacking allegations are groundless -- repeated anew Wednesday by the Chinese Defense Ministry -- are being broadly dismissed.¶ "<u><mark>Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said</u></mark> Abe <u><mark>Denmark</u></mark>, senior director of the National Bureau of Asian Research, an independent U.S.-based think tank. "<u><mark>It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington</u></mark>."</p>

Businessweek 5-8-13 [“Cyberattacks a growing irritant in US-China ties,” http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/cyberattacks-a-growing-irritant-in-us-china-ties]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Businessweek 5-8-13 [“Cyberattacks a growing irritant in US-China ties,” http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/cyberattacks-a-growing-irritant-in-us-china-ties] fulltext: Signs are growing that the sustained surge in cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue.¶ The Pentagon this week said China appeared to be cyberspying against the U.S. government, the first time it has made such an assertion in its annual report on Chinese military power. A bill introduced in the Senate on Tuesday would require the president to block imports of products using stolen U.S. technology or made by companies implicated in computer theft.¶ Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets. Amid growing evidence that the People's Liberation Army and other state-backed groups are behind the infiltrations, Beijing's statements that the cyberhacking allegations are groundless -- repeated anew Wednesday by the Chinese Defense Ministry -- are being broadly dismissed.¶ "Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said Abe Denmark, senior director of the National Bureau of Asian Research, an independent U.S.-based think tank. "It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington." [/INST] <h4>Relations are low- cyber-attacks</h4><p><strong>Businessweek 5-8</strong>-13 [“Cyberattacks a growing irritant in US-China ties,” http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-08/cyberattacks-a-growing-irritant-in-us-china-ties]</p><p>Signs are growing that the sustained surge in <u><mark>cyberattacks emanating from China is imperiling its relations with the U.S., lending urgency to fledgling efforts by both governments to engage on the issue</u></mark>.¶ The Pentagon this week said China appeared to be cyberspying against the U.S. government, the first time it has made such an assertion in its annual report on Chinese military power. A bill introduced in the Senate on Tuesday would require the president to block imports of products using stolen U.S. technology or made by companies implicated in computer theft.¶ <u><mark>Washington's sudden focus on Chinese hacking comes after rising complaints from U.S. businesses about theft of trade secrets</u></mark>. Amid growing evidence that the People's Liberation Army and other state-backed groups are behind the infiltrations, Beijing's statements that the cyberhacking allegations are groundless -- repeated anew Wednesday by the Chinese Defense Ministry -- are being broadly dismissed.¶ "<u><mark>Hacking has become a significant sore spot in the U.S.-China relationship," said</u></mark> Abe <u><mark>Denmark</u></mark>, senior director of the National Bureau of Asian Research, an independent U.S.-based think tank. "<u><mark>It encompasses security, trade and intellectual property rights, and has become an issue of strategic significance to Washington</u></mark>."</p> </s>

[A2: No War] Miscalculation ensures conflict- history proves war can still occur

when states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t produce catastrophes states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves One aspect of international politics is when states make decisions not only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with information that is incorrect misinformation Because you’re working with imperfect information and because you’re confused by the adversary you often times goof in a big way. I would make the argument just to highlight that when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, although it ended up with him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin in April 1945, when he went into the Soviet Union, it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong

when states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t produce catastrophes states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves not only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with misinformation when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong.

The whole subject of rationality is a fascinating subject. I want to emphasize here that when I say states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t then go out and make moves that produce catastrophes. The fact of the matter is that states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves in the foot. One very important aspect of international politics is the fact that when states make decisions, not only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with information that is incorrect misinformation. Because you’re working with imperfect information and because you’re oftentimes being confused by the adversary, you often times goof in a big way. I would make the argument just to highlight that when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, although it fortunately ended up with him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin in April 1945, when he went into the Soviet Union, in my opinion, it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong.

<h4>[A2: No War] Miscalculation ensures conflict- history proves war can still occur</h4><p><strong>Mearsheimer ’99</strong> (Distinguished Professor of Political Science, 1999. (John Mearsheimer, “Is Major War Obsolete?” 1999, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html)</p><p>The whole subject of rationality is a fascinating subject. I want to emphasize here that <u><mark>when</u></mark> I say <u><mark>states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t</u></mark> then go out and make moves that <u><mark>produce catastrophes</u></mark>. The fact of the matter is that <u><mark>states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves</u></mark> in the foot. <u>One</u> very important <u>aspect of</u> <u>international politics is</u> the fact that <u>when states make decisions</u>, <u><mark>not</u></mark> <u><mark>only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with </mark>information that is incorrect <mark>misinformation</u></mark>. <u>Because you’re working with imperfect information and because you’re</u> oftentimes being <u>confused by the adversary</u>, <u>you often times goof in a big way. I would make the argument just to highlight that <mark>when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union </mark>in June 1941, although it </u>fortunately <u>ended up with him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin in April 1945, when he went into the Soviet Union,</u> in my opinion, <u><mark>it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong</u>.</p></mark>

Mearsheimer ’99 (Distinguished Professor of Political Science, 1999. (John Mearsheimer, “Is Major War Obsolete?” 1999, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mearsheimer ’99 (Distinguished Professor of Political Science, 1999. (John Mearsheimer, “Is Major War Obsolete?” 1999, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html) fulltext: The whole subject of rationality is a fascinating subject. I want to emphasize here that when I say states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t then go out and make moves that produce catastrophes. The fact of the matter is that states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves in the foot. One very important aspect of international politics is the fact that when states make decisions, not only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with information that is incorrect misinformation. Because you’re working with imperfect information and because you’re oftentimes being confused by the adversary, you often times goof in a big way. I would make the argument just to highlight that when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, although it fortunately ended up with him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin in April 1945, when he went into the Soviet Union, in my opinion, it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong. [/INST] <h4>[A2: No War] Miscalculation ensures conflict- history proves war can still occur</h4><p><strong>Mearsheimer ’99</strong> (Distinguished Professor of Political Science, 1999. (John Mearsheimer, “Is Major War Obsolete?” 1999, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/index.html)</p><p>The whole subject of rationality is a fascinating subject. I want to emphasize here that <u><mark>when</u></mark> I say <u><mark>states behave rationally, that doesn’t mean that they can’t</u></mark> then go out and make moves that <u><mark>produce catastrophes</u></mark>. The fact of the matter is that <u><mark>states behaving rationally oftentimes miscalculate and end up shooting themselves</u></mark> in the foot. <u>One</u> very important <u>aspect of</u> <u>international politics is</u> the fact that <u>when states make decisions</u>, <u><mark>not</u></mark> <u><mark>only are they making those decisions based on imperfect information, but in many cases they are dealing with other states that are going to considerable lengths to fool them, to confuse them, to provide them with </mark>information that is incorrect <mark>misinformation</u></mark>. <u>Because you’re working with imperfect information and because you’re</u> oftentimes being <u>confused by the adversary</u>, <u>you often times goof in a big way. I would make the argument just to highlight that <mark>when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union </mark>in June 1941, although it </u>fortunately <u>ended up with him shooting himself in a bunker in Berlin in April 1945, when he went into the Soviet Union,</u> in my opinion, <u><mark>it was the result of a relatively rational decision-making process. They just miscalculated; they just guessed wrong</u>.</p></mark> </s>

[F.] Relations prevent collapse of the marine environment from oil spills

While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters The importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. To respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill.

While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move for- ward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territo- rial waters later this year.1 As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters. Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United states—Cuba rela- tions Cuba: a new Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration. The report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal rela- tions between the United states and Cuba through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identify- ing unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two countries. Among the initiatives recommended to the new obama Administration were: • “Open a dialogue between the United States and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual concern, including migration, counter-nar- cotics, environment, health, and security.• Develop agreements and assistance with the government of Cuba for disaster relief and en- vironmental stewardship.” Shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a conference high- lighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and envi- ronmental officials for over a decade to protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential bilateral collaboration aimed at protect- ing shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the Atlantic ocean. The importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the nat- ural heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vec- tors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates that Cuba’s Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cuba’s oil and gas reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment in addition to spain’s Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norway’s statoil-hydro, Brazil’s Petrobras and others will be conducting exploratory work off Cuba’s north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the environmental risks rise exponentially. To respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill.

<h4>[F.] <strong>Relations prevent collapse of the marine environment from oil spills</h4><p>Pinon and Muse 10 </p><p></strong>(Jorge and Robert, Visiting Research Fellow in the Cuba Research Institute at Florida International University and Attorney with substantial experience in US-Cuba legal matters, "Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why US-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical," The Brookings Institute, Cuba Issue Briefing No. 2, May, <u>http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf<strong>)</p><p>While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it</u></strong> came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move for- ward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territo- rial waters later this year.1 <u><strong>As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters</u></strong>—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters. Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United states—Cuba rela- tions Cuba: a new Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration. The report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal rela- tions between the United states and Cuba through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identify- ing unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two countries. Among the initiatives recommended to the new obama Administration were: • “Open a dialogue between the United States and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual concern, including migration, counter-nar- cotics, environment, health, and security.• Develop agreements and assistance with the government of Cuba for disaster relief and en- vironmental stewardship.” Shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a conference high- lighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and envi- ronmental officials for over a decade to protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential bilateral collaboration aimed at protect- ing shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the Atlantic ocean. <u><strong>The importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. </u></strong>Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the nat- ural heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vec- tors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates that Cuba’s Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cuba’s oil and gas reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment in addition to spain’s Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norway’s statoil-hydro, Brazil’s Petrobras and others will be conducting exploratory work off Cuba’s north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the environmental risks rise exponentially. <u><strong>To respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill.</p></u></strong>

Pinon and Muse 10 (Jorge and Robert, Visiting Research Fellow in the Cuba Research Institute at Florida International University and Attorney with substantial experience in US-Cuba legal matters, "Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why US-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical," The Brookings Institute, Cuba Issue Briefing No. 2, May, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Pinon and Muse 10 (Jorge and Robert, Visiting Research Fellow in the Cuba Research Institute at Florida International University and Attorney with substantial experience in US-Cuba legal matters, "Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why US-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical," The Brookings Institute, Cuba Issue Briefing No. 2, May, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf) fulltext: While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move for- ward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territo- rial waters later this year.1 As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters. Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United states—Cuba rela- tions Cuba: a new Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration. The report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal rela- tions between the United states and Cuba through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identify- ing unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two countries. Among the initiatives recommended to the new obama Administration were: • “Open a dialogue between the United States and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual concern, including migration, counter-nar- cotics, environment, health, and security.• Develop agreements and assistance with the government of Cuba for disaster relief and en- vironmental stewardship.” Shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a conference high- lighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and envi- ronmental officials for over a decade to protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential bilateral collaboration aimed at protect- ing shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the Atlantic ocean. The importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the nat- ural heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vec- tors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates that Cuba’s Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cuba’s oil and gas reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment in addition to spain’s Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norway’s statoil-hydro, Brazil’s Petrobras and others will be conducting exploratory work off Cuba’s north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the environmental risks rise exponentially. To respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill. [/INST] <h4>[F.] <strong>Relations prevent collapse of the marine environment from oil spills</h4><p>Pinon and Muse 10 </p><p></strong>(Jorge and Robert, Visiting Research Fellow in the Cuba Research Institute at Florida International University and Attorney with substantial experience in US-Cuba legal matters, "Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why US-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical," The Brookings Institute, Cuba Issue Briefing No. 2, May, <u>http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon/0518_oil_spill_cuba_pinon.pdf<strong>)</p><p>While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is un- likely to stop. it</u></strong> came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move for- ward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territo- rial waters later this year.1 <u><strong>As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United states of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sober- ing fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines. While Washington is working to prevent future di- sasters in U.s. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters</u></strong>—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.s. waters. Context in April 2009, the Brookings institution released a comprehensive report on United states—Cuba rela- tions Cuba: a new Policy of Critical of Critical and Constructive engagement timed to serve as a resource for policymakers in the new Administration. The report, which reflected consensus among a diverse group of experts on U.s.-Cuba relations, was notable for its menu of executive Branch actions that could, over time, facilitate the restoration of normal rela- tions between the United states and Cuba through a series of confidence-building exercises in areas of clear mutual interest. The emphasis was on identify- ing unobjectionable, practical and realizable areas of cooperation between the two countries. Among the initiatives recommended to the new obama Administration were: • “Open a dialogue between the United States and Cuba, particularly on issues of mutual concern, including migration, counter-nar- cotics, environment, health, and security.• Develop agreements and assistance with the government of Cuba for disaster relief and en- vironmental stewardship.” Shortly after releasing its report, Brookings and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) co-hosted a new era for U.S.-Cuba Relations on Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation, a conference high- lighting the importance and value of environmental cooperation between Cuba and the United states. EDF has particular expertise in this area because it has been working with Cuban scientists and envi- ronmental officials for over a decade to protect coral reefs, marine life and coastal areas in their country. The joint Brookings/EDF conference identified areas of potential bilateral collaboration aimed at protect- ing shared marine and coastal ecosystems in the gulf of Mexico, Caribbean sea and the Atlantic ocean. <u><strong>The importance of cooperation on environmental is- sues stressed at the conference is particularly relevant now in light of events like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the basic facts of geography and their rela- tion to threats to contiguous U.s. and Cuban marine areas. Cuba sits at the intersection of the Atlantic ocean, Caribbean sea and gulf of Mexico and thus shares marine waters with the United states, areas where oil and gas deposits are about to be explored. </u></strong>Preserving that country’s marine biodiversity is critically important because it constitutes the nat- ural heritage of the Cuban people. The health of Cuba’s ocean environment is likewise important to the economies of coastal communities in the United states where significant numbers of fish species that spawn in Cuban waters are carried by prevailing currents into U.s. waters and caught by commercial and recreational fishermen. florida and the southeastern United states are situated in the downstream of those currents, which bring snapper, grouper, tuna, swordfish (as well as manatee and sea turtles) to U.S. waters, but can serve equally as vec- tors of Cuban spilled oil. The United states geological survey estimates that Cuba’s Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), which includes the gulf of Mexico north Cuba fold and Thrust Belt, has over five billion barrels of oil and 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas undiscovered reserves.2 Like the United states, the size of Cuba’s oil and gas reserves is both economically fortuitous and a measure of the threat it poses to the marine environment in addition to spain’s Repsol, over the next few years international oil companies such as norway’s statoil-hydro, Brazil’s Petrobras and others will be conducting exploratory work off Cuba’s north coast. it is only a matter of time before production begins in earnest and the environmental risks rise exponentially. <u><strong>To respond effectively to an oil-related marine acci- dent, any company operating in or near Cuban ter- ritorial waters will require immediate access to the expertise and equipment of U.s. oil companies and their suppliers. They are best positioned to provide immediately the technology and know-how needed to halt and limit the damage to the marine envi- ronment. obviously, the establishment of working relations between the United states and Cuba to fa- cilitate marine environmental protection is the first step in the contingency planning and cooperation that will be necessary to an effective response and early end to an oil spill.</p></u></strong> </s>

Global warming makes marine biodiversity loss inevitable

] /Wyo-MB the combined effects of warming and predation could lead to more widespread marine biodiversity loss than are currently predicted, as animals or plants are unable to shift their habitat ranges Many intertidal organisms, like mussels, already live very close to their thermal tolerance limits, so the impacts can be easily studied. with higher temperature, these creatures were forced to live at lower shore levels, at the same level as predatory sea stars causing the upper limits of barnacle and mussels habitats to retreat by 50 centimeters down the shore, contrary to its effect on predators which has remained constant.¶ "That loss represents 51 per cent of the mussel bed Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species," says Harley. "This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity."

[Genalyn, International Business Times, Study: Global Warming and Predation Could Result to Widespread Marine Biodiversity Loss, 11-30-11, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/258255/20111130/study-global-warming-predation-result-widespread-marine.htm#.Ub9LEvb72P4] /Wyo-MB A new study shows that the combined effects of warming and predation could lead to more widespread marine biodiversity loss than are currently predicted, as animals or plants are unable to shift their habitat ranges. The study by University of Columbia zoologist Christopher Harley, examined the response of barnacles and mussels to the warming and predation by sea stars.¶ "Rocky intertidal communities are ideal test-beds for studying the effects of climatic warming," says Harley, an associate professor of zoology at UBC and author of the study. "Many intertidal organisms, like mussels, already live very close to their thermal tolerance limits, so the impacts can be easily studied."¶ The study found that at cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles were able to live high on the shore, beyond the range of their predators. But with higher temperature, these creatures were forced to live at lower shore levels, at the same level as predatory sea stars.¶ In the last 60 years, summer temperatures increased by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius, causing the upper limits of barnacle and mussels habitats to retreat by 50 centimeters down the shore, contrary to its effect on predators which has remained constant.¶ "That loss represents 51 per cent of the mussel bed. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed," says Harley. On the other hand, when pressure from sea star predation was reduced using exclusion cages, these were able to move to warmer sites and the species richness at the sites more than doubled.¶ "Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species," says Harley. "This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity."

<h4><strong>Global warming makes marine biodiversity loss inevitable</h4><p>Coroncoto, 2011</p><p></strong>[Genalyn, International Business Times, Study: Global Warming and Predation Could Result to Widespread Marine Biodiversity Loss, 11-30-11, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/258255/20111130/study-global-warming-predation-result-widespread-marine.htm#.Ub9LEvb72P4<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>A new study shows that <u><strong>the combined effects of warming and predation could lead to more widespread marine biodiversity loss than are currently predicted, as animals or plants are unable to shift their habitat ranges</u></strong>. The study by University of Columbia zoologist Christopher Harley, examined the response of barnacles and mussels to the warming and predation by sea stars.¶ "Rocky intertidal communities are ideal test-beds for studying the effects of climatic warming," says Harley, an associate professor of zoology at UBC and author of the study. "<u><strong>Many intertidal organisms, like mussels, already live very close to their thermal tolerance limits, so the impacts can be easily studied.</u></strong>"¶ The study found that at cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles were able to live high on the shore, beyond the range of their predators. But <u><strong>with higher temperature, these creatures were forced to live at lower shore levels, at the same level as predatory sea stars</u></strong>.¶ In the last 60 years, summer temperatures increased by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius, <u><strong>causing the upper limits of barnacle and mussels habitats to retreat by 50 centimeters down the shore, contrary to its effect on predators which has remained constant.¶ "That loss represents 51 per cent of the mussel bed</u></strong>. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed," says Harley. On the other hand, when pressure from sea star predation was reduced using exclusion cages, these were able to move to warmer sites and the species richness at the sites more than doubled.¶ "<u><strong>Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species," says Harley. "This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity."</p></u></strong>

Coroncoto, 2011

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Coroncoto, 2011 fulltext: [Genalyn, International Business Times, Study: Global Warming and Predation Could Result to Widespread Marine Biodiversity Loss, 11-30-11, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/258255/20111130/study-global-warming-predation-result-widespread-marine.htm#.Ub9LEvb72P4] /Wyo-MB A new study shows that the combined effects of warming and predation could lead to more widespread marine biodiversity loss than are currently predicted, as animals or plants are unable to shift their habitat ranges. The study by University of Columbia zoologist Christopher Harley, examined the response of barnacles and mussels to the warming and predation by sea stars.¶ "Rocky intertidal communities are ideal test-beds for studying the effects of climatic warming," says Harley, an associate professor of zoology at UBC and author of the study. "Many intertidal organisms, like mussels, already live very close to their thermal tolerance limits, so the impacts can be easily studied."¶ The study found that at cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles were able to live high on the shore, beyond the range of their predators. But with higher temperature, these creatures were forced to live at lower shore levels, at the same level as predatory sea stars.¶ In the last 60 years, summer temperatures increased by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius, causing the upper limits of barnacle and mussels habitats to retreat by 50 centimeters down the shore, contrary to its effect on predators which has remained constant.¶ "That loss represents 51 per cent of the mussel bed. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed," says Harley. On the other hand, when pressure from sea star predation was reduced using exclusion cages, these were able to move to warmer sites and the species richness at the sites more than doubled.¶ "Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species," says Harley. "This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity." [/INST] <h4><strong>Global warming makes marine biodiversity loss inevitable</h4><p>Coroncoto, 2011</p><p></strong>[Genalyn, International Business Times, Study: Global Warming and Predation Could Result to Widespread Marine Biodiversity Loss, 11-30-11, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/258255/20111130/study-global-warming-predation-result-widespread-marine.htm#.Ub9LEvb72P4<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>A new study shows that <u><strong>the combined effects of warming and predation could lead to more widespread marine biodiversity loss than are currently predicted, as animals or plants are unable to shift their habitat ranges</u></strong>. The study by University of Columbia zoologist Christopher Harley, examined the response of barnacles and mussels to the warming and predation by sea stars.¶ "Rocky intertidal communities are ideal test-beds for studying the effects of climatic warming," says Harley, an associate professor of zoology at UBC and author of the study. "<u><strong>Many intertidal organisms, like mussels, already live very close to their thermal tolerance limits, so the impacts can be easily studied.</u></strong>"¶ The study found that at cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles were able to live high on the shore, beyond the range of their predators. But <u><strong>with higher temperature, these creatures were forced to live at lower shore levels, at the same level as predatory sea stars</u></strong>.¶ In the last 60 years, summer temperatures increased by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius, <u><strong>causing the upper limits of barnacle and mussels habitats to retreat by 50 centimeters down the shore, contrary to its effect on predators which has remained constant.¶ "That loss represents 51 per cent of the mussel bed</u></strong>. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed," says Harley. On the other hand, when pressure from sea star predation was reduced using exclusion cages, these were able to move to warmer sites and the species richness at the sites more than doubled.¶ "<u><strong>Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species," says Harley. "This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity."</p></u></strong> </s>

Obama’s set his agenda to get immigration through – new fights derail it

Obama will set priorities in his second term to avoid becoming mired in a heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda. He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others ''We clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done Plouffe added We've got to seize this opportunity

Obama will set priorities to avoid becoming mired in heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the agenda ''We have this moment we can get immigration done

The State of the Union address that Mr. Obama will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House will set priorities in his second term as well as how it intends to avoid becoming mired in a heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda. ''There's no doubt you want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this week. He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns, immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others. ''We clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done,'' Mr. Plouffe added. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. We've got to seize this opportunity.''

<h4>Obama’s <u>set his agenda</u> to get immigration through – new fights derail it </h4><p>Jeff <strong>Zeleny</strong>, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT, 1/24/<strong>2013</strong>. </p><p>The State of the Union address that Mr. <u><mark>Obama</u></mark> will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House <u><mark>will set priorities</mark> in his second term</u> as well as how it intends <u><mark>to <strong>avoid becoming mired in</mark> a <mark>heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the</mark> full <mark>agenda</mark>.</u></strong> ''There's no doubt you want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this week. <u>He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns</u>, <u>immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others</u>. <u><strong><mark>''We </mark>clearly <mark>have this moment</mark> where <mark>we can get immigration done</u></strong></mark>,'' Mr. <u><strong>Plouffe added</u></strong>. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. <u>We've got to seize this opportunity</u>.''</p>

Jeff Zeleny, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT, 1/24/2013.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jeff Zeleny, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT, 1/24/2013. fulltext: The State of the Union address that Mr. Obama will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House will set priorities in his second term as well as how it intends to avoid becoming mired in a heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the full agenda. ''There's no doubt you want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this week. He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns, immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others. ''We clearly have this moment where we can get immigration done,'' Mr. Plouffe added. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. We've got to seize this opportunity.'' [/INST] <h4>Obama’s <u>set his agenda</u> to get immigration through – new fights derail it </h4><p>Jeff <strong>Zeleny</strong>, NYT political correspondent, “For Obama, am ambitious agenda faces ticking clock” IHT, 1/24/<strong>2013</strong>. </p><p>The State of the Union address that Mr. <u><mark>Obama</u></mark> will deliver to Congress on Feb. 12 will offer the most definitive road map yet for how the White House <u><mark>will set priorities</mark> in his second term</u> as well as how it intends <u><mark>to <strong>avoid becoming mired in</mark> a <mark>heated debate over one contentious topic to the detriment of the</mark> full <mark>agenda</mark>.</u></strong> ''There's no doubt you want to get off to a strong start, and we've got a pretty big dance card,'' said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama who is leaving the White House this week. <u>He ticked through a list of agenda items that included guns</u>, <u>immigration and fiscal issues, but he disputed the suggestion that one item would overtake the others</u>. <u><strong><mark>''We </mark>clearly <mark>have this moment</mark> where <mark>we can get immigration done</u></strong></mark>,'' Mr. <u><strong>Plouffe added</u></strong>. ''If we don't get it done, then shame on us. <u>We've got to seize this opportunity</u>.''</p> </s>

Latin America seen as key battle-ground for influences- any perception of infringement on influence sparks tension

As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the U S China is strictly concerned with commodities, including oil Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle over rights competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for political influence. but China’s actions and increasing integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the proximity and importance of Latin America to the U S this region could be the symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China

(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the United States. China is strictly concerned with commodities, including oil. U.S. President Barack Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle over rights to Brazilian oil. In that regard, the competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for political influence. It is odd to think that the United States would need to compete for hemispheric dominance with a country on the other side of the globe, but China’s actions and increasing integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the proximity and importance of Latin America to the United States, this region could be the symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China.

<h4>Latin America seen as key battle-ground for influences- any perception of infringement on influence sparks <strong>tension</h4><p>Cerna 11</p><p></strong>(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates. <u><strong>China is strictly concerned with commodities, including oil</u></strong>. U.S. President Barack <u><strong>Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle over rights</u></strong> to Brazilian oil. In that regard, the <u><strong>competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for political influence.</u></strong> It is odd to think that the United States would need to compete for hemispheric dominance with a country on the other side of the globe, <u><strong>but China’s actions and increasing integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the proximity and importance of Latin America to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>this region could be the symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China</u></strong>.</p>

Cerna 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cerna 11 fulltext: (Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the United States. China is strictly concerned with commodities, including oil. U.S. President Barack Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle over rights to Brazilian oil. In that regard, the competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for political influence. It is odd to think that the United States would need to compete for hemispheric dominance with a country on the other side of the globe, but China’s actions and increasing integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the proximity and importance of Latin America to the United States, this region could be the symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China. [/INST] <h4>Latin America seen as key battle-ground for influences- any perception of infringement on influence sparks <strong>tension</h4><p>Cerna 11</p><p></strong>(Michael, China Research Center, “China’s Growing Presence in Latin-America: Implications for U.S. and Chinese Presence in the Region,” April 15, 2011, http://www.chinacenter.net/chinas-growing-presence-in-latin-america-implications-for-u-s-and-chinese-presence-in-the-region/) /wyo-mm</p><p><u><strong>As it stands, the Chinese are not broadening their relations with the region in a way that directly competes with the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates. <u><strong>China is strictly concerned with commodities, including oil</u></strong>. U.S. President Barack <u><strong>Obama recently signed an agreement with Brazil’s Petrobras that will allow the oil company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. This symbolic move could cause tensions to increase as the world’s two largest oil consumers battle over rights</u></strong> to Brazilian oil. In that regard, the <u><strong>competition may go beyond a race to Latin commodities and move into the realm of fighting for political influence.</u></strong> It is odd to think that the United States would need to compete for hemispheric dominance with a country on the other side of the globe, <u><strong>but China’s actions and increasing integration into the region tell us that such a scenario may one day arise. Given the proximity and importance of Latin America to the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates, <u><strong>this region could be the symbolic battle that best measures the continued hegemony of the U.S. versus China</u></strong>.</p> </s>

[G.] Lifting embargo k2 US regulations on Cuban drilling

The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters, Because of the embargo, U.S. companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the Florida Keys We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime The information that we have received suggests it is not highly developed." The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling, the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond We do not have immediate authority to respond to a foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the embargo. we're at the mercy of the Cuban government to make sure they do it right

[Amy, National Journal Daily P.M. UpdateWashington: Atlantic Media, Inc. (Oct 18, 2011), As Cuba Prepares to Drill, Embargo Complicates Matters for U.S, Accessed online via Proquest] /Wyo-MB The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters, lawmakers were warned at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.¶ Because of the embargo, U.S. companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations. Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the Florida Keys.¶ "We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime," said Michael Bromwich, who directs the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, after the hearing. "The information that we have received suggests it is not highly developed."¶ The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the hearing to discuss plans by Spanish company Repsol to begin drilling off Cuba's coast as soon as this year.¶ The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling, the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond. The Treasury Department also would have to approve U.S. government involvement in a Cuban oil spill clean-up effort, since it imposes the sanctions.¶ "Are we able to respond?" Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked Vice Adm. Brian Salerno, deputy commandant for operations with the U.S. Coast Guard.¶ "We do not have immediate authority to respond to a foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the embargo.¶ During the hearing, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., grilled Salerno and Bromwich about whether anyone from the administration is in talks to modify or lift the embargo in order to make working with Cuba on its offshore drilling regime more effective.¶ "I'm not aware of any efforts," Bromwich responded. Salerno agreed.¶ "So we're at the mercy of the Cuban government to make sure they do it right?" Manchin asked.¶ "They have oversight power," Bromwich said. "We don't."¶ In prepared testimony, Bromwich underscored that Repsol, the Spanish company preparing to drill off Cuba's northern coast, has since February voluntarily provided the U.S. government with information about its drilling plans and oil spill response.

<h4>[G.] <strong>Lifting embargo k2 US regulations on Cuban drilling</h4><p>Harder, 2011</p><p></strong>[Amy, National Journal Daily P.M. UpdateWashington: Atlantic Media, Inc. (Oct 18, 2011), As Cuba Prepares to Drill, Embargo Complicates Matters for U.S, Accessed online via Proquest] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters, </u></strong>lawmakers were warned at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.¶ <u><strong>Because of the embargo, U.S. companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations</u></strong>. <u><strong>Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the Florida Keys</u></strong>.¶ "<u><strong>We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime</u></strong>," said Michael Bromwich, who directs the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, after the hearing. "<u><strong>The information that we have received suggests it is not highly developed."</u></strong>¶ The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the hearing to discuss plans by Spanish company Repsol to begin drilling off Cuba's coast as soon as this year.¶ <u><strong>The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling, the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond</u></strong>. The Treasury Department also would have to approve U.S. government involvement in a Cuban oil spill clean-up effort, since it imposes the sanctions.¶ "Are we able to respond?" Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked Vice Adm. Brian Salerno, deputy commandant for operations with the U.S. Coast Guard.¶ "<u><strong>We do not have immediate authority to respond to a foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the embargo.</u></strong>¶ During the hearing, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., grilled Salerno and Bromwich about whether anyone from the administration is in talks to modify or lift the embargo in order to make working with Cuba on its offshore drilling regime more effective.¶ "I'm not aware of any efforts," Bromwich responded. Salerno agreed.¶ "So <u><strong>we're at the mercy of the Cuban government to make sure they do it right</u></strong>?" Manchin asked.¶ "They have oversight power," Bromwich said. "We don't."¶ In prepared testimony, Bromwich underscored that Repsol, the Spanish company preparing to drill off Cuba's northern coast, has since February voluntarily provided the U.S. government with information about its drilling plans and oil spill response.</p>

Harder, 2011

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Harder, 2011 fulltext: [Amy, National Journal Daily P.M. UpdateWashington: Atlantic Media, Inc. (Oct 18, 2011), As Cuba Prepares to Drill, Embargo Complicates Matters for U.S, Accessed online via Proquest] /Wyo-MB The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters, lawmakers were warned at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.¶ Because of the embargo, U.S. companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations. Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the Florida Keys.¶ "We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime," said Michael Bromwich, who directs the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, after the hearing. "The information that we have received suggests it is not highly developed."¶ The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the hearing to discuss plans by Spanish company Repsol to begin drilling off Cuba's coast as soon as this year.¶ The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling, the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond. The Treasury Department also would have to approve U.S. government involvement in a Cuban oil spill clean-up effort, since it imposes the sanctions.¶ "Are we able to respond?" Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked Vice Adm. Brian Salerno, deputy commandant for operations with the U.S. Coast Guard.¶ "We do not have immediate authority to respond to a foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the embargo.¶ During the hearing, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., grilled Salerno and Bromwich about whether anyone from the administration is in talks to modify or lift the embargo in order to make working with Cuba on its offshore drilling regime more effective.¶ "I'm not aware of any efforts," Bromwich responded. Salerno agreed.¶ "So we're at the mercy of the Cuban government to make sure they do it right?" Manchin asked.¶ "They have oversight power," Bromwich said. "We don't."¶ In prepared testimony, Bromwich underscored that Repsol, the Spanish company preparing to drill off Cuba's northern coast, has since February voluntarily provided the U.S. government with information about its drilling plans and oil spill response. [/INST] <h4>[G.] <strong>Lifting embargo k2 US regulations on Cuban drilling</h4><p>Harder, 2011</p><p></strong>[Amy, National Journal Daily P.M. UpdateWashington: Atlantic Media, Inc. (Oct 18, 2011), As Cuba Prepares to Drill, Embargo Complicates Matters for U.S, Accessed online via Proquest] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>The half-century-old U.S. embargo on Cuba makes it uniquely difficult for the federal government to prepare for an oil spill off Cuba's coast that could easily affect U.S. waters, </u></strong>lawmakers were warned at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.¶ <u><strong>Because of the embargo, U.S. companies cannot supply Cuba with equipment or have any say in its safety regulations</u></strong>. <u><strong>Drilling in Cuban waters, set to begin as early as this year, could occur within 70 miles of the Florida Keys</u></strong>.¶ "<u><strong>We don't know a lot about the Cuban oversight regime</u></strong>," said Michael Bromwich, who directs the Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, after the hearing. "<u><strong>The information that we have received suggests it is not highly developed."</u></strong>¶ The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the hearing to discuss plans by Spanish company Repsol to begin drilling off Cuba's coast as soon as this year.¶ <u><strong>The Cold War-era embargo, in place for 49 years, would preclude U.S. companies even from helping Cuba control a blowout or spill. And if there were an oil spill caused by Cuban drilling, the U.S. Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department to respond</u></strong>. The Treasury Department also would have to approve U.S. government involvement in a Cuban oil spill clean-up effort, since it imposes the sanctions.¶ "Are we able to respond?" Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asked Vice Adm. Brian Salerno, deputy commandant for operations with the U.S. Coast Guard.¶ "<u><strong>We do not have immediate authority to respond to a foreign source" spill, Salerno responded, noting that Cuba is a "special case" because of the embargo.</u></strong>¶ During the hearing, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., grilled Salerno and Bromwich about whether anyone from the administration is in talks to modify or lift the embargo in order to make working with Cuba on its offshore drilling regime more effective.¶ "I'm not aware of any efforts," Bromwich responded. Salerno agreed.¶ "So <u><strong>we're at the mercy of the Cuban government to make sure they do it right</u></strong>?" Manchin asked.¶ "They have oversight power," Bromwich said. "We don't."¶ In prepared testimony, Bromwich underscored that Repsol, the Spanish company preparing to drill off Cuba's northern coast, has since February voluntarily provided the U.S. government with information about its drilling plans and oil spill response.</p> </s>

Relations are low- competition inevitable

China and the United States have experienced political transitions that allow the leaders of both countries to focus on bilateral relations free from the pressures of domestic political campaigns But rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are, like the structural tensions between the established power and its rising challenger, intensifying U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish set of managers Ironically, this kind of shift traditionally has led to more discord in U.S.-China relations than when American leaders were clear and consistent China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies, most recently India A new consensus has emerged among experts that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities

rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are intensifying U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish managers Ironically, this has led to more discord China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies A new consensus has emerged among experts that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities

Over the past six months, China and the United States have experienced political transitions that allow the leaders of both countries to focus on bilateral relations free from the pressures of domestic political campaigns. With political maneuvering among China's elites for spots on the Standing Committee of the Politburo finally over, the country's leaders can return to the business of governing the world's largest population. In the United States, President Obama's reelection has been accompanied by the appointment of a new team of foreign policy managers. But rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are, like the structural tensions between the established power and its rising challenger, intensifying.¶ On the one hand, changes in President Obama's second-term cabinet mean that U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish set of managers than those who drove the first-term "rebalance" towards Asia. Ironically, this kind of shift traditionally has led to more discord in U.S.-China relations than when American leaders were clear and consistent in their policies toward China -- hence Mao Zedong's famous assertion to President Nixon that "I like rightists" and the stability of U.S.-China relations over the course of the George W. Bush administration.¶ For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry indicated in his Senate confirmation hearing that he was not convinced of the need for the "increased military ramp-up" in Asia. Chinese observers reportedly believed that this signaled a diminishment of the U.S. commitment to the "pivot," which in their view ended when Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom. Kerry took his first foreign trip to the Middle East and seems to be spending most of his time trying to put in place a more credible strategy on Syria to replace the malign neglect that has characterized administration policy to date. Meanwhile, China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies, most recently India.¶ Meanwhile, Leon Panetta, who had warned apocalyptically of the impact of sequester-related defense cuts on military readiness, has been replaced as secretary of defense by Chuck Hagel, who has maintained that the armed forces can absorb cuts of this magnitude. His comments have raised doubts about whether the United States will be able to resource its military rebalance from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is widely perceived to be more concerned with the politics of American foreign policy -- namely watching the president's back at home -- than with any grand strategic design abroad.¶ More broadly, however, American hopes that "engagement" of China through trade and membership in international institutions would turn it into a status quo power have faded. A new consensus has emerged among experts, officials, and many business executives that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities. Expectations that China would liberalize politically as a natural outgrowth of its economic success have given way to an understanding that China today is in many ways more politically repressive than it was in the 1980s -- even if Chinese people enjoy greater economic freedom than before.

<h4>Relations are low- competition inevitable</h4><p><strong>Twining 5-3</strong>-13 [Dan, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a thinktank and foundation based in Washington, DC, where he leads a 15-member team working on the rise of Asia and its implications for the West, “The dangerous domestic politics of U.S.-China relations,” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/03/the_dangerous_domestic_politics_of_us_china_relations]</p><p>Over the past six months, <u>China and the United States have experienced political transitions that allow the leaders of both countries to focus on bilateral relations free from the pressures of domestic political campaigns</u>. With political maneuvering among China's elites for spots on the Standing Committee of the Politburo finally over, the country's leaders can return to the business of governing the world's largest population. In the United States, President Obama's reelection has been accompanied by the appointment of a new team of foreign policy managers. <u>But <mark>rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are</mark>, like the structural tensions between the established power and its rising challenger, <mark>intensifying</u></mark>.¶ On the one hand, changes in President Obama's second-term cabinet mean that <u><mark>U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish</mark> set of <mark>managers</u> </mark>than those who drove the first-term "rebalance" towards Asia. <u><mark>Ironically, this </mark>kind of shift traditionally <mark>has led to more discord</mark> in U.S.-China relations than when American leaders were clear and consistent</u> in their policies toward China -- hence Mao Zedong's famous assertion to President Nixon that "I like rightists" and the stability of U.S.-China relations over the course of the George W. Bush administration.¶ For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry indicated in his Senate confirmation hearing that he was not convinced of the need for the "increased military ramp-up" in Asia. Chinese observers reportedly believed that this signaled a diminishment of the U.S. commitment to the "pivot," which in their view ended when Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom. Kerry took his first foreign trip to the Middle East and seems to be spending most of his time trying to put in place a more credible strategy on Syria to replace the malign neglect that has characterized administration policy to date. Meanwhile, <u><mark>China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies</mark>, most recently India</u>.¶ Meanwhile, Leon Panetta, who had warned apocalyptically of the impact of sequester-related defense cuts on military readiness, has been replaced as secretary of defense by Chuck Hagel, who has maintained that the armed forces can absorb cuts of this magnitude. His comments have raised doubts about whether the United States will be able to resource its military rebalance from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is widely perceived to be more concerned with the politics of American foreign policy -- namely watching the president's back at home -- than with any grand strategic design abroad.¶ More broadly, however, American hopes that "engagement" of China through trade and membership in international institutions would turn it into a status quo power have faded. <u><mark>A new consensus has emerged among experts</u></mark>, officials, and many business executives <u><mark>that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities</u></mark>. Expectations that China would liberalize politically as a natural outgrowth of its economic success have given way to an understanding that China today is in many ways more politically repressive than it was in the 1980s -- even if Chinese people enjoy greater economic freedom than before.</p>

Twining 5-3-13 [Dan, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a thinktank and foundation based in Washington, DC, where he leads a 15-member team working on the rise of Asia and its implications for the West, “The dangerous domestic politics of U.S.-China relations,” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/03/the_dangerous_domestic_politics_of_us_china_relations]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Twining 5-3-13 [Dan, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a thinktank and foundation based in Washington, DC, where he leads a 15-member team working on the rise of Asia and its implications for the West, “The dangerous domestic politics of U.S.-China relations,” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/03/the_dangerous_domestic_politics_of_us_china_relations] fulltext: Over the past six months, China and the United States have experienced political transitions that allow the leaders of both countries to focus on bilateral relations free from the pressures of domestic political campaigns. With political maneuvering among China's elites for spots on the Standing Committee of the Politburo finally over, the country's leaders can return to the business of governing the world's largest population. In the United States, President Obama's reelection has been accompanied by the appointment of a new team of foreign policy managers. But rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are, like the structural tensions between the established power and its rising challenger, intensifying.¶ On the one hand, changes in President Obama's second-term cabinet mean that U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish set of managers than those who drove the first-term "rebalance" towards Asia. Ironically, this kind of shift traditionally has led to more discord in U.S.-China relations than when American leaders were clear and consistent in their policies toward China -- hence Mao Zedong's famous assertion to President Nixon that "I like rightists" and the stability of U.S.-China relations over the course of the George W. Bush administration.¶ For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry indicated in his Senate confirmation hearing that he was not convinced of the need for the "increased military ramp-up" in Asia. Chinese observers reportedly believed that this signaled a diminishment of the U.S. commitment to the "pivot," which in their view ended when Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom. Kerry took his first foreign trip to the Middle East and seems to be spending most of his time trying to put in place a more credible strategy on Syria to replace the malign neglect that has characterized administration policy to date. Meanwhile, China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies, most recently India.¶ Meanwhile, Leon Panetta, who had warned apocalyptically of the impact of sequester-related defense cuts on military readiness, has been replaced as secretary of defense by Chuck Hagel, who has maintained that the armed forces can absorb cuts of this magnitude. His comments have raised doubts about whether the United States will be able to resource its military rebalance from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is widely perceived to be more concerned with the politics of American foreign policy -- namely watching the president's back at home -- than with any grand strategic design abroad.¶ More broadly, however, American hopes that "engagement" of China through trade and membership in international institutions would turn it into a status quo power have faded. A new consensus has emerged among experts, officials, and many business executives that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities. Expectations that China would liberalize politically as a natural outgrowth of its economic success have given way to an understanding that China today is in many ways more politically repressive than it was in the 1980s -- even if Chinese people enjoy greater economic freedom than before. [/INST] <h4>Relations are low- competition inevitable</h4><p><strong>Twining 5-3</strong>-13 [Dan, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a thinktank and foundation based in Washington, DC, where he leads a 15-member team working on the rise of Asia and its implications for the West, “The dangerous domestic politics of U.S.-China relations,” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/03/the_dangerous_domestic_politics_of_us_china_relations]</p><p>Over the past six months, <u>China and the United States have experienced political transitions that allow the leaders of both countries to focus on bilateral relations free from the pressures of domestic political campaigns</u>. With political maneuvering among China's elites for spots on the Standing Committee of the Politburo finally over, the country's leaders can return to the business of governing the world's largest population. In the United States, President Obama's reelection has been accompanied by the appointment of a new team of foreign policy managers. <u>But <mark>rather than freeing up Washington and Beijing to cooperate more fulsomely, the domestic political frictions produced by the bilateral relationship are</mark>, like the structural tensions between the established power and its rising challenger, <mark>intensifying</u></mark>.¶ On the one hand, changes in President Obama's second-term cabinet mean that <u><mark>U.S.-China relations are being handled by a more dovish</mark> set of <mark>managers</u> </mark>than those who drove the first-term "rebalance" towards Asia. <u><mark>Ironically, this </mark>kind of shift traditionally <mark>has led to more discord</mark> in U.S.-China relations than when American leaders were clear and consistent</u> in their policies toward China -- hence Mao Zedong's famous assertion to President Nixon that "I like rightists" and the stability of U.S.-China relations over the course of the George W. Bush administration.¶ For instance, Secretary of State John Kerry indicated in his Senate confirmation hearing that he was not convinced of the need for the "increased military ramp-up" in Asia. Chinese observers reportedly believed that this signaled a diminishment of the U.S. commitment to the "pivot," which in their view ended when Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom. Kerry took his first foreign trip to the Middle East and seems to be spending most of his time trying to put in place a more credible strategy on Syria to replace the malign neglect that has characterized administration policy to date. Meanwhile, <u><mark>China is stepping up military coercion of neighbors who are U.S. friends and allies</mark>, most recently India</u>.¶ Meanwhile, Leon Panetta, who had warned apocalyptically of the impact of sequester-related defense cuts on military readiness, has been replaced as secretary of defense by Chuck Hagel, who has maintained that the armed forces can absorb cuts of this magnitude. His comments have raised doubts about whether the United States will be able to resource its military rebalance from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon is widely perceived to be more concerned with the politics of American foreign policy -- namely watching the president's back at home -- than with any grand strategic design abroad.¶ More broadly, however, American hopes that "engagement" of China through trade and membership in international institutions would turn it into a status quo power have faded. <u><mark>A new consensus has emerged among experts</u></mark>, officials, and many business executives <u><mark>that this is a fundamentally competitive relationship, encompassing everything from mercantilist Chinese trade practices to daily cyberattacks to China's buildup of offensive military power designed to target unique American vulnerabilities</u></mark>. Expectations that China would liberalize politically as a natural outgrowth of its economic success have given way to an understanding that China today is in many ways more politically repressive than it was in the 1980s -- even if Chinese people enjoy greater economic freedom than before.</p> </s>

OPEC has production costs that will ensure higher prices --- Marginal prices are the most important

at some point we get to the end of cheap oil, we’ve only expensive oil left and then we seem to have actually reached that end of cheap oil part It’s the marginal, not the unit or average, costs which have the greatest influence upon prices in a market.

at some point we get to the end of cheap oil we seem to have reached that part It’s the marginal costs which have the greatest influence upon a market

At least peak oil is here if I’ve understood what the peak oil argument is properly. And my problem with the peak oil argument is that it isn’t really very clear in itself as to what it means. From what I understand at some point we get to the end of cheap oil, we’ve only expensive oil left and then, well, and then apparently something terrible happens. But I’ve never been able to get from anyone a clear description of what it is that’s terrible that then happens. However, we seem to have actually reached that end of cheap oil part, at least we have if this analysis is true: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. It’s the marginal, not the unit or average, costs which have the greatest influence upon prices in a market. Obviously so: those supplies with the highest marginal costs will be the first to disappear if the market price drops.

<h4>OPEC has production costs that will ensure higher prices --- Marginal prices are the <u>most important</h4><p></u><strong><mark>WORSTALL ’12</strong></mark> – Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute (Tim, “Peak Oil is Here: Now What?”. May 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/02/peak-oil-is-here-now-what/)</p><p>At least peak oil is here if I’ve understood what the peak oil argument is properly. And my problem with the peak oil argument is that it isn’t really very clear in itself as to what it means. From what I understand <u><mark>at some point we get to the end of cheap oil</mark>, we’ve only expensive oil left and then</u>, well, and then apparently something terrible happens. But I’ve never been able to get from anyone a clear description of what it is that’s terrible that then happens. However, <u><mark>we seem to have</mark> actually <mark>reached that</mark> end of cheap oil <mark>part</u></mark>, at least we have if this analysis is true: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. <u><mark>It’s the marginal</mark>, not the unit or average, <mark>costs which have the <strong>greatest influence</strong> upon</mark> prices in <mark>a market</mark>.</u> Obviously so: those supplies with the highest marginal costs will be the first to disappear if the market price drops.</p>

WORSTALL ’12 – Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute (Tim, “Peak Oil is Here: Now What?”. May 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/02/peak-oil-is-here-now-what/)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: WORSTALL ’12 – Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute (Tim, “Peak Oil is Here: Now What?”. May 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/02/peak-oil-is-here-now-what/) fulltext: At least peak oil is here if I’ve understood what the peak oil argument is properly. And my problem with the peak oil argument is that it isn’t really very clear in itself as to what it means. From what I understand at some point we get to the end of cheap oil, we’ve only expensive oil left and then, well, and then apparently something terrible happens. But I’ve never been able to get from anyone a clear description of what it is that’s terrible that then happens. However, we seem to have actually reached that end of cheap oil part, at least we have if this analysis is true: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. It’s the marginal, not the unit or average, costs which have the greatest influence upon prices in a market. Obviously so: those supplies with the highest marginal costs will be the first to disappear if the market price drops. [/INST] <h4>OPEC has production costs that will ensure higher prices --- Marginal prices are the <u>most important</h4><p></u><strong><mark>WORSTALL ’12</strong></mark> – Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute (Tim, “Peak Oil is Here: Now What?”. May 2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/02/peak-oil-is-here-now-what/)</p><p>At least peak oil is here if I’ve understood what the peak oil argument is properly. And my problem with the peak oil argument is that it isn’t really very clear in itself as to what it means. From what I understand <u><mark>at some point we get to the end of cheap oil</mark>, we’ve only expensive oil left and then</u>, well, and then apparently something terrible happens. But I’ve never been able to get from anyone a clear description of what it is that’s terrible that then happens. However, <u><mark>we seem to have</mark> actually <mark>reached that</mark> end of cheap oil <mark>part</u></mark>, at least we have if this analysis is true: Tracking data from the 50 largest listed oil and gas producing companies globally (ex FSU) indicates that cash, production and unit costs in 2011 grew at a rate significantly faster than the 10 year average. Last year production costs increased 26% y-o-y, while the unit cost of production increased by 21% y-o-y to US$35.88/bbl. This is significantly higher than the longer term cost growth rates, highlighting continued cost pressures faced by the E&P industry as the incremental barrel continues to become more expensive to produce. The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl. <u><mark>It’s the marginal</mark>, not the unit or average, <mark>costs which have the <strong>greatest influence</strong> upon</mark> prices in <mark>a market</mark>.</u> Obviously so: those supplies with the highest marginal costs will be the first to disappear if the market price drops.</p> </s>

Population growth makes ocean biodiversity loss irreversible.

By far the greatest pressure on biodiversity is the demand the growing human population places on the oceans 5000 million litres of Sydney sewage which has only received primary treatment is discharged into the ocean each day. This is the equivalent of 2000 Olympic swimming pools full of sewage being pumped into the ocean 365 days of the year.

By far the greatest pressure on biodiversity is the demand the growing human population places on the oceans. Marine ecosystems have been modified and biodiversity lost through the clearing of native vegetation, the introduction of exotic species, pollution and climate change. For example, 5000 million litres of Sydney sewage which has only received primary treatment is discharged into the ocean each day. This is the equivalent of 2000 Olympic swimming pools full of sewage being pumped into the ocean 365 days of the year.

<h4><strong>Population growth makes ocean biodiversity loss irreversible. </h4><p>The Advertiser 99</p><p><u></strong> </u>[March 23, 1999<u> (Lexis)]</p><p><strong>By far the greatest pressure on biodiversity is the demand the growing human population places on the oceans</u></strong>. Marine ecosystems have been modified and biodiversity lost through the clearing of native vegetation, the introduction of exotic species, pollution and climate change. For example, <u><strong>5000 million litres of Sydney sewage which has only received primary treatment is discharged into the ocean each day. This is the equivalent of 2000 Olympic swimming pools full of sewage being pumped into the ocean 365 days of the year.</u> </p></strong>

The Advertiser 99 [March 23, 1999 (Lexis)]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Advertiser 99 [March 23, 1999 (Lexis)] fulltext: By far the greatest pressure on biodiversity is the demand the growing human population places on the oceans. Marine ecosystems have been modified and biodiversity lost through the clearing of native vegetation, the introduction of exotic species, pollution and climate change. For example, 5000 million litres of Sydney sewage which has only received primary treatment is discharged into the ocean each day. This is the equivalent of 2000 Olympic swimming pools full of sewage being pumped into the ocean 365 days of the year. [/INST] <h4><strong>Population growth makes ocean biodiversity loss irreversible. </h4><p>The Advertiser 99</p><p><u></strong> </u>[March 23, 1999<u> (Lexis)]</p><p><strong>By far the greatest pressure on biodiversity is the demand the growing human population places on the oceans</u></strong>. Marine ecosystems have been modified and biodiversity lost through the clearing of native vegetation, the introduction of exotic species, pollution and climate change. For example, <u><strong>5000 million litres of Sydney sewage which has only received primary treatment is discharged into the ocean each day. This is the equivalent of 2000 Olympic swimming pools full of sewage being pumped into the ocean 365 days of the year.</u> </p></strong> </s>

Issues tradeoff for Obama – if the thesis of the link is true, it precludes action of immigration

Washington can do justice to only one or two issues at a time. "Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there's only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda." Obama might be wise to limit his goals now and avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that would limit his power for the remainder of his presidency.

Washington can do justice to only one issue at a time there's only so much capacity to move his agenda Obama might be wise to limit his goals avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that limit his power for his presidency.

And there is an axiom in Washington: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers can do justice to only one or two issues at a time. Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun control, for example.¶ But Schiliro told the New York Times, "Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there's only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda." So Obama might be wise to limit his goals now and avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that would limit his power and credibility for the remainder of his presidency.

<h4>Issues tradeoff for Obama – if the thesis of the link is true, it precludes action of immigration</h4><p>Ken <strong>Walsh</strong>, covers the White House and politics for U.S. News, “Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key for Obama,” 12/20/<strong>2012</strong>. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/12/20/setting-clear-p<u><strong>riorities-will-be-key-for-obama</p><p></u></strong>And there is an axiom in <u><strong><mark>Washington</u></strong></mark>: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers <u><strong><mark>can do justice to only one </mark>or two <mark>issue</mark>s <mark>at a time</mark>.</u></strong> Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun control, for example.¶ But Schiliro told the New York Times, <u><strong>"Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, <mark>there's only so much capacity </mark>in the system <mark>to move his agenda</mark>."</u></strong> So <u><strong><mark>Obama might be wise to limit his goals</mark> now and <mark>avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that</mark> would <mark>limit his power</u></strong></mark> and credibility <u><strong><mark>for</mark> the remainder of <mark>his presidency.</p></u></strong></mark>

Ken Walsh, covers the White House and politics for U.S. News, “Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key for Obama,” 12/20/2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/12/20/setting-clear-priorities-will-be-key-for-obama

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ken Walsh, covers the White House and politics for U.S. News, “Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key for Obama,” 12/20/2012. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/12/20/setting-clear-priorities-will-be-key-for-obama fulltext: And there is an axiom in Washington: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers can do justice to only one or two issues at a time. Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun control, for example.¶ But Schiliro told the New York Times, "Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there's only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda." So Obama might be wise to limit his goals now and avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that would limit his power and credibility for the remainder of his presidency. [/INST] <h4>Issues tradeoff for Obama – if the thesis of the link is true, it precludes action of immigration</h4><p>Ken <strong>Walsh</strong>, covers the White House and politics for U.S. News, “Setting Clear Priorities Will Be Key for Obama,” 12/20/<strong>2012</strong>. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken-Walshs-Washington/2012/12/20/setting-clear-p<u><strong>riorities-will-be-key-for-obama</p><p></u></strong>And there is an axiom in <u><strong><mark>Washington</u></strong></mark>: Congress, the bureaucracy, the media, and other power centers <u><strong><mark>can do justice to only one </mark>or two <mark>issue</mark>s <mark>at a time</mark>.</u></strong> Phil Schiliro, Obama's former liaison to Congress, said Obama has "always had a personal commitment" to gun control, for example.¶ But Schiliro told the New York Times, <u><strong>"Given the crisis he faced when he first took office, <mark>there's only so much capacity </mark>in the system <mark>to move his agenda</mark>."</u></strong> So <u><strong><mark>Obama might be wise to limit his goals</mark> now and <mark>avoid overburdening the system, or he could face major setbacks that</mark> would <mark>limit his power</u></strong></mark> and credibility <u><strong><mark>for</mark> the remainder of <mark>his presidency.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

US engagement in Cuba counter’s Chinese influence-

Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region bilateral trade increased to $1.83 billion in 2010 it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba

(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm) Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan. Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba.

<h4><strong>US engagement in Cuba counter’s Chinese influence- </h4><p>Luko 11</p><p></strong>(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region</u></strong>, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, <u><strong>bilateral trade increased</u></strong> from $440 million in 2001 <u><strong>to $1.83 billion in 2010</u></strong>. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, <u><strong>it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan</u></strong>. <u><strong>Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources</u></strong>. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] <u><strong>The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba</u></strong>.</p>

Luko 11

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Luko 11 fulltext: (James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm) Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, bilateral trade increased from $440 million in 2001 to $1.83 billion in 2010. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan. Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba. [/INST] <h4><strong>US engagement in Cuba counter’s Chinese influence- </h4><p>Luko 11</p><p></strong>(James, Nolan Chart, “China's Moves on Cuba Need to Be Stopped,” June 29, 2011, http://www.nolanchart.com/article8774-chinas-moves-on-cuba-need-to-be-stopped.html) /wyo-mm)</p><p><u><strong>Cuba is China's biggest trade partner in the Caribbean region</u></strong>, while China is Cuba's second-largest trade partner after Venezuela. Over the past decade, <u><strong>bilateral trade increased</u></strong> from $440 million in 2001 <u><strong>to $1.83 billion in 2010</u></strong>. [1] In 2006 China and Cuba discussed offshore oil deals and now China's National Petroleum Corporation is a major player in Cuban infrastructure improvements. [ibid] In 2008, none other than China's President himself, Hu JinTao visited Cuba with a sweet package of loans, grants and trade deals. If Cuba becomes a 'client' state of China, <u><strong>it will be a source of leverage against America whenever the U.S. Pressures China on Tibet and Taiwan</u></strong>. <u><strong>Soon we will witness the newly constructed blue-water navy of China cruising Cuba's coast in protection of their trade routes and supply of natural resources</u></strong>. In 2003 it was reported that Chinese personnel were operating at least TWO (2) intelligence signal sations in Cuba since at least 1999 ! [2] This month, June 2011, the Vice President of China made an important visit, extending more financial aid, interest-free, as well as related health projects to be paid for by China. A client state in the making ! [3] <u><strong>The best way to counter the Chinese in Cuba is to reverse Americas 50 year old, ineffective and obsolete policy of isolationism and boycott of Cuba</u></strong>.</p> </s>

[A.] The time is right to lift the Cuban Embargo—reforms beginning in Cuba now

] /Wyo-MB The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ Two key factors have changed One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform The government -- has even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.

[Simon, assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up, 4-8-13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba] /Wyo-MB These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. Two key factors have changed since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow.¶ One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat. As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so.¶ The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform. The government -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right -- has even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen.¶ The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans.¶ But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.¶ Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre.¶ There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.

<h4>[A.] The time is right to lift the Cuban Embargo<strong>—reforms beginning in Cuba now</h4><p>Tisdall, 2013</p><p></strong>[Simon, assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up, 4-8-13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. <u><strong>The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ </u></strong>Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. <u><strong>Two key factors have changed</u></strong> since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow.¶ <u><strong>One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat</u></strong>. As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so.¶ <u><strong>The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform</u></strong>. <u><strong>The government</u></strong> -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right <u><strong>-- has even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits</u></strong>. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, <u><strong>once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen</u></strong>.¶ The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans.¶ But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.¶ Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre.¶ <u><strong>There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated.</u></strong> In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. <u><strong>The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people</u></strong> -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- <u><strong>is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.</p></u></strong>

Tisdall, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Tisdall, 2013 fulltext: [Simon, assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up, 4-8-13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba] /Wyo-MB These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. Two key factors have changed since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow.¶ One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat. As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so.¶ The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform. The government -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right -- has even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen.¶ The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans.¶ But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.¶ Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre.¶ There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom. [/INST] <h4>[A.] The time is right to lift the Cuban Embargo<strong>—reforms beginning in Cuba now</h4><p>Tisdall, 2013</p><p></strong>[Simon, assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C., Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up, 4-8-13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>These blinkered conservatives need to get over themselves. <u><strong>The 60-year stand-off between the U.S. and Cuba is absurd. It is counterproductive and harmful to both countries. It is time to end this Cold War anachronism, kiss and make up.¶ </u></strong>Anger over Beyoncé's supposed breach of the U.S. embargo rules restricting American citizens' travel to Cuba is symbolic of a deeper fear among right-wingers. <u><strong>Two key factors have changed</u></strong> since the days -- not so long ago -- when Washington seemed to be regularly threatening the Castro government with Iraq-style overthrow.¶ <u><strong>One is that George W. Bush has been replaced by a Democrat</u></strong>. As Barack Obama enters his second and final term, immune to electoral imperatives, conservatives worry he may use his freedom of action to effect an historic rapprochement with Cuba. American liberals certainly believe he should do so.¶ <u><strong>The second change is in Cuba itself, where the government, now led by Fidel Castro's brother, Raoul, has embarked on a cautious program of reform</u></strong>. <u><strong>The government</u></strong> -- dubbed the world's longest-running dictatorship by the American right <u><strong>-- has even set a date for its own dissolution.¶ Doing what "dictators" rarely do, Raoul Castro announced in February that in 2018, he would hand over power and that any successor would be subject to term limits</u></strong>. The Castro brothers have reportedly chosen a career communist, first vice president Miguel Diaz-Canel, to succeed them. But in reality, <u><strong>once their grip on power is relaxed, anything may happen</u></strong>.¶ The two Florida Republicans who have been making a fuss about the Beyonce visit are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart. They are veterans, and beneficiaries, of the anti-Castro campaign that has long been waged from Little Havana, in Miami, the home to the state's large Cuban exile population. The Cuban vote, as it is known, has traditionally gone to Republicans.¶ But Obama's approach is the antithesis of the politics of hate and division. He broke that mold last year, making big gains among the Cuban American electorate. This result suggested the polarized ethnically-based politics of the past may be breaking down, said Julia Sweig of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations in a recent article in The National Interest.¶ "Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda," Sweig said.¶ Little wonder Republicans like Ros-Lehtinen are worried. If things go on like this, they could lose a large piece of their political raison d'etre.¶ <u><strong>There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated.</u></strong> In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. <u><strong>The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶ The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle to advancing U.S. interests and business in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies, including Britain and the EU.¶ But more importantly, the continued ostracism of Cuba's people</u></strong> -- for they, not the Havana government, are the biggest losers -- <u><strong>is unfair, unkind and unnecessary. If the U.S. wants full democracy in Cuba, then it should open up fully to ordinary Cubans. Tear down the artificial walls that separate the people of the two countries and, as Mao Zedong once said, let a hundred flowers bloom.</p></u></strong> </s>

No risk of relations collapse--multiple institutional reasons why relations are resilient

2011 brought revolution in the Middle East relations between China and the US have been stable, and increasingly positive. Both sides have stressed that relations should be cooperative rather than zero-sum, and that the two sides should stand together in the face of difficulty 60 plus bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent visits between senior officials have built an impressive level of institutionalization in US-China relations that has enhanced the predictability and foundation of relations. growing interdependence has served as the “ballast” in relations

relations between China and the US have been stable Both sides stressed relations should be cooperative and the two should stand together 60 plus bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent visits built an impressive level of institutionalization that enhanced the predictability and foundation of relations growing interdependence served as the “ballast”

The year of 2011 brought many unexpected, globally altering events. This year, non-stop crises and sea changes in the international arena; chaos and revolution in the Middle East and West Africa; catastrophic Tsunami and nuclear-leak crisis in Fukushima; paralysis of leadership of EU confronting the evolving debt predicament in Euro-Zone; and the sudden death of Kim Jong-il and its unpredictable repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia were just a few of the tumultuous events that led global economic and political instability this year. Bilateral relations between China and the US, in contrast have been relatively stable, and increasingly positive. Three driving forces have contributed to the improvement in US-China relations in 2011: mutual commitment, multi-function mechanisms, and increasing interdependence. Beijing and Washington both stressed their commitment to building a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit following a rocky year of bilateral relations in 2010. Both sides have stressed that the relationship between China and the United States should be cooperative and mutually beneficial rather than zero-sum, and that the two sides should stand together in the face of difficulty and carry out cooperation on an equal footing. The mutual commitment between China and the US has been bolstered by an increasing number of bilateral mechanisms with policy communication, coordination, and implementation functions (“C2I”). 2011 has seen of the growth of “C2I” mechanisms intensify. with a number of new initiatives, including High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, the US-China Governors Forum, and the Strategic Security Dialogue and Asia-Pacific Affairs Consultation under the framework of Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). While the former two initiatives have either reflected thriving interaction in cross-cultural domains or tapped the huge potential of sub-national cooperation across the Pacific, the latter two mechanisms have greatly upgraded capacity to address difficult and sensitive military and security issues in bilateral relations n and build confidence in US-China relations. The 60 plus bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent exchanges of informal visits and workshops between senior officials have built an impressive level of institutionalization in US-China bilateral relations that has enhanced the predictability of relations between the two countries and helped consolidate the foundation of the relations. The substance of the bilateral relationship, in essence, is not to follow the two presidents’ agreements in words, but to follow the roadmap in action, and those bilateral mechanisms have built significant capacity to do this. Thirdly and perhaps most fundamentally, the growing interdependence across the Pacific and emerging agenda of global governance has served as the “ballast” in the bilateral relationship. Despite numerous trade disputes between the two countries, economic interdependence has been steadily enhanced, manifested either by the hike of bilateral trade and investment volume, symbiotic financial relations, or the economic restructuring now underway in both countries. This interdependence has transcended economics, and is growing increasingly comprehensive in nature.

<h4>No risk of relations collapse--multiple institutional reasons why relations are resilient</h4><p><strong>Dongxiao 12</strong> – Vice President of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (Chen, 01/05, “China-US Relations in 2012: Caution Ahead,” http://chinausfocus.com/slider/no-reason-for-chagrin-over-china-us-relations-but-cautious-management-needed-in-2012/)</p><p>The year of <u>2011 brought</u> many unexpected, globally altering events. This year, non-stop crises and sea changes in the international arena; chaos and <u>revolution in the Middle East</u> and West Africa; catastrophic Tsunami and nuclear-leak crisis in Fukushima; paralysis of leadership of EU confronting the evolving debt predicament in Euro-Zone; and the sudden death of Kim Jong-il and its unpredictable repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia were just a few of the tumultuous events that led global economic and political instability this year. Bilateral <u><mark>relations</mark> <mark>between China and the US</u></mark>, in contrast <u><mark>have been</u></mark> relatively <u><mark>stable</mark>, and increasingly positive.</u> Three driving forces have contributed to the improvement in US-China relations in 2011: mutual commitment, multi-function mechanisms, and increasing interdependence. Beijing and Washington both stressed their commitment to building a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit following a rocky year of bilateral relations in 2010. <u><mark>Both sides</mark> have <mark>stressed</mark> that</u> the <u><mark>relations</u></mark>hip between China and the United States <u><mark>should be</mark> <mark>cooperative</u></mark> and mutually beneficial <u>rather than zero-sum, <mark>and</mark> that <mark>the two</mark> sides <mark>should <strong>stand together</mark> in the face of difficulty</u></strong> and carry out cooperation on an equal footing. The mutual commitment between China and the US has been bolstered by an increasing number of bilateral mechanisms with policy communication, coordination, and implementation functions (“C2I”). 2011 has seen of the growth of “C2I” mechanisms intensify. with a number of new initiatives, including High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, the US-China Governors Forum, and the Strategic Security Dialogue and Asia-Pacific Affairs Consultation under the framework of Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). While the former two initiatives have either reflected thriving interaction in cross-cultural domains or tapped the huge potential of sub-national cooperation across the Pacific, the latter two mechanisms have greatly upgraded capacity to address difficult and sensitive military and security issues in bilateral relations n and build confidence in US-China relations. The <u><strong><mark>60 plus</strong> bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent</u></mark> exchanges of informal <u><mark>visits</u></mark> and workshops <u>between senior officials have <mark>built an <strong>impressive level of institutionalization</strong></mark> in US-China</u> bilateral <u>relations <mark>that</mark> has <mark>enhanced the predictability</u></mark> of relations between the two countries <u><mark>and</u></mark> helped consolidate the <u><mark>foundation of</u></mark> the <u><mark>relations</mark>.</u> The substance of the bilateral relationship, in essence, is not to follow the two presidents’ agreements in words, but to follow the roadmap in action, and those bilateral mechanisms have built significant capacity to do this. Thirdly and perhaps most fundamentally, the <u><mark>growing</mark> <mark>interdependence</u></mark> across the Pacific and emerging agenda of global governance <u>has <mark>served as the “ballast”</mark> in</u> the bilateral <u>relations</u>hip. Despite numerous trade disputes between the two countries, economic interdependence has been steadily enhanced, manifested either by the hike of bilateral trade and investment volume, symbiotic financial relations, or the economic restructuring now underway in both countries. This interdependence has transcended economics, and is growing increasingly comprehensive in nature.</p>

Dongxiao 12 – Vice President of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (Chen, 01/05, “China-US Relations in 2012: Caution Ahead,” http://chinausfocus.com/slider/no-reason-for-chagrin-over-china-us-relations-but-cautious-management-needed-in-2012/)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Dongxiao 12 – Vice President of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (Chen, 01/05, “China-US Relations in 2012: Caution Ahead,” http://chinausfocus.com/slider/no-reason-for-chagrin-over-china-us-relations-but-cautious-management-needed-in-2012/) fulltext: The year of 2011 brought many unexpected, globally altering events. This year, non-stop crises and sea changes in the international arena; chaos and revolution in the Middle East and West Africa; catastrophic Tsunami and nuclear-leak crisis in Fukushima; paralysis of leadership of EU confronting the evolving debt predicament in Euro-Zone; and the sudden death of Kim Jong-il and its unpredictable repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia were just a few of the tumultuous events that led global economic and political instability this year. Bilateral relations between China and the US, in contrast have been relatively stable, and increasingly positive. Three driving forces have contributed to the improvement in US-China relations in 2011: mutual commitment, multi-function mechanisms, and increasing interdependence. Beijing and Washington both stressed their commitment to building a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit following a rocky year of bilateral relations in 2010. Both sides have stressed that the relationship between China and the United States should be cooperative and mutually beneficial rather than zero-sum, and that the two sides should stand together in the face of difficulty and carry out cooperation on an equal footing. The mutual commitment between China and the US has been bolstered by an increasing number of bilateral mechanisms with policy communication, coordination, and implementation functions (“C2I”). 2011 has seen of the growth of “C2I” mechanisms intensify. with a number of new initiatives, including High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, the US-China Governors Forum, and the Strategic Security Dialogue and Asia-Pacific Affairs Consultation under the framework of Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). While the former two initiatives have either reflected thriving interaction in cross-cultural domains or tapped the huge potential of sub-national cooperation across the Pacific, the latter two mechanisms have greatly upgraded capacity to address difficult and sensitive military and security issues in bilateral relations n and build confidence in US-China relations. The 60 plus bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent exchanges of informal visits and workshops between senior officials have built an impressive level of institutionalization in US-China bilateral relations that has enhanced the predictability of relations between the two countries and helped consolidate the foundation of the relations. The substance of the bilateral relationship, in essence, is not to follow the two presidents’ agreements in words, but to follow the roadmap in action, and those bilateral mechanisms have built significant capacity to do this. Thirdly and perhaps most fundamentally, the growing interdependence across the Pacific and emerging agenda of global governance has served as the “ballast” in the bilateral relationship. Despite numerous trade disputes between the two countries, economic interdependence has been steadily enhanced, manifested either by the hike of bilateral trade and investment volume, symbiotic financial relations, or the economic restructuring now underway in both countries. This interdependence has transcended economics, and is growing increasingly comprehensive in nature. [/INST] <h4>No risk of relations collapse--multiple institutional reasons why relations are resilient</h4><p><strong>Dongxiao 12</strong> – Vice President of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (Chen, 01/05, “China-US Relations in 2012: Caution Ahead,” http://chinausfocus.com/slider/no-reason-for-chagrin-over-china-us-relations-but-cautious-management-needed-in-2012/)</p><p>The year of <u>2011 brought</u> many unexpected, globally altering events. This year, non-stop crises and sea changes in the international arena; chaos and <u>revolution in the Middle East</u> and West Africa; catastrophic Tsunami and nuclear-leak crisis in Fukushima; paralysis of leadership of EU confronting the evolving debt predicament in Euro-Zone; and the sudden death of Kim Jong-il and its unpredictable repercussions on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia were just a few of the tumultuous events that led global economic and political instability this year. Bilateral <u><mark>relations</mark> <mark>between China and the US</u></mark>, in contrast <u><mark>have been</u></mark> relatively <u><mark>stable</mark>, and increasingly positive.</u> Three driving forces have contributed to the improvement in US-China relations in 2011: mutual commitment, multi-function mechanisms, and increasing interdependence. Beijing and Washington both stressed their commitment to building a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit following a rocky year of bilateral relations in 2010. <u><mark>Both sides</mark> have <mark>stressed</mark> that</u> the <u><mark>relations</u></mark>hip between China and the United States <u><mark>should be</mark> <mark>cooperative</u></mark> and mutually beneficial <u>rather than zero-sum, <mark>and</mark> that <mark>the two</mark> sides <mark>should <strong>stand together</mark> in the face of difficulty</u></strong> and carry out cooperation on an equal footing. The mutual commitment between China and the US has been bolstered by an increasing number of bilateral mechanisms with policy communication, coordination, and implementation functions (“C2I”). 2011 has seen of the growth of “C2I” mechanisms intensify. with a number of new initiatives, including High-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, the US-China Governors Forum, and the Strategic Security Dialogue and Asia-Pacific Affairs Consultation under the framework of Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). While the former two initiatives have either reflected thriving interaction in cross-cultural domains or tapped the huge potential of sub-national cooperation across the Pacific, the latter two mechanisms have greatly upgraded capacity to address difficult and sensitive military and security issues in bilateral relations n and build confidence in US-China relations. The <u><strong><mark>60 plus</strong> bilateral mechanisms, plus frequent</u></mark> exchanges of informal <u><mark>visits</u></mark> and workshops <u>between senior officials have <mark>built an <strong>impressive level of institutionalization</strong></mark> in US-China</u> bilateral <u>relations <mark>that</mark> has <mark>enhanced the predictability</u></mark> of relations between the two countries <u><mark>and</u></mark> helped consolidate the <u><mark>foundation of</u></mark> the <u><mark>relations</mark>.</u> The substance of the bilateral relationship, in essence, is not to follow the two presidents’ agreements in words, but to follow the roadmap in action, and those bilateral mechanisms have built significant capacity to do this. Thirdly and perhaps most fundamentally, the <u><mark>growing</mark> <mark>interdependence</u></mark> across the Pacific and emerging agenda of global governance <u>has <mark>served as the “ballast”</mark> in</u> the bilateral <u>relations</u>hip. Despite numerous trade disputes between the two countries, economic interdependence has been steadily enhanced, manifested either by the hike of bilateral trade and investment volume, symbiotic financial relations, or the economic restructuring now underway in both countries. This interdependence has transcended economics, and is growing increasingly comprehensive in nature.</p> </s>

OPEC will try to maintain high prices

Even Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the top economist has written, "Domestic action to increase production will not lower gas prices set on a global market If U.S. producers were able to massively ramp up output, the ultimate impact would mostly boil down to one big question: How would other big oil producers (mainly the Saudis and the rest of OPEC) respond to a surge in U.S. supplies? To stop prices from falling, they could cut back their output in response to new U.S. production, much as they've tried to in the past That's essentially what happens in the much-cited projections by the E I A

Even Eakin, the top economist has written, "Domestic production will not lower prices on a global market. If producers massively ramp up the Saudis and OPEC To stop prices from falling could cut back their output That's in the projections by the E I A

"We Can Drill Our Way Out of High Prices." Don't bet on it. Some people claim that unleashing U.S. oil and gas resources would slash the price of crude. Who can forget the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" that saturated airwaves during the 2008 presidential campaign? Others insist that, because oil is priced on a global market, increased U.S. output wouldn't move the needle. Even Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the top economist for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, has written, "Domestic action to increase production will not lower gas prices set on a global market." The precise truth lies somewhere in between. If U.S. producers were able to massively ramp up output, the ultimate impact would mostly boil down to one big question: How would other big oil producers (mainly the Saudis and the rest of OPEC) respond to a surge in U.S. supplies? To stop prices from falling, they could cut back their output in response to new U.S. production, much as they've tried to in the past. That's essentially what happens in the much-cited projections by the Energy Information Administration. In one recent exercise, for example, it looked at what would happen to gasoline prices if U.S. oil production grew by about a million barrels a day. The net impact was a mere 4 cents a gallon fall. Why? All but a sliver of the increase in U.S. output was matched by cutbacks in the Middle East, leaving oil prices barely changed.

<h4>OPEC will <u>try to maintain</u> high prices</h4><p><strong><mark>LEVI ’12</strong></mark> - David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of its Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (Levi, Michael. “Think Again: The American Energy Boom”. August, 2012. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom)</p><p>"We Can Drill Our Way Out of High Prices."</p><p>Don't bet on it. Some people claim that unleashing U.S. oil and gas resources would slash the price of crude. Who can forget the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" that saturated airwaves during the 2008 presidential campaign? Others insist that, because oil is priced on a global market, increased U.S. output wouldn't move the needle. <u><mark>Even</mark> Douglas Holtz-<mark>Eakin, the top economist</mark> </u>for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, <u><mark>has written, "Domestic</mark> action to increase <mark>production will not lower</mark> gas <mark>prices</mark> set <mark>on a global market</u>.</mark>" The precise truth lies somewhere in between. <u><mark>If</mark> U.S. <mark>producers</mark> were able to <mark>massively ramp up</mark> output, the ultimate impact would mostly boil down to one big question: How would other big oil producers (mainly <mark>the</mark> <mark>Saudis and</mark> the rest of <mark>OPEC</mark>) respond to a surge in U.S. supplies?</u> <u><strong><mark>To stop prices from falling</strong></mark>, they <strong><mark>could cut back their output</strong></mark> in response to new U.S. production, much as they've tried to in the past</u>. <u><mark>That's</mark> essentially what happens <mark>in the</mark> much-cited <mark>projections by the E</u></mark>nergy <u><mark>I</u></mark>nformation <u><mark>A</u></mark>dministration. In one recent exercise, for example, it looked at what would happen to gasoline prices if U.S. oil production grew by about a million barrels a day. The net impact was a mere 4 cents a gallon fall. Why? All but a sliver of the increase in U.S. output was matched by cutbacks in the Middle East, leaving oil prices barely changed.</p>

LEVI ’12 - David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of its Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (Levi, Michael. “Think Again: The American Energy Boom”. August, 2012. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: LEVI ’12 - David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of its Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (Levi, Michael. “Think Again: The American Energy Boom”. August, 2012. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom) fulltext: "We Can Drill Our Way Out of High Prices." Don't bet on it. Some people claim that unleashing U.S. oil and gas resources would slash the price of crude. Who can forget the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" that saturated airwaves during the 2008 presidential campaign? Others insist that, because oil is priced on a global market, increased U.S. output wouldn't move the needle. Even Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the top economist for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, has written, "Domestic action to increase production will not lower gas prices set on a global market." The precise truth lies somewhere in between. If U.S. producers were able to massively ramp up output, the ultimate impact would mostly boil down to one big question: How would other big oil producers (mainly the Saudis and the rest of OPEC) respond to a surge in U.S. supplies? To stop prices from falling, they could cut back their output in response to new U.S. production, much as they've tried to in the past. That's essentially what happens in the much-cited projections by the Energy Information Administration. In one recent exercise, for example, it looked at what would happen to gasoline prices if U.S. oil production grew by about a million barrels a day. The net impact was a mere 4 cents a gallon fall. Why? All but a sliver of the increase in U.S. output was matched by cutbacks in the Middle East, leaving oil prices barely changed. [/INST] <h4>OPEC will <u>try to maintain</u> high prices</h4><p><strong><mark>LEVI ’12</strong></mark> - David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of its Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (Levi, Michael. “Think Again: The American Energy Boom”. August, 2012. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom)</p><p>"We Can Drill Our Way Out of High Prices."</p><p>Don't bet on it. Some people claim that unleashing U.S. oil and gas resources would slash the price of crude. Who can forget the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" that saturated airwaves during the 2008 presidential campaign? Others insist that, because oil is priced on a global market, increased U.S. output wouldn't move the needle. <u><mark>Even</mark> Douglas Holtz-<mark>Eakin, the top economist</mark> </u>for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, <u><mark>has written, "Domestic</mark> action to increase <mark>production will not lower</mark> gas <mark>prices</mark> set <mark>on a global market</u>.</mark>" The precise truth lies somewhere in between. <u><mark>If</mark> U.S. <mark>producers</mark> were able to <mark>massively ramp up</mark> output, the ultimate impact would mostly boil down to one big question: How would other big oil producers (mainly <mark>the</mark> <mark>Saudis and</mark> the rest of <mark>OPEC</mark>) respond to a surge in U.S. supplies?</u> <u><strong><mark>To stop prices from falling</strong></mark>, they <strong><mark>could cut back their output</strong></mark> in response to new U.S. production, much as they've tried to in the past</u>. <u><mark>That's</mark> essentially what happens <mark>in the</mark> much-cited <mark>projections by the E</u></mark>nergy <u><mark>I</u></mark>nformation <u><mark>A</u></mark>dministration. In one recent exercise, for example, it looked at what would happen to gasoline prices if U.S. oil production grew by about a million barrels a day. The net impact was a mere 4 cents a gallon fall. Why? All but a sliver of the increase in U.S. output was matched by cutbacks in the Middle East, leaving oil prices barely changed.</p> </s>

Coastal eutrophication kills marine biodiversity

23 areas documented suffering oxygen stress from coastal eutrophication. Areas are quite large thousands of square kilometers Many areas appear to be near a threshold loss of seafloor biodiversity alteration of food webs their list clearly represents the tip of the hypoxic/anoxic iceberg.

Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) list at least 23 areas documented in the scientific literature as suffering increasingly from severe oxygen stress resulting from coastal eutrophication. Areas periodically oxygen-stressed are often quite large, covering hundreds to thousands of square kilometers (e.g., 250 [km.sup.2] in the Gulf of Trieste, approximately 3000 [km.sup.2] in the Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden, and 8000-9500 [km.sup.2] on the Louisiana shelf). Many of these areas appear to be near a threshold at which further oxygen depletion will yield catastrophic benthic mortality, loss of seafloor biodiversity (Figure 1), and alteration of food webs leading from the sediments to crustacean and finfish fisheries above the SWI (de Jonge et al. 1994). It is important to note that because Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) have focused on oxygen-stressed sites reported in scientific journals, their list clearly represents the tip of the hypoxic/anoxic iceberg. To quote these authors: "There is no other environmental param eter of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically in such a short period of time as dissolved oxygen.... If we do not move quickly to reduce or stop the primary cause of low oxygen, the decomposition of excess primary production associated with eutrophication, then the productivity structure of our major estuarine and coastal areas will be permanently altered."

<h4>Coastal eutrophication<strong> kills marine biodiversity</h4><p>Bioscience 00 </p><p></strong>[ December 1, 2000 (No. 12, Vol. 50, p. 1108]</p><p>Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) list at least <u><strong>23 areas documented</u></strong> in the scientific literature as <u><strong>suffering</u></strong> increasingly from severe <u><strong>oxygen stress</u></strong> resulting <u><strong>from coastal eutrophication. Areas</u></strong> periodically oxygen-stressed <u><strong>are</u></strong> often <u><strong>quite large</u></strong>, covering hundreds to <u><strong>thousands of square kilometers</u></strong> (e.g., 250 [km.sup.2] in the Gulf of Trieste, approximately 3000 [km.sup.2] in the Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden, and 8000-9500 [km.sup.2] on the Louisiana shelf). <u><strong>Many</u></strong> of these <u><strong>areas appear</u></strong> <u><strong>to be near a threshold</u></strong> at which further oxygen depletion will yield catastrophic benthic mortality, <u><strong>loss of seafloor biodiversity</u></strong> (Figure 1), and <u><strong>alteration of food webs</u></strong> leading from the sediments to crustacean and finfish fisheries above the SWI (de Jonge et al. 1994). It is important to note that because Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) have focused on oxygen-stressed sites reported in scientific journals, <u><strong>their list</u></strong> <u><strong>clearly represents the tip of the hypoxic/anoxic iceberg.</u></strong> To quote these authors: "There is no other environmental param eter of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically in such a short period of time as dissolved oxygen.... If we do not move quickly to reduce or stop the primary cause of low oxygen, the decomposition of excess primary production associated with eutrophication, then the productivity structure of our major estuarine and coastal areas will be permanently altered."</p>

Bioscience 00 [ December 1, 2000 (No. 12, Vol. 50, p. 1108]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Bioscience 00 [ December 1, 2000 (No. 12, Vol. 50, p. 1108] fulltext: Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) list at least 23 areas documented in the scientific literature as suffering increasingly from severe oxygen stress resulting from coastal eutrophication. Areas periodically oxygen-stressed are often quite large, covering hundreds to thousands of square kilometers (e.g., 250 [km.sup.2] in the Gulf of Trieste, approximately 3000 [km.sup.2] in the Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden, and 8000-9500 [km.sup.2] on the Louisiana shelf). Many of these areas appear to be near a threshold at which further oxygen depletion will yield catastrophic benthic mortality, loss of seafloor biodiversity (Figure 1), and alteration of food webs leading from the sediments to crustacean and finfish fisheries above the SWI (de Jonge et al. 1994). It is important to note that because Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) have focused on oxygen-stressed sites reported in scientific journals, their list clearly represents the tip of the hypoxic/anoxic iceberg. To quote these authors: "There is no other environmental param eter of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically in such a short period of time as dissolved oxygen.... If we do not move quickly to reduce or stop the primary cause of low oxygen, the decomposition of excess primary production associated with eutrophication, then the productivity structure of our major estuarine and coastal areas will be permanently altered." [/INST] <h4>Coastal eutrophication<strong> kills marine biodiversity</h4><p>Bioscience 00 </p><p></strong>[ December 1, 2000 (No. 12, Vol. 50, p. 1108]</p><p>Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) list at least <u><strong>23 areas documented</u></strong> in the scientific literature as <u><strong>suffering</u></strong> increasingly from severe <u><strong>oxygen stress</u></strong> resulting <u><strong>from coastal eutrophication. Areas</u></strong> periodically oxygen-stressed <u><strong>are</u></strong> often <u><strong>quite large</u></strong>, covering hundreds to <u><strong>thousands of square kilometers</u></strong> (e.g., 250 [km.sup.2] in the Gulf of Trieste, approximately 3000 [km.sup.2] in the Kattegat between Denmark and Sweden, and 8000-9500 [km.sup.2] on the Louisiana shelf). <u><strong>Many</u></strong> of these <u><strong>areas appear</u></strong> <u><strong>to be near a threshold</u></strong> at which further oxygen depletion will yield catastrophic benthic mortality, <u><strong>loss of seafloor biodiversity</u></strong> (Figure 1), and <u><strong>alteration of food webs</u></strong> leading from the sediments to crustacean and finfish fisheries above the SWI (de Jonge et al. 1994). It is important to note that because Diaz and Rosenberg (1995) have focused on oxygen-stressed sites reported in scientific journals, <u><strong>their list</u></strong> <u><strong>clearly represents the tip of the hypoxic/anoxic iceberg.</u></strong> To quote these authors: "There is no other environmental param eter of such ecological importance to coastal marine ecosystems that has changed so drastically in such a short period of time as dissolved oxygen.... If we do not move quickly to reduce or stop the primary cause of low oxygen, the decomposition of excess primary production associated with eutrophication, then the productivity structure of our major estuarine and coastal areas will be permanently altered."</p> </s>

PC key – overcomes barriers

Monday’s inaugural included references to immigration, Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Obama learned it is not enough to state lofty goals in speeches. It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.

It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.

Taken as an agenda for his second term, Monday’s inaugural address included references to immigration, climate change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools. Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control, environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy.¶ President Obama again demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations.¶ But Obama should have learned in his first term that it is not enough to state lofty goals in great speeches. It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.

<h4>PC key – overcomes barriers</h4><p><strong>DMR</strong>, The Des Moines Register, 1/22/<strong>2013</strong> www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/301220049/0/NEWS/?od<u><strong>yssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1</p><p></u></strong>Taken as an agenda for his second term, <u><strong>Monday’s inaugural</u></strong> address <u><strong>included references to immigration, </u></strong>climate change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools. <u><strong>Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform,</u></strong> protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control, environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy.¶ President Obama again demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations.¶ But <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> should have <u><strong>learned</u></strong> in his first term that <u><strong>it is not enough to state lofty goals in</u></strong> great <u><strong>speeches. <mark>It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.</p></u></strong></mark>

DMR, The Des Moines Register, 1/22/2013 www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/301220049/0/NEWS/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: DMR, The Des Moines Register, 1/22/2013 www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/301220049/0/NEWS/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1 fulltext: Taken as an agenda for his second term, Monday’s inaugural address included references to immigration, climate change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools. Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control, environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy.¶ President Obama again demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations.¶ But Obama should have learned in his first term that it is not enough to state lofty goals in great speeches. It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed. [/INST] <h4>PC key – overcomes barriers</h4><p><strong>DMR</strong>, The Des Moines Register, 1/22/<strong>2013</strong> www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130122/OPINION03/301220049/0/NEWS/?od<u><strong>yssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1</p><p></u></strong>Taken as an agenda for his second term, <u><strong>Monday’s inaugural</u></strong> address <u><strong>included references to immigration, </u></strong>climate change, gay rights, voting rights and safe schools. <u><strong>Achieving those things will require the president mounting his bully pulpit to put heat on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform,</u></strong> protections for the rights of gays and lesbians, gun control, environmental regulation and expansion of renewable forms of energy.¶ President Obama again demonstrated his gift of oratory on Monday. He delivered a well-crafted inaugural address with inspiring themes woven throughout and a call to action for our generation to achieve the ideals of previous generations.¶ But <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> should have <u><strong>learned</u></strong> in his first term that <u><strong>it is not enough to state lofty goals in</u></strong> great <u><strong>speeches. <mark>It takes hard work, perseverance and tough-mindedness to deal with members of Congress who may not want him to succeed.</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

China will perceive increased US involvement as an infringements on its sphere of influence

All Latin America nations recognise Cuba. most Latin American nations have strong trade ties with China. It's no longer the US backyard US allies have their own agendas Beijing worries about "encirclement" as the US joins Latin American Pacific seaboard allies in the TPPA

(Peter, The New Zealand Herald, “Grim reminder of bloody US touch,” May 18, 2013, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10884403) /wyo-mm) "Political relationships are very complicated," says Roett. "All the Latin America nations recognise Cuba. They don't understand our Cuba policy. And most Latin American nations have strong trade ties with China. If China and the US are adversaries they don't want to take sides, alienating Beijing to please Washington." And while good nations fall into the free trade camp, bad nations are less keen. For many years Washington's nemesis was Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuela leader. "I'm critical of Chavez," says Sanho Tree, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "but he did some good things. One of those things was to destroy the Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela used its oil money to help wean other nations off dependency on the US, to create different spheres of power in the region, and different leadership roles. It's become a more interesting place. It's no longer the US backyard." It is a long way from Monroe Doctrine gunboat certainties. Take the US-led War on Drugs. That term was retired by Obama, even as Colombia - the beneficiary of more than US$8 billion ($9.79 billion) in US counter-drug trafficking and other aid since 2000 - and other Latin American states suggest decriminalising drugs, a notion stonewalled by the US. The Ixil massacres were spawned, in part, by US obsessions with communism. Today, says Tree, the US has an evangelical faith in the free market. Less is said about the downside: Nafta pauperised thousands of Mexican peasants who, unable to compete with subsidised US food imports, lost their lands and were forced into border sweat shops, or maquiladoras. It also bequeathed legions of jobless young men, today's drug cartel foot soldiers. Might free trade also backfire? The elephant in the room is China. While the US was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan China, sensing a vacuum and hungry for raw materials, began forging alliances in Latin America, with ventures in Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. They include huge infrastructure projects, such as the Sao Joao da Barra super port in Brazil, a fellow member of the BRICS economic bloc. Plans for a Chinese-funded railway in Colombia, between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans show even US allies have their own agendas. It is a strategic trend that alarms Washington, even as Beijing worries about "encirclement" as the US joins Latin American Pacific seaboard allies in the TPPA.

<h4><strong>China will perceive increased US involvement as an infringements on its sphere of influence</h4><p>Huck 13</p><p></strong>(Peter, The New Zealand Herald, “Grim reminder of bloody US touch,” May 18, 2013, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10884403) /wyo-mm) </p><p>"Political relationships are very complicated," says Roett. "<u><strong>All</u></strong> the <u><strong>Latin America nations recognise Cuba.</u></strong> They don't understand our Cuba policy. And <u><strong>most Latin American nations have strong trade ties with China.</u></strong> If China and the US are adversaries they don't want to take sides, alienating Beijing to please Washington." And while good nations fall into the free trade camp, bad nations are less keen. For many years Washington's nemesis was Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuela leader. "I'm critical of Chavez," says Sanho Tree, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "but he did some good things. One of those things was to destroy the Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela used its oil money to help wean other nations off dependency on the US, to create different spheres of power in the region, and different leadership roles. It's become a more interesting place. <u><strong>It's no longer the US backyard</u></strong>." It is a long way from Monroe Doctrine gunboat certainties. Take the US-led War on Drugs. That term was retired by Obama, even as Colombia - the beneficiary of more than US$8 billion ($9.79 billion) in US counter-drug trafficking and other aid since 2000 - and other Latin American states suggest decriminalising drugs, a notion stonewalled by the US. The Ixil massacres were spawned, in part, by US obsessions with communism. Today, says Tree, the US has an evangelical faith in the free market. Less is said about the downside: Nafta pauperised thousands of Mexican peasants who, unable to compete with subsidised US food imports, lost their lands and were forced into border sweat shops, or maquiladoras. It also bequeathed legions of jobless young men, today's drug cartel foot soldiers. Might free trade also backfire? The elephant in the room is China. While the US was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan China, sensing a vacuum and hungry for raw materials, began forging alliances in Latin America, with ventures in Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. They include huge infrastructure projects, such as the Sao Joao da Barra super port in Brazil, a fellow member of the BRICS economic bloc. Plans for a Chinese-funded railway in Colombia, between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans show even <u><strong>US allies have their own agendas</u></strong>. It is a strategic trend that alarms Washington, even as <u><strong>Beijing worries about "encirclement" as the US joins Latin American Pacific seaboard allies in the TPPA</u></strong>.</p>

Huck 13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Huck 13 fulltext: (Peter, The New Zealand Herald, “Grim reminder of bloody US touch,” May 18, 2013, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10884403) /wyo-mm) "Political relationships are very complicated," says Roett. "All the Latin America nations recognise Cuba. They don't understand our Cuba policy. And most Latin American nations have strong trade ties with China. If China and the US are adversaries they don't want to take sides, alienating Beijing to please Washington." And while good nations fall into the free trade camp, bad nations are less keen. For many years Washington's nemesis was Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuela leader. "I'm critical of Chavez," says Sanho Tree, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "but he did some good things. One of those things was to destroy the Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela used its oil money to help wean other nations off dependency on the US, to create different spheres of power in the region, and different leadership roles. It's become a more interesting place. It's no longer the US backyard." It is a long way from Monroe Doctrine gunboat certainties. Take the US-led War on Drugs. That term was retired by Obama, even as Colombia - the beneficiary of more than US$8 billion ($9.79 billion) in US counter-drug trafficking and other aid since 2000 - and other Latin American states suggest decriminalising drugs, a notion stonewalled by the US. The Ixil massacres were spawned, in part, by US obsessions with communism. Today, says Tree, the US has an evangelical faith in the free market. Less is said about the downside: Nafta pauperised thousands of Mexican peasants who, unable to compete with subsidised US food imports, lost their lands and were forced into border sweat shops, or maquiladoras. It also bequeathed legions of jobless young men, today's drug cartel foot soldiers. Might free trade also backfire? The elephant in the room is China. While the US was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan China, sensing a vacuum and hungry for raw materials, began forging alliances in Latin America, with ventures in Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. They include huge infrastructure projects, such as the Sao Joao da Barra super port in Brazil, a fellow member of the BRICS economic bloc. Plans for a Chinese-funded railway in Colombia, between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans show even US allies have their own agendas. It is a strategic trend that alarms Washington, even as Beijing worries about "encirclement" as the US joins Latin American Pacific seaboard allies in the TPPA. [/INST] <h4><strong>China will perceive increased US involvement as an infringements on its sphere of influence</h4><p>Huck 13</p><p></strong>(Peter, The New Zealand Herald, “Grim reminder of bloody US touch,” May 18, 2013, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10884403) /wyo-mm) </p><p>"Political relationships are very complicated," says Roett. "<u><strong>All</u></strong> the <u><strong>Latin America nations recognise Cuba.</u></strong> They don't understand our Cuba policy. And <u><strong>most Latin American nations have strong trade ties with China.</u></strong> If China and the US are adversaries they don't want to take sides, alienating Beijing to please Washington." And while good nations fall into the free trade camp, bad nations are less keen. For many years Washington's nemesis was Hugo Chavez, the late Venezuela leader. "I'm critical of Chavez," says Sanho Tree, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "but he did some good things. One of those things was to destroy the Monroe Doctrine. Venezuela used its oil money to help wean other nations off dependency on the US, to create different spheres of power in the region, and different leadership roles. It's become a more interesting place. <u><strong>It's no longer the US backyard</u></strong>." It is a long way from Monroe Doctrine gunboat certainties. Take the US-led War on Drugs. That term was retired by Obama, even as Colombia - the beneficiary of more than US$8 billion ($9.79 billion) in US counter-drug trafficking and other aid since 2000 - and other Latin American states suggest decriminalising drugs, a notion stonewalled by the US. The Ixil massacres were spawned, in part, by US obsessions with communism. Today, says Tree, the US has an evangelical faith in the free market. Less is said about the downside: Nafta pauperised thousands of Mexican peasants who, unable to compete with subsidised US food imports, lost their lands and were forced into border sweat shops, or maquiladoras. It also bequeathed legions of jobless young men, today's drug cartel foot soldiers. Might free trade also backfire? The elephant in the room is China. While the US was engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan China, sensing a vacuum and hungry for raw materials, began forging alliances in Latin America, with ventures in Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia. They include huge infrastructure projects, such as the Sao Joao da Barra super port in Brazil, a fellow member of the BRICS economic bloc. Plans for a Chinese-funded railway in Colombia, between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans show even <u><strong>US allies have their own agendas</u></strong>. It is a strategic trend that alarms Washington, even as <u><strong>Beijing worries about "encirclement" as the US joins Latin American Pacific seaboard allies in the TPPA</u></strong>.</p> </s>

[B.] Cuba is a low-hanging fruit – it’s a prerequisite to hemispheric relations

With his national security team in place None of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is low-hanging fruit: present, that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation. For the rest of the world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that policy, makes that clear. The entire world believes our policy is wrong our legislation imposes Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a new relationship with the nations of Latin America y 21st-century policy toward Latin America will have to shift to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.

With his national security team in place, President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy principals will be immediately struck by how many complex and expensive challenges they will face. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and Russia, will all require enormous energy, all the tools in our foreign policy toolbox, and will all take years to resolve, if they can be resolved. None of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is low-hanging fruit: though of marginal importance domestically, it could be changed immediately at little cost. At present, that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation. For the rest of the world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that policy, the embargo – the 16th such vote in as many years – makes that clear. The entire world believes our policy is wrong. And the world is right. The fact is that since Cuba stopped exporting revolution and started exporting doctors and nurses, it ceased being a national security concern for the United States. And yet we restrict travel to the island - unconstitutionally - and constrain Cuban-Americans in the amount of money they can send to their families on the island. Moreover, the economic embargo hurts the Cuban people more than the Cuban leadership, and our Helms-Burton legislation imposes Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a new relationship with the nations of Latin America. Any 21st-century policy toward Latin America will have to shift from the Cold War-era emphasis on right-wing governments and top-down economic adjustment to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.

<h4>[B.] Cuba is a low-hanging fruit – it’s a prerequisite to hemispheric relations</h4><p><strong>Doherty 8</strong> (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12,cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)</p><p><u><strong>With his national security team in place</u></strong>, President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy principals will be immediately struck by how many complex and expensive challenges they will face. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and Russia, will all require enormous energy, all the tools in our foreign policy toolbox, and will all take years to resolve, if they can be resolved. <u><strong>None of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is low-hanging fruit:</u></strong> though of marginal importance domestically, it could be changed immediately at little cost. At <u><strong>present, that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation. For the rest of the world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that policy,</u></strong> the embargo – the 16th such vote in as many years – <u><strong>makes that clear. The entire world believes our policy is wrong</u></strong>. And the world is right. The fact is that since Cuba stopped exporting revolution and started exporting doctors and nurses, it ceased being a national security concern for the United States. And yet we restrict travel to the island - unconstitutionally - and constrain Cuban-Americans in the amount of money they can send to their families on the island. Moreover, the economic embargo hurts the Cuban people more than the Cuban leadership, and <u><strong>our</u></strong> Helms-Burton <u><strong>legislation imposes Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a new relationship with the nations of Latin America</u></strong>. An<u><strong>y 21st-century policy toward Latin America will have to shift</u></strong> from the Cold War-era emphasis on right-wing governments and top-down economic adjustment <u><strong>to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.</p></u></strong>

Doherty 8 (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12,cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Doherty 8 (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12,cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301) fulltext: With his national security team in place, President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy principals will be immediately struck by how many complex and expensive challenges they will face. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and Russia, will all require enormous energy, all the tools in our foreign policy toolbox, and will all take years to resolve, if they can be resolved. None of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is low-hanging fruit: though of marginal importance domestically, it could be changed immediately at little cost. At present, that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation. For the rest of the world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that policy, the embargo – the 16th such vote in as many years – makes that clear. The entire world believes our policy is wrong. And the world is right. The fact is that since Cuba stopped exporting revolution and started exporting doctors and nurses, it ceased being a national security concern for the United States. And yet we restrict travel to the island - unconstitutionally - and constrain Cuban-Americans in the amount of money they can send to their families on the island. Moreover, the economic embargo hurts the Cuban people more than the Cuban leadership, and our Helms-Burton legislation imposes Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a new relationship with the nations of Latin America. Any 21st-century policy toward Latin America will have to shift from the Cold War-era emphasis on right-wing governments and top-down economic adjustment to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester. [/INST] <h4>[B.] Cuba is a low-hanging fruit – it’s a prerequisite to hemispheric relations</h4><p><strong>Doherty 8</strong> (Patrick, "An Obama Policy for Cuba," McClathy Newspapers, December 12,cuba.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/obama_policy_cuba_9301)</p><p><u><strong>With his national security team in place</u></strong>, President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy principals will be immediately struck by how many complex and expensive challenges they will face. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine and Russia, will all require enormous energy, all the tools in our foreign policy toolbox, and will all take years to resolve, if they can be resolved. <u><strong>None of these crises will allow President Obama to signal swiftly to the world the kind of changes he proposes in American foreign policy. In contrast, U.S.-Cuba policy is low-hanging fruit:</u></strong> though of marginal importance domestically, it could be changed immediately at little cost. At <u><strong>present, that policy is a major black spot on America's international reputation. For the rest of the world, our failed, obsolete and 50-year old policy toward Cuba goes against everything that Obama campaigned for, and the recent 185-3 U.N. vote to condemn the centerpiece of that policy,</u></strong> the embargo – the 16th such vote in as many years – <u><strong>makes that clear. The entire world believes our policy is wrong</u></strong>. And the world is right. The fact is that since Cuba stopped exporting revolution and started exporting doctors and nurses, it ceased being a national security concern for the United States. And yet we restrict travel to the island - unconstitutionally - and constrain Cuban-Americans in the amount of money they can send to their families on the island. Moreover, the economic embargo hurts the Cuban people more than the Cuban leadership, and <u><strong>our</u></strong> Helms-Burton <u><strong>legislation imposes Washington's will on foreign businesses who wish to trade with Cuba, creating ill will in business communities from Canada to Brazil. Our Cuba policy is also an obstacle to striking a new relationship with the nations of Latin America</u></strong>. An<u><strong>y 21st-century policy toward Latin America will have to shift</u></strong> from the Cold War-era emphasis on right-wing governments and top-down economic adjustment <u><strong>to creating a hemispheric partnership to address many critical issues: the revival of militant leftism, the twin challenges of sustainability and inclusive economic growth, and the rising hemispheric influence of Russia and China. But until Washington ends the extraordinary sanctions that comprise the Cuba embargo, Latin America will remain at arms-length, and the problems in our backyard - Hugo Chavez, drugs, immigration, energy insecurity - will simply fester.</p></u></strong> </s>

History proves—elites are willing to overcome much larger barriers than plan—no will to collapse relations

There are a number of friction points in the bilateral relations we have four decades of relations, across eight presidents, both parties, a range of philosophies, different challenges, and different times. regardless of the challenge, we were not going to break off relations but always try to improve them.

There are a number of friction points in relations , we have four decades of relations across eight presidents both parties, a range of philosophies different challenges and times regardless of the challenge, we were not going to break off relations

There are any number of differences, challenges, and even friction points in the bilateral relations, but I want to underscore my optimism because the policy emphasis is such that it requires that most of our time be spent discussing the problems or challenges. However, before I get to that, I want to talk a bit about what is working. For example, it is interesting to me that both China and the U.S. have a national-interest-focused foreign policy. Neither country, I think, subscribes to a philosophy that threatens the other. Neither country, as they say in China, tries to put sand in the other’s rice bowl. So I think there is a reasonably positive functional relationship between the two countries. From a U.S. point of view, if we look over the modern era, since the Nixon-to-China moment, we have about four decades of relations, across eight presidents, both political parties, a range of philosophies, different challenges, and different times. But, there is a high degree of continuity in that relationship and I think there are two pillars that allow for that continuity. One is the pillar of engagement that, regardless of the issue or the challenge, we were not going to break off or try to diminish relations but always try to find a way to improve them. The second pillar is respect for China’s one-China policy, that we would not seek to undermine that, although we certainly have interests vis à vis Taiwan. But we never tried to directly do something to diminish the one-China policy.

<h4>History proves—elites are willing to overcome much larger barriers than plan—no will to collapse relations</h4><p><strong>Lavin 11</strong> – Undersecretary for International Trade of the the United States Department of Commerce (Franklin, 06/28, “Consequential China: U.S.–China Relations in a Time of Transition,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/consequential-china-us-china-relations-in-a-time-of-transition)</p><p><u><mark>There are</mark> <mark>a</u></mark>ny <u><mark>number of</u></mark> differences, challenges, and even <u><mark>friction points in</mark> the bilateral <mark>relations</u></mark>, but I want to underscore my optimism because the policy emphasis is such that it requires that most of our time be spent discussing the problems or challenges. However, before I get to that, I want to talk a bit about what is working. For example, it is interesting to me that both China and the U.S. have a national-interest-focused foreign policy. Neither country, I think, subscribes to a philosophy that threatens the other. Neither country, as they say in China, tries to put sand in the other’s rice bowl. So I think there is a reasonably positive functional relationship between the two countries. From a U.S. point of view, if we look over the modern era, since the Nixon-to-China moment<mark>, <u>we have</u></mark> about <u><strong><mark>four decades</strong> of relations</mark>, <mark>across eight presidents</mark>, <mark>both</u></mark> political <u><mark>parties, a range of philosophies</mark>, <mark>different challenges</mark>, <mark>and</mark> different <mark>times</mark>.</u> But, there is a high degree of continuity in that relationship and I think there are two pillars that allow for that continuity. One is the pillar of engagement that, <u><strong><mark>regardless</strong> of</u></mark> the issue or <u><mark>the challenge, we were not going to break off</u></mark> or try to diminish <u><mark>relations</mark> but always try to</u> find a way to <u>improve them.</u> The second pillar is respect for China’s one-China policy, that we would not seek to undermine that, although we certainly have interests vis à vis Taiwan. But we never tried to directly do something to diminish the one-China policy.</p>

Lavin 11 – Undersecretary for International Trade of the the United States Department of Commerce (Franklin, 06/28, “Consequential China: U.S.–China Relations in a Time of Transition,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/consequential-china-us-china-relations-in-a-time-of-transition)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lavin 11 – Undersecretary for International Trade of the the United States Department of Commerce (Franklin, 06/28, “Consequential China: U.S.–China Relations in a Time of Transition,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/consequential-china-us-china-relations-in-a-time-of-transition) fulltext: There are any number of differences, challenges, and even friction points in the bilateral relations, but I want to underscore my optimism because the policy emphasis is such that it requires that most of our time be spent discussing the problems or challenges. However, before I get to that, I want to talk a bit about what is working. For example, it is interesting to me that both China and the U.S. have a national-interest-focused foreign policy. Neither country, I think, subscribes to a philosophy that threatens the other. Neither country, as they say in China, tries to put sand in the other’s rice bowl. So I think there is a reasonably positive functional relationship between the two countries. From a U.S. point of view, if we look over the modern era, since the Nixon-to-China moment, we have about four decades of relations, across eight presidents, both political parties, a range of philosophies, different challenges, and different times. But, there is a high degree of continuity in that relationship and I think there are two pillars that allow for that continuity. One is the pillar of engagement that, regardless of the issue or the challenge, we were not going to break off or try to diminish relations but always try to find a way to improve them. The second pillar is respect for China’s one-China policy, that we would not seek to undermine that, although we certainly have interests vis à vis Taiwan. But we never tried to directly do something to diminish the one-China policy. [/INST] <h4>History proves—elites are willing to overcome much larger barriers than plan—no will to collapse relations</h4><p><strong>Lavin 11</strong> – Undersecretary for International Trade of the the United States Department of Commerce (Franklin, 06/28, “Consequential China: U.S.–China Relations in a Time of Transition,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/consequential-china-us-china-relations-in-a-time-of-transition)</p><p><u><mark>There are</mark> <mark>a</u></mark>ny <u><mark>number of</u></mark> differences, challenges, and even <u><mark>friction points in</mark> the bilateral <mark>relations</u></mark>, but I want to underscore my optimism because the policy emphasis is such that it requires that most of our time be spent discussing the problems or challenges. However, before I get to that, I want to talk a bit about what is working. For example, it is interesting to me that both China and the U.S. have a national-interest-focused foreign policy. Neither country, I think, subscribes to a philosophy that threatens the other. Neither country, as they say in China, tries to put sand in the other’s rice bowl. So I think there is a reasonably positive functional relationship between the two countries. From a U.S. point of view, if we look over the modern era, since the Nixon-to-China moment<mark>, <u>we have</u></mark> about <u><strong><mark>four decades</strong> of relations</mark>, <mark>across eight presidents</mark>, <mark>both</u></mark> political <u><mark>parties, a range of philosophies</mark>, <mark>different challenges</mark>, <mark>and</mark> different <mark>times</mark>.</u> But, there is a high degree of continuity in that relationship and I think there are two pillars that allow for that continuity. One is the pillar of engagement that, <u><strong><mark>regardless</strong> of</u></mark> the issue or <u><mark>the challenge, we were not going to break off</u></mark> or try to diminish <u><mark>relations</mark> but always try to</u> find a way to <u>improve them.</u> The second pillar is respect for China’s one-China policy, that we would not seek to undermine that, although we certainly have interests vis à vis Taiwan. But we never tried to directly do something to diminish the one-China policy.</p> </s>

Status quo achieves independence within a year, triggering all of their links

America got an early Christmas gift this year with the news that as a nation we're about to become energy independent The Energy Department reported that in 2012 America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs to power its automobiles and airplanes this year and is on course to be 100 percent energy independent next year. we're not as linked to unstable oil reserves in the Middle East or elsewhere The U S is poised to pass Saudi Arabia

we're about to become energy independent The Energy Department reported that America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs this year and is on course to be 100 percent energy independent next year. we're not as linked to the Middle East or elsewhere The U S is poised to pass Saudi Arabia

Ho! Ho! Ho! America got an early Christmas gift this year with the news that as a nation we're about to become energy independent — at least in terms of fossil fuels. The Energy Department reported this week that in 2012 America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs to power its automobiles and airplanes this year and is on course to be 100 percent energy independent next year. And that should be a sign of relief to us all. For now, at least, we're not as linked to unstable oil reserves in the Middle East or elsewhere. The United States is poised to pass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil-producing nation on Earth.

<h4>Status quo achieves independence within a year, triggering all of their links</h4><p><strong>The Gleaner ‘12</strong>, editorial, "Nation's Total Energy Independence Gift for Future Generations," December 27, http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/27/nations-total-energy-independence-gift-for/</p><p>Ho! Ho! Ho! <u>America got an early Christmas gift this year with the news that as a nation <mark>we're about to become energy independent</u></mark> — at least in terms of fossil fuels. <u><mark>The Energy Department reported </u></mark>this week<u><mark> that</mark> in 2012 <mark>America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs</mark> to power its automobiles and airplanes <mark>this year and is <strong>on course to be 100 percent energy independent</strong> next year. </u></mark>And that should be a sign of relief to us all. For now, at least, <u><mark>we're not as linked to </mark>unstable oil reserves in <mark>the Middle East or elsewhere</u></mark>. <u><mark>The U</u></mark>nited <u><mark>S</u></mark>tates <u><mark>is poised to pass Saudi Arabia</u></mark> as the largest oil-producing nation on Earth.</p>

The Gleaner ‘12, editorial, "Nation's Total Energy Independence Gift for Future Generations," December 27, http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/27/nations-total-energy-independence-gift-for/

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Gleaner ‘12, editorial, "Nation's Total Energy Independence Gift for Future Generations," December 27, http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/27/nations-total-energy-independence-gift-for/ fulltext: Ho! Ho! Ho! America got an early Christmas gift this year with the news that as a nation we're about to become energy independent — at least in terms of fossil fuels. The Energy Department reported this week that in 2012 America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs to power its automobiles and airplanes this year and is on course to be 100 percent energy independent next year. And that should be a sign of relief to us all. For now, at least, we're not as linked to unstable oil reserves in the Middle East or elsewhere. The United States is poised to pass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil-producing nation on Earth. [/INST] <h4>Status quo achieves independence within a year, triggering all of their links</h4><p><strong>The Gleaner ‘12</strong>, editorial, "Nation's Total Energy Independence Gift for Future Generations," December 27, http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/27/nations-total-energy-independence-gift-for/</p><p>Ho! Ho! Ho! <u>America got an early Christmas gift this year with the news that as a nation <mark>we're about to become energy independent</u></mark> — at least in terms of fossil fuels. <u><mark>The Energy Department reported </u></mark>this week<u><mark> that</mark> in 2012 <mark>America will produce 83 percent of all the energy it needs</mark> to power its automobiles and airplanes <mark>this year and is <strong>on course to be 100 percent energy independent</strong> next year. </u></mark>And that should be a sign of relief to us all. For now, at least, <u><mark>we're not as linked to </mark>unstable oil reserves in <mark>the Middle East or elsewhere</u></mark>. <u><mark>The U</u></mark>nited <u><mark>S</u></mark>tates <u><mark>is poised to pass Saudi Arabia</u></mark> as the largest oil-producing nation on Earth.</p> </s>

Deforestation makes biodiversity loss inevitable

The destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur will result in widespread extinctions The magnitude of this extinction event can be estimated using the species-area relationship it has been predicted that endemic mammal species richness in the Brazilian Amazon could be reduced by 518% under different modelled scenarios of forest loss to 2020

destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur will result in widespread extinctions it has been predicted that endemic mammal species in the Amazon could be reduced by 518%

The destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss (IUCN 2004), and it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur over the next few decades will result in widespread extinctions. The magnitude of this impending extinction event can be estimated, roughly, using the species-area relationship. The species-area relationship describes the increase in species richness (S) with area of habitat (A), which can usually be modelled as a power function of the form S = cAz, the value of z indicating the slope of the increase. The expected loss of species from time t to t+1 can therefore be estimated as a function of habitat loss, using the equation St+1/St = (At+1/At)z. Using this method it has been predicted, for example, that endemic mammal species richness in the Brazilian Amazon could be reduced by 518% under different modelled scenarios of forest loss to 2020 (Grelle 2005).

<h4>Deforestation makes biodiversity loss <u>inevitable</h4><p></u><strong>Cardillo, 06 </strong>(Marcel, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, 2006, “Disappearing forests and biodiversity loss: which areas should we protect?,” International Forestry Review Volume 8, Issue 2, http://www.tempoandmode.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/int-forestry-review-june-2006-cardillo.pdf,)</p><p><u><strong>The <mark>destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss</u></strong></mark> (IUCN 2004), and <u><mark>it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur</mark> </u>over the next few decades <u><mark>will result in widespread extinctions</u></mark>. <u>The magnitude of this</u> impending <u>extinction event can be estimated</u>, roughly, <u>using the species-area relationship</u>. The species-area relationship describes the increase in species richness (S) with area of habitat (A), which can usually be modelled as a power function of the form S = cAz, the value of z indicating the slope of the increase. The expected loss of species from time t to t+1 can therefore be estimated as a function of habitat loss, using the equation St+1/St = (At+1/At)z. Using this method <u><mark>it has been predicted</u></mark>, for example, <u><mark>that endemic mammal species</mark> richness <mark>in the</mark> Brazilian <mark>Amazon could be reduced by 518%</mark> under different modelled scenarios of forest loss to 2020</u> (Grelle 2005). </p>

Cardillo, 06 (Marcel, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, 2006, “Disappearing forests and biodiversity loss: which areas should we protect?,” International Forestry Review Volume 8, Issue 2, http://www.tempoandmode.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/int-forestry-review-june-2006-cardillo.pdf,)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cardillo, 06 (Marcel, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, 2006, “Disappearing forests and biodiversity loss: which areas should we protect?,” International Forestry Review Volume 8, Issue 2, http://www.tempoandmode.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/int-forestry-review-june-2006-cardillo.pdf,) fulltext: The destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss (IUCN 2004), and it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur over the next few decades will result in widespread extinctions. The magnitude of this impending extinction event can be estimated, roughly, using the species-area relationship. The species-area relationship describes the increase in species richness (S) with area of habitat (A), which can usually be modelled as a power function of the form S = cAz, the value of z indicating the slope of the increase. The expected loss of species from time t to t+1 can therefore be estimated as a function of habitat loss, using the equation St+1/St = (At+1/At)z. Using this method it has been predicted, for example, that endemic mammal species richness in the Brazilian Amazon could be reduced by 518% under different modelled scenarios of forest loss to 2020 (Grelle 2005). [/INST] <h4>Deforestation makes biodiversity loss <u>inevitable</h4><p></u><strong>Cardillo, 06 </strong>(Marcel, Division of Biology, Imperial College London, 2006, “Disappearing forests and biodiversity loss: which areas should we protect?,” International Forestry Review Volume 8, Issue 2, http://www.tempoandmode.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/int-forestry-review-june-2006-cardillo.pdf,)</p><p><u><strong>The <mark>destruction of forests and other habitats is the single most important cause of biodiversity loss</u></strong></mark> (IUCN 2004), and <u><mark>it is inevitable that the massive loss of forests that will occur</mark> </u>over the next few decades <u><mark>will result in widespread extinctions</u></mark>. <u>The magnitude of this</u> impending <u>extinction event can be estimated</u>, roughly, <u>using the species-area relationship</u>. The species-area relationship describes the increase in species richness (S) with area of habitat (A), which can usually be modelled as a power function of the form S = cAz, the value of z indicating the slope of the increase. The expected loss of species from time t to t+1 can therefore be estimated as a function of habitat loss, using the equation St+1/St = (At+1/At)z. Using this method <u><mark>it has been predicted</u></mark>, for example, <u><mark>that endemic mammal species</mark> richness <mark>in the</mark> Brazilian <mark>Amazon could be reduced by 518%</mark> under different modelled scenarios of forest loss to 2020</u> (Grelle 2005). </p> </s>

PC key – sustained focus needed to pass

Obama said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality, Be a Leader The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his, "He has to make it clear that he'll use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen

He has to use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen

On Sunday, President Barack Obama said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality, we talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with.¶ 1. Be a Leader¶ During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around, according to Chishti. "He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his," he said. "He has to make it clear that he'll use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen, and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that direction, but he needs to follow through.

<h4>PC key – sustained focus needed to pass</h4><p>Ted <strong>Hesson, </strong>writer at ABC News. “Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform,” 1-2-<strong>2013</p><p></strong>On Sunday, President Barack <u><strong>Obama said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality,</u></strong> we talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with.¶ 1. <u><strong>Be a Leader</u></strong>¶ During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. <u><strong>The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around</u></strong>, according to Chishti. "<u><strong>He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his,</u></strong>" he said. <u><strong>"<mark>He has to</mark> make it clear that he'll <mark>use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen</u></strong></mark>, and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that direction, but he needs to follow through.</p>

Ted Hesson, writer at ABC News. “Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform,” 1-2-2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Ted Hesson, writer at ABC News. “Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform,” 1-2-2013 fulltext: On Sunday, President Barack Obama said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality, we talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with.¶ 1. Be a Leader¶ During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around, according to Chishti. "He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his," he said. "He has to make it clear that he'll use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen, and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that direction, but he needs to follow through. [/INST] <h4>PC key – sustained focus needed to pass</h4><p>Ted <strong>Hesson, </strong>writer at ABC News. “Analysis: 6 Things Obama Needs To Do for Immigration Reform,” 1-2-<strong>2013</p><p></strong>On Sunday, President Barack <u><strong>Obama said that immigration reform is a "top priority" on his agenda and that he would introduce legislation in his first year.¶ To find out what he needs to do to make reform a reality,</u></strong> we talked to Lynn Tramonte, the deputy director at America's Voice, a group that lobbies for immigration reform, and Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank. Here's what we came up with.¶ 1. <u><strong>Be a Leader</u></strong>¶ During Obama's first term, bipartisan legislation never got off the ground. <u><strong>The president needs to do a better job leading the charge this time around</u></strong>, according to Chishti. "<u><strong>He has to make it clear that it's a high priority of his,</u></strong>" he said. <u><strong>"<mark>He has to</mark> make it clear that he'll <mark>use his bully pulpit and his political muscle to make it happen</u></strong></mark>, and he has to be open to using his veto power." His announcement this weekend is a step in that direction, but he needs to follow through.</p> </s>

Engaging in trade ensures US influence trades off with China-

While America sits on the sidelines, countries like China are trading with Cuba they are more likely to influence economic decisions and social policy as Castro's regime fades The U.S. needs to ensure its role by engaging in trade

(Max, Senator of Montana, Teachers.Scholastic.com, “hould The U.S. End Its Embargo on Cuba?,” May 2008, ) While America sits on the sidelines, countries like Canada, Spain, China, and Venezuela are trading with Cuba, so they are more likely to influence economic decisions and even social policy as Fidel Castro's regime fades away. The U.S. needs to ensure its role by discarding outdated ideas that don't work and engaging in trade.

<h4><strong>Engaging in trade ensures US influence trades off with China-</h4><p>Baucus 08</p><p></strong>(Max, Senator of Montana, Teachers.Scholastic.com, “hould The U.S. End Its Embargo on Cuba?,” May 2008, )</p><p><u><strong>While America sits on the sidelines, countries like</u></strong> Canada, Spain, <u><strong>China</u></strong>, and Venezuela <u><strong>are trading with Cuba</u></strong>, so <u><strong>they are more likely to influence economic decisions and</u></strong> even <u><strong>social policy as</u></strong> Fidel <u><strong>Castro's regime fades</u></strong> away. <u><strong>The U.S. needs to ensure its role by </u></strong>discarding outdated ideas that don't work and <u><strong>engaging in trade</u>.</p></strong>

Baucus 08

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Baucus 08 fulltext: (Max, Senator of Montana, Teachers.Scholastic.com, “hould The U.S. End Its Embargo on Cuba?,” May 2008, ) While America sits on the sidelines, countries like Canada, Spain, China, and Venezuela are trading with Cuba, so they are more likely to influence economic decisions and even social policy as Fidel Castro's regime fades away. The U.S. needs to ensure its role by discarding outdated ideas that don't work and engaging in trade. [/INST] <h4><strong>Engaging in trade ensures US influence trades off with China-</h4><p>Baucus 08</p><p></strong>(Max, Senator of Montana, Teachers.Scholastic.com, “hould The U.S. End Its Embargo on Cuba?,” May 2008, )</p><p><u><strong>While America sits on the sidelines, countries like</u></strong> Canada, Spain, <u><strong>China</u></strong>, and Venezuela <u><strong>are trading with Cuba</u></strong>, so <u><strong>they are more likely to influence economic decisions and</u></strong> even <u><strong>social policy as</u></strong> Fidel <u><strong>Castro's regime fades</u></strong> away. <u><strong>The U.S. needs to ensure its role by </u></strong>discarding outdated ideas that don't work and <u><strong>engaging in trade</u>.</p></strong> </s>

[C.] Lifting embargo solves US image and leadership in Latin America

With the end of the Cold War, the need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic woe Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to democracy and human rights. "We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant operating style in the region when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy." Congress should prioritize pushing Trade Normalization to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America.

[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB In 1962, the proclamation initiating the embargo stated its purpose was to "promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers." With the end of the Cold War, the need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification.¶ It also has been argued that the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power, rather than inhibiting them. The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic woes. This theory may not be entirely fair, especially as the U.S. is cur- ently Cuba's larg- est food exporter due to a loophole in the embargo. In 2000, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed a waiver allowing food and agricultural prod- ucts to be sold to Cuba on humani- tarian grounds, although much of what is sent is far from being hu- manitarian and is loaded with inhib- iting red tape. The waiver includes goods like beer, soda, drink mixes, beauty products and kitchen cabinets, as well as staples like corn, poultry and wheat. The U.S. now earns upwards of $700 million annually from the Cuba trade. Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation.¶ Further Steps¶ President Obama may have hoped that his recent overtures towards Cuba would temporarily satisfy his critics, but instead they have merely amplified calls for Washington to take more forthright steps. Ending restrictions on Cuban-American travel was done in a discriminatory fashion. In a democratic country, every American, irrespective of their background, should be able to travel wherever their neighbors travel; nationality or family relationships should not afford certain Americans special privileges, or the lack of them. The lifting of restrictions on remittances was a step in the right direction, but it has yet to significantly affect Cuban finances. In fact, remittances to Cuba have not increased since they were lifted two months ago, according to the president of Cimex.¶ Constructive Engagement¶ A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America. Right now, the House of Representatives is considering the "United States- Cub a Trade Normalization Act of 2009", which recognizes that "Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to democracy and human rights. This bill would lift the trade embargo and allow all Americans to travel to Cuba, both much needed changes. Representative William Delahunt, who is sponsoring the bill, has said he doesn't expect a vote until November. Nevertheless, its prospects for passing are high.¶ Recently, Hillary Clinton stated, "We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant operating style in the region, and disprove Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent claim that, when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy." Congress should prioritize pushing the Trade Normalization Act through the House and the Senate to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America.

<h4>[C.] <strong>Lifting embargo solves US image and leadership in Latin America</h4><p>Fesler, 2009</p><p></strong>[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB</p><p>In 1962, the proclamation initiating the embargo stated its purpose was to "promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers." <u><strong>With the end of the Cold War, the need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification</u></strong>.¶ It also has been argued that <u><strong>the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power</u></strong>, rather than inhibiting them. <u><strong>The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic woe</u></strong>s. This theory may not be entirely fair, especially as the U.S. is cur- ently Cuba's larg- est food exporter due to a loophole in the embargo. In 2000, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed a waiver allowing food and agricultural prod- ucts to be sold to Cuba on humani- tarian grounds, although much of what is sent is far from being hu- manitarian and is loaded with inhib- iting red tape. The waiver includes goods like beer, soda, drink mixes, beauty products and kitchen cabinets, as well as staples like corn, poultry and wheat. The U.S. now earns upwards of $700 million annually from the Cuba trade. <u><strong>Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation</u></strong>.¶ Further Steps¶ President Obama may have hoped that his recent overtures towards Cuba would temporarily satisfy his critics, but instead they have merely amplified calls for Washington to take more forthright steps. Ending restrictions on Cuban-American travel was done in a discriminatory fashion. In a democratic country, every American, irrespective of their background, should be able to travel wherever their neighbors travel; nationality or family relationships should not afford certain Americans special privileges, or the lack of them. The lifting of restrictions on remittances was a step in the right direction, but it has yet to significantly affect Cuban finances. In fact, remittances to Cuba have not increased since they were lifted two months ago, according to the president of Cimex.¶ Constructive Engagement¶ <u><strong>A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America</u></strong>. Right now, the House of Representatives is considering the "United States- Cub a Trade Normalization Act of 2009", which recognizes that "<u><strong>Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to democracy and human rights.</u></strong> This bill would lift the trade embargo and allow all Americans to travel to Cuba, both much needed changes. Representative William Delahunt, who is sponsoring the bill, has said he doesn't expect a vote until November. Nevertheless, its prospects for passing are high.¶ Recently, Hillary Clinton stated, <u><strong>"We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant operating style in the region</u></strong>, and disprove Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent claim that, <u><strong>when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy." Congress should prioritize pushing</u></strong> the <u><strong>Trade Normalization</u></strong> Act through the House and the Senate <u><strong>to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America.</p></u></strong>

Fesler, 2009

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Fesler, 2009 fulltext: [Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB In 1962, the proclamation initiating the embargo stated its purpose was to "promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers." With the end of the Cold War, the need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification.¶ It also has been argued that the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power, rather than inhibiting them. The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic woes. This theory may not be entirely fair, especially as the U.S. is cur- ently Cuba's larg- est food exporter due to a loophole in the embargo. In 2000, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed a waiver allowing food and agricultural prod- ucts to be sold to Cuba on humani- tarian grounds, although much of what is sent is far from being hu- manitarian and is loaded with inhib- iting red tape. The waiver includes goods like beer, soda, drink mixes, beauty products and kitchen cabinets, as well as staples like corn, poultry and wheat. The U.S. now earns upwards of $700 million annually from the Cuba trade. Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation.¶ Further Steps¶ President Obama may have hoped that his recent overtures towards Cuba would temporarily satisfy his critics, but instead they have merely amplified calls for Washington to take more forthright steps. Ending restrictions on Cuban-American travel was done in a discriminatory fashion. In a democratic country, every American, irrespective of their background, should be able to travel wherever their neighbors travel; nationality or family relationships should not afford certain Americans special privileges, or the lack of them. The lifting of restrictions on remittances was a step in the right direction, but it has yet to significantly affect Cuban finances. In fact, remittances to Cuba have not increased since they were lifted two months ago, according to the president of Cimex.¶ Constructive Engagement¶ A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America. Right now, the House of Representatives is considering the "United States- Cub a Trade Normalization Act of 2009", which recognizes that "Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to democracy and human rights. This bill would lift the trade embargo and allow all Americans to travel to Cuba, both much needed changes. Representative William Delahunt, who is sponsoring the bill, has said he doesn't expect a vote until November. Nevertheless, its prospects for passing are high.¶ Recently, Hillary Clinton stated, "We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant operating style in the region, and disprove Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent claim that, when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy." Congress should prioritize pushing the Trade Normalization Act through the House and the Senate to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America. [/INST] <h4>[C.] <strong>Lifting embargo solves US image and leadership in Latin America</h4><p>Fesler, 2009</p><p></strong>[Lily, Research Associate The council on hemispheric relations, Cuban Oil: Havana's Potential Geo-Political Bombshell, Washington Report on the Hemisphere29. 11. (Jun 18, 2009), Accessed online via Proquest] Wyo-MB</p><p>In 1962, the proclamation initiating the embargo stated its purpose was to "promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the Communist powers." <u><strong>With the end of the Cold War, the need to protect the U.S. from communism disappeared along with the rationale for the Cuban embargo. The U.S. enthusiastically trades with communist nations like China and Vietnam, so punishing Cuba for its form of government is clearly no longer a valid justification</u></strong>.¶ It also has been argued that <u><strong>the embargo has helped the Castros stay in power</u></strong>, rather than inhibiting them. <u><strong>The Castros have turned the "blockade" into the scapegoat for all of Cuba's economic woe</u></strong>s. This theory may not be entirely fair, especially as the U.S. is cur- ently Cuba's larg- est food exporter due to a loophole in the embargo. In 2000, Presi- dent Bill Clinton signed a waiver allowing food and agricultural prod- ucts to be sold to Cuba on humani- tarian grounds, although much of what is sent is far from being hu- manitarian and is loaded with inhib- iting red tape. The waiver includes goods like beer, soda, drink mixes, beauty products and kitchen cabinets, as well as staples like corn, poultry and wheat. The U.S. now earns upwards of $700 million annually from the Cuba trade. <u><strong>Some critics have argued that the best way to expose the inadequacies of Castro rule would be to lift the embargo, and thus respond to Havana's claim that the U.S. is the cause of much of Cuban privation</u></strong>.¶ Further Steps¶ President Obama may have hoped that his recent overtures towards Cuba would temporarily satisfy his critics, but instead they have merely amplified calls for Washington to take more forthright steps. Ending restrictions on Cuban-American travel was done in a discriminatory fashion. In a democratic country, every American, irrespective of their background, should be able to travel wherever their neighbors travel; nationality or family relationships should not afford certain Americans special privileges, or the lack of them. The lifting of restrictions on remittances was a step in the right direction, but it has yet to significantly affect Cuban finances. In fact, remittances to Cuba have not increased since they were lifted two months ago, according to the president of Cimex.¶ Constructive Engagement¶ <u><strong>A rising tide of US public opinion is calling on Washington to lift the outdated and malfunctioning embargo on Cuba, a move that would not only benefit the beleaguered Cuban population and be of some value to the oil-needy United States, but also improve the tarnished image of the U.S. in Latin America</u></strong>. Right now, the House of Representatives is considering the "United States- Cub a Trade Normalization Act of 2009", which recognizes that "<u><strong>Cuba is no longer a threat," the embargo is "not fulfilling its purpose for which it was established," and that "trade and commerce" are the best routes to democracy and human rights.</u></strong> This bill would lift the trade embargo and allow all Americans to travel to Cuba, both much needed changes. Representative William Delahunt, who is sponsoring the bill, has said he doesn't expect a vote until November. Nevertheless, its prospects for passing are high.¶ Recently, Hillary Clinton stated, <u><strong>"We have to recognize that our country is not perfect either, that some of the difficulties that we had historically in forging strong and lasting relationships in our hemisphere are a result of us perhaps not listening, perhaps not paying enough attention." The U.S. now has the chance to reject its historically arrogant operating style in the region</u></strong>, and disprove Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega's recent claim that, <u><strong>when it comes to U.S. policy, "the president has changed, but not Latin American policy." Congress should prioritize pushing</u></strong> the <u><strong>Trade Normalization</u></strong> Act through the House and the Senate <u><strong>to pave the way for some advancements in the U.S. and Cuban economies, and to improve Washington's still lagging image in Latin America.</p></u></strong> </s>

Colombia’s economy is declining

Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth exports fell 20% in March This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year

Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth exports fell 20% in March This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year

Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth.¶ DANE, the government's statistics agency, said Wednesday that exports fell 20% in March and stood at $4.56 billion.¶ The decline, DANE said, was mainly the result of a 23% drop in sales of fuels and mining-related products. Manufactured exports fell 12.6%.¶ Many exporters have said the persistent strength of the Colombian peso against the dollar is hurting their ability to compete overseas.¶ This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year.

<h4>Colombia’s economy is declining</h4><p><strong>Wall Street Journal 5-8</strong>-13 [“Colombia Says March Exports Fell 20% From Year Earlier,” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130508-718544.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]</p><p><u><mark>Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth</u></mark>.¶ DANE, the government's statistics agency, said Wednesday that <u><mark>exports fell 20% in March</u> </mark>and stood at $4.56 billion.¶ The decline, DANE said, was mainly the result of a 23% drop in sales of fuels and mining-related products. Manufactured exports fell 12.6%.¶ Many exporters have said the persistent strength of the Colombian peso against the dollar is hurting their ability to compete overseas.¶ <u><mark>This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year</u></mark>.</p>

Wall Street Journal 5-8-13 [“Colombia Says March Exports Fell 20% From Year Earlier,” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130508-718544.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Wall Street Journal 5-8-13 [“Colombia Says March Exports Fell 20% From Year Earlier,” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130508-718544.html?mod=googlenews_wsj] fulltext: Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth.¶ DANE, the government's statistics agency, said Wednesday that exports fell 20% in March and stood at $4.56 billion.¶ The decline, DANE said, was mainly the result of a 23% drop in sales of fuels and mining-related products. Manufactured exports fell 12.6%.¶ Many exporters have said the persistent strength of the Colombian peso against the dollar is hurting their ability to compete overseas.¶ This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year. [/INST] <h4>Colombia’s economy is declining</h4><p><strong>Wall Street Journal 5-8</strong>-13 [“Colombia Says March Exports Fell 20% From Year Earlier,” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130508-718544.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]</p><p><u><mark>Colombia's exports plunged in March from a year earlier, extending a trend of declines in overseas sales that is affecting economic growth</u></mark>.¶ DANE, the government's statistics agency, said Wednesday that <u><mark>exports fell 20% in March</u> </mark>and stood at $4.56 billion.¶ The decline, DANE said, was mainly the result of a 23% drop in sales of fuels and mining-related products. Manufactured exports fell 12.6%.¶ Many exporters have said the persistent strength of the Colombian peso against the dollar is hurting their ability to compete overseas.¶ <u><mark>This is the fifth straight month that exports declined, as the Colombian economy likely suffered a slowdown in the first quarter. The Colombian economy slowed to a 4% expansion in 2012 after growing 6.6% in the previous year</u></mark>.</p> </s>

There’s no longer a relationship between renewables and oil prices – empirically proven

Ever since the 1970s oil embargo many analysts have assumed that oil-price increases make renewables more competitive with conventional fuels But the oil price increases of 2008 are widely blamed for producing a slump that The resulting worldwide economic slump hit the renewables industry hard Though renewable energy projects gained some short-term relief many governments have begun to slash funding for renewables Rising oil prices would seem to make renewable energy more attractive, but big price jumps also dampen the economic growth The link between crude oil prices and renewables growth might have been severed once and for all wind power's chief competitor is now natural gas, and though oil and gas prices have long been associated, they don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect tandem natural gas and renewable resources are used almost exclusively to generate electricity and heat, while oil is refined largely to power vehicles Perhaps the starting point for discussions of renewables' competitiveness should be natural gas prices Wind energy costs are dropping with wind power nearly on par with natural gas As these market forces and policy reforms take hold, the question of renewables' competitiveness compared with conventional fuels might be moot within a decade

many analysts price increases make renewables more competitive But price increases of 2008 are blamed for producing a slump that hit the renewables industry hard The link between crude prices and renewables have been severed once and for all the starting point for renewables' competitiveness should be gas As market forces and policy reforms take hold renewables' competitiveness might be moot

With violence raging in the streets of Libya and turmoil across the Arab world from Tunisia to Oman rattling oil markets, and with Brent crude at its highest price in two years, renewable energy companies would seem poised to cash in on fears about security of energy supplies.¶ Ever since the 1970s oil embargo, which provided the catalyst for initial efforts in the United States and Europe to develop wind, solar and other renewables technologies, many analysts have assumed that oil-price increases make renewables more competitive with conventional fuels.¶ ¶ But wait: the oil price increases of 2008 are widely blamed for producing a slump in the US economy that made it harder for low-income consumers to repay their mortgages, touching off the mortgage-banking crisis that forced some of the world's largest financial institutions to seek government bailouts.¶ ¶ The resulting worldwide economic slump hit the renewables industry hard, as banks began refusing to make loans to large-scale clean-energy plants like offshore wind farms. Though renewable energy projects gained some short-term relief from government stimulus spending, many governments -- deeply in debt from helping millions of unemployed over the past two years -- now have begun to slash funding for renewables support programs.¶ ¶ Even with the banking crisis apparently passed, rising oil prices are seen as both an indicator of economic rebound -- as businesses that are growing use more energy -- and as a potential recovery-killer if prices increase too much.¶ ¶ Where does that leave the renewables industry? In a paradox: Rising oil prices would seem to make renewable energy more attractive, but big price jumps -- which, at first glance, should make the industry still more competitive -- also dampen the economic growth on which renewables developers depend.¶ ¶ The link between crude oil prices and renewables growth might have been severed once and for all. As American Wind Energy Association head Denise Bode has noted, wind power's chief competitor is now natural gas, and though oil and gas prices have long been associated, they don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect tandem.¶ ¶ More important, natural gas and renewable resources -- aside from biomass used to make biofuels -- are used almost exclusively to generate electricity and heat, while oil is refined largely to power vehicles and produce petrochemicals. Perhaps the starting point for discussions of renewables' competitiveness, then, should be natural gas prices.¶ ¶ Costs for deploying renewables do continue to fall. Prices for solar photovoltaic equipment, for example, have dropped dramatically in recent years. The International Energy Agency estimates that with strong national support policies, PV could achieve grid parity -- making solar energy no more expensive than electricity from conventional fuels -- in many areas by 2020.¶ ¶ Wind energy costs are dropping as well, with wind power nearly on par with natural gas prices in some markets and utilities lining up wind-power generation for 20 years or more as a hedge against volatile conventional fuel prices.¶ ¶ At the same time, policy-makers are reassessing subsidies that fossil fuels have enjoyed for decades, creating a more level energy playing field (IEA puts the cost of fossil-fuel subsidies for power generation worldwide in 2009 at $312 billion, compared with $37 billion in subsidies for renewables).¶ ¶ As these market forces and policy reforms take hold, the question of renewables' competitiveness compared with conventional fuels might be moot within a decade.

<h4>There’s no longer a relationship between renewables and oil prices – empirically proven</h4><p><strong>Jones 11</strong> – Editor, Renewable Energy Market Platts (“The cost curve issue: where oil, renewables and gas come together”</p><p>By David Jones on February 28, 2011 11:04 AM, The Barrel http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2011/02/28/the_cost_curve.html ) </p><p>With violence raging in the streets of Libya and turmoil across the Arab world from Tunisia to Oman rattling oil markets, and with Brent crude at its highest price in two years, renewable energy companies would seem poised to cash in on fears about security of energy supplies.¶ <u>Ever since the 1970s oil embargo</u>, which provided the catalyst for initial efforts in the United States and Europe to develop wind, solar and other renewables technologies, <u><mark>many analysts</mark> have assumed that oil-<mark>price increases make renewables more competitive</mark> with conventional fuels</u>.¶ ¶ <u><mark>But</u></mark> wait: <u>the oil <mark>price increases of 2008 are</mark> widely <mark>blamed for producing a slump</u></mark> in the US economy <u><mark>that</u></mark> made it harder for low-income consumers to repay their mortgages, touching off the mortgage-banking crisis that forced some of the world's largest financial institutions to seek government bailouts.¶ ¶ <u>The resulting worldwide economic slump <strong><mark>hit the renewables industry hard</u></strong></mark>, as banks began refusing to make loans to large-scale clean-energy plants like offshore wind farms. <u>Though renewable energy projects gained some short-term relief</u> from government stimulus spending, <u>many governments</u> -- deeply in debt from helping millions of unemployed over the past two years -- now <u>have begun to slash funding for renewables</u> support programs.¶ ¶ Even with the banking crisis apparently passed, rising oil prices are seen as both an indicator of economic rebound -- as businesses that are growing use more energy -- and as a potential recovery-killer if prices increase too much.¶ ¶ Where does that leave the renewables industry? In a paradox: <u>Rising oil prices would seem to make renewable energy more attractive, but big price jumps</u> -- which, at first glance, should make the industry still more competitive -- <u>also dampen the economic growth</u> on which renewables developers depend.¶ ¶ <u><mark>The link between crude</mark> oil <mark>prices and renewables</mark> growth might<strong> <mark>have been severed once and for all</u></strong></mark>. As American Wind Energy Association head Denise Bode has noted, <u>wind power's chief competitor is now natural gas, and though oil and gas prices have long been associated, they don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect tandem</u>.¶ ¶ More important, <u>natural gas and renewable resources</u> -- aside from biomass used to make biofuels -- <u>are used almost exclusively to generate electricity and heat, while oil is refined largely to power vehicles</u> and produce petrochemicals. <u>Perhaps <mark>the starting point for</mark> discussions of <mark>renewables' competitiveness</u></mark>, then, <u><mark>should be </mark>natural <mark>gas</mark> prices</u>.¶ ¶ Costs for deploying renewables do continue to fall. Prices for solar photovoltaic equipment, for example, have dropped dramatically in recent years. The International Energy Agency estimates that with strong national support policies, PV could achieve grid parity -- making solar energy no more expensive than electricity from conventional fuels -- in many areas by 2020.¶ ¶ <u>Wind energy costs are dropping</u> as well, <u>with wind power nearly on par with natural gas</u> prices in some markets and utilities lining up wind-power generation for 20 years or more as a hedge against volatile conventional fuel prices.¶ ¶ At the same time, policy-makers are reassessing subsidies that fossil fuels have enjoyed for decades, creating a more level energy playing field (IEA puts the cost of fossil-fuel subsidies for power generation worldwide in 2009 at $312 billion, compared with $37 billion in subsidies for renewables).¶ ¶ <u><mark>As</mark> these <mark>market forces and policy reforms take hold</mark>, the question of <mark>renewables' competitiveness</mark> compared with conventional fuels <strong><mark>might be moot</mark> </strong>within a decade</u>.</p>

Jones 11 – Editor, Renewable Energy Market Platts (“The cost curve issue: where oil, renewables and gas come together” By David Jones on February 28, 2011 11:04 AM, The Barrel http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2011/02/28/the_cost_curve.html )

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Jones 11 – Editor, Renewable Energy Market Platts (“The cost curve issue: where oil, renewables and gas come together” By David Jones on February 28, 2011 11:04 AM, The Barrel http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2011/02/28/the_cost_curve.html ) fulltext: With violence raging in the streets of Libya and turmoil across the Arab world from Tunisia to Oman rattling oil markets, and with Brent crude at its highest price in two years, renewable energy companies would seem poised to cash in on fears about security of energy supplies.¶ Ever since the 1970s oil embargo, which provided the catalyst for initial efforts in the United States and Europe to develop wind, solar and other renewables technologies, many analysts have assumed that oil-price increases make renewables more competitive with conventional fuels.¶ ¶ But wait: the oil price increases of 2008 are widely blamed for producing a slump in the US economy that made it harder for low-income consumers to repay their mortgages, touching off the mortgage-banking crisis that forced some of the world's largest financial institutions to seek government bailouts.¶ ¶ The resulting worldwide economic slump hit the renewables industry hard, as banks began refusing to make loans to large-scale clean-energy plants like offshore wind farms. Though renewable energy projects gained some short-term relief from government stimulus spending, many governments -- deeply in debt from helping millions of unemployed over the past two years -- now have begun to slash funding for renewables support programs.¶ ¶ Even with the banking crisis apparently passed, rising oil prices are seen as both an indicator of economic rebound -- as businesses that are growing use more energy -- and as a potential recovery-killer if prices increase too much.¶ ¶ Where does that leave the renewables industry? In a paradox: Rising oil prices would seem to make renewable energy more attractive, but big price jumps -- which, at first glance, should make the industry still more competitive -- also dampen the economic growth on which renewables developers depend.¶ ¶ The link between crude oil prices and renewables growth might have been severed once and for all. As American Wind Energy Association head Denise Bode has noted, wind power's chief competitor is now natural gas, and though oil and gas prices have long been associated, they don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect tandem.¶ ¶ More important, natural gas and renewable resources -- aside from biomass used to make biofuels -- are used almost exclusively to generate electricity and heat, while oil is refined largely to power vehicles and produce petrochemicals. Perhaps the starting point for discussions of renewables' competitiveness, then, should be natural gas prices.¶ ¶ Costs for deploying renewables do continue to fall. Prices for solar photovoltaic equipment, for example, have dropped dramatically in recent years. The International Energy Agency estimates that with strong national support policies, PV could achieve grid parity -- making solar energy no more expensive than electricity from conventional fuels -- in many areas by 2020.¶ ¶ Wind energy costs are dropping as well, with wind power nearly on par with natural gas prices in some markets and utilities lining up wind-power generation for 20 years or more as a hedge against volatile conventional fuel prices.¶ ¶ At the same time, policy-makers are reassessing subsidies that fossil fuels have enjoyed for decades, creating a more level energy playing field (IEA puts the cost of fossil-fuel subsidies for power generation worldwide in 2009 at $312 billion, compared with $37 billion in subsidies for renewables).¶ ¶ As these market forces and policy reforms take hold, the question of renewables' competitiveness compared with conventional fuels might be moot within a decade. [/INST] <h4>There’s no longer a relationship between renewables and oil prices – empirically proven</h4><p><strong>Jones 11</strong> – Editor, Renewable Energy Market Platts (“The cost curve issue: where oil, renewables and gas come together”</p><p>By David Jones on February 28, 2011 11:04 AM, The Barrel http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2011/02/28/the_cost_curve.html ) </p><p>With violence raging in the streets of Libya and turmoil across the Arab world from Tunisia to Oman rattling oil markets, and with Brent crude at its highest price in two years, renewable energy companies would seem poised to cash in on fears about security of energy supplies.¶ <u>Ever since the 1970s oil embargo</u>, which provided the catalyst for initial efforts in the United States and Europe to develop wind, solar and other renewables technologies, <u><mark>many analysts</mark> have assumed that oil-<mark>price increases make renewables more competitive</mark> with conventional fuels</u>.¶ ¶ <u><mark>But</u></mark> wait: <u>the oil <mark>price increases of 2008 are</mark> widely <mark>blamed for producing a slump</u></mark> in the US economy <u><mark>that</u></mark> made it harder for low-income consumers to repay their mortgages, touching off the mortgage-banking crisis that forced some of the world's largest financial institutions to seek government bailouts.¶ ¶ <u>The resulting worldwide economic slump <strong><mark>hit the renewables industry hard</u></strong></mark>, as banks began refusing to make loans to large-scale clean-energy plants like offshore wind farms. <u>Though renewable energy projects gained some short-term relief</u> from government stimulus spending, <u>many governments</u> -- deeply in debt from helping millions of unemployed over the past two years -- now <u>have begun to slash funding for renewables</u> support programs.¶ ¶ Even with the banking crisis apparently passed, rising oil prices are seen as both an indicator of economic rebound -- as businesses that are growing use more energy -- and as a potential recovery-killer if prices increase too much.¶ ¶ Where does that leave the renewables industry? In a paradox: <u>Rising oil prices would seem to make renewable energy more attractive, but big price jumps</u> -- which, at first glance, should make the industry still more competitive -- <u>also dampen the economic growth</u> on which renewables developers depend.¶ ¶ <u><mark>The link between crude</mark> oil <mark>prices and renewables</mark> growth might<strong> <mark>have been severed once and for all</u></strong></mark>. As American Wind Energy Association head Denise Bode has noted, <u>wind power's chief competitor is now natural gas, and though oil and gas prices have long been associated, they don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect tandem</u>.¶ ¶ More important, <u>natural gas and renewable resources</u> -- aside from biomass used to make biofuels -- <u>are used almost exclusively to generate electricity and heat, while oil is refined largely to power vehicles</u> and produce petrochemicals. <u>Perhaps <mark>the starting point for</mark> discussions of <mark>renewables' competitiveness</u></mark>, then, <u><mark>should be </mark>natural <mark>gas</mark> prices</u>.¶ ¶ Costs for deploying renewables do continue to fall. Prices for solar photovoltaic equipment, for example, have dropped dramatically in recent years. The International Energy Agency estimates that with strong national support policies, PV could achieve grid parity -- making solar energy no more expensive than electricity from conventional fuels -- in many areas by 2020.¶ ¶ <u>Wind energy costs are dropping</u> as well, <u>with wind power nearly on par with natural gas</u> prices in some markets and utilities lining up wind-power generation for 20 years or more as a hedge against volatile conventional fuel prices.¶ ¶ At the same time, policy-makers are reassessing subsidies that fossil fuels have enjoyed for decades, creating a more level energy playing field (IEA puts the cost of fossil-fuel subsidies for power generation worldwide in 2009 at $312 billion, compared with $37 billion in subsidies for renewables).¶ ¶ <u><mark>As</mark> these <mark>market forces and policy reforms take hold</mark>, the question of <mark>renewables' competitiveness</mark> compared with conventional fuels <strong><mark>might be moot</mark> </strong>within a decade</u>.</p> </s>

Drilling in Cuba is over—too expensive and risky

] /Wyo-MB though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search companies are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration we'd rather go to other places in the world I don't foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba's deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over."¶

[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB But though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search.¶ "Those companies are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration. We'd rather go to Brazil; we'd rather go to Angola; we'd rather go to other places in the world where the technological and geological challenges are less,'" said Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry analyst at the University of Texas who consults with U.S. and Cuban officials as well as energy companies.¶ "I don't foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba's deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over."¶

<h4><strong>Drilling in Cuba is over—too expensive and risky</h4><p>Gibson, 4-14-13</p><p></strong>[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong>though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search</u></strong>.¶ "Those <u><strong>companies are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration</u></strong>. We'd rather go to Brazil; we'd rather go to Angola; <u><strong>we'd rather go to other places in the world</u></strong> where the technological and geological challenges are less,'" said Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry analyst at the University of Texas who consults with U.S. and Cuban officials as well as energy companies.¶ "<u><strong>I</u></strong> <u><strong>don't foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba's deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over."¶ </p></u></strong>

Gibson, 4-14-13

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Gibson, 4-14-13 fulltext: [William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials] /Wyo-MB But though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search.¶ "Those companies are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration. We'd rather go to Brazil; we'd rather go to Angola; we'd rather go to other places in the world where the technological and geological challenges are less,'" said Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry analyst at the University of Texas who consults with U.S. and Cuban officials as well as energy companies.¶ "I don't foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba's deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over."¶ [/INST] <h4><strong>Drilling in Cuba is over—too expensive and risky</h4><p>Gibson, 4-14-13</p><p></strong>[William, Washington Bureau Sun Sentinel, Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba's deep waters, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-14/news/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414_1_jorge-pi-north-coast-cuban-officials<u><strong>] /Wyo-MB</p><p></u></strong>But <u><strong>though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search</u></strong>.¶ "Those <u><strong>companies are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration</u></strong>. We'd rather go to Brazil; we'd rather go to Angola; <u><strong>we'd rather go to other places in the world</u></strong> where the technological and geological challenges are less,'" said Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry analyst at the University of Texas who consults with U.S. and Cuban officials as well as energy companies.¶ "<u><strong>I</u></strong> <u><strong>don't foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba's deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over."¶ </p></u></strong> </s>

PC key – presidential leadership’s vital to passage

Obama’s needs to stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans He does need to have a hands-on approach Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up people inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this, You're talking about some very delicate issues and what people want within Congress is a leader, not a legislative dictator. It's going to take some behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.”

to have a hands-on approach people want within Congress a leader, It's going to take if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.”

Still, some centrist Democrats say that while Obama’s approach has so far been effective, he needs to make sure to stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans who might otherwise work with him.¶ “He does need to have a hands-on approach, but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not looking down the barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship,” said Kristen Hawn, the head of a center-left super-PAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push their bipartisan debt reduction plan.¶ GOP strategist Ford O’Connell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obama’s pressure could hurt bipartisan talks.¶ “Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up and when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the message side right now, but I think some people inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this,” O'Connell said. ¶ “You're talking about some very delicate issues and what people want within Congress is a leader, not a legislative dictator. It's going to take some very big behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table and if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.”

<h4>PC key – presidential leadership’s vital to passage</h4><p>Cameron <strong>Joseph,</strong> political reporter for the Hill, “Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks” The Hill, 3/1/<strong>2013</strong>.<u><strong> </p><p></u></strong>Still, some centrist Democrats say that while <u><strong>Obama’s</u></strong> approach has so far been effective, he <u><strong>needs to</u></strong> make sure to <u><strong>stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans</u></strong> who might otherwise work with him.¶ “<u><strong>He does need <mark>to have a hands-on approach</u></strong></mark>, but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not looking down the barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship,” said Kristen Hawn, the head of a center-left super-PAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push their bipartisan debt reduction plan.¶ GOP strategist Ford O’Connell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obama’s pressure could hurt bipartisan talks.¶ “<u><strong>Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up</u></strong> and when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the message side right now, but I think some <u><strong>people inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this,</u></strong>” O'Connell said. ¶ “<u><strong>You're talking about some very delicate issues and what <mark>people want within Congress </mark>is <mark>a leader, </mark>not a legislative dictator. <mark>It's going to take</mark> some</u></strong> very big <u><strong>behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table </u></strong>and <u><strong><mark>if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.”</p></u></strong></mark>

Cameron Joseph, political reporter for the Hill, “Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks” The Hill, 3/1/2013.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Cameron Joseph, political reporter for the Hill, “Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks” The Hill, 3/1/2013. fulltext: Still, some centrist Democrats say that while Obama’s approach has so far been effective, he needs to make sure to stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans who might otherwise work with him.¶ “He does need to have a hands-on approach, but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not looking down the barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship,” said Kristen Hawn, the head of a center-left super-PAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push their bipartisan debt reduction plan.¶ GOP strategist Ford O’Connell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obama’s pressure could hurt bipartisan talks.¶ “Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up and when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the message side right now, but I think some people inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this,” O'Connell said. ¶ “You're talking about some very delicate issues and what people want within Congress is a leader, not a legislative dictator. It's going to take some very big behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table and if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.” [/INST] <h4>PC key – presidential leadership’s vital to passage</h4><p>Cameron <strong>Joseph,</strong> political reporter for the Hill, “Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks” The Hill, 3/1/<strong>2013</strong>.<u><strong> </p><p></u></strong>Still, some centrist Democrats say that while <u><strong>Obama’s</u></strong> approach has so far been effective, he <u><strong>needs to</u></strong> make sure to <u><strong>stick to a tone of bipartisanship and avoid antagonizing Republicans</u></strong> who might otherwise work with him.¶ “<u><strong>He does need <mark>to have a hands-on approach</u></strong></mark>, but what does that look like? It should, particularly from a White House that's not looking down the barrel of an election anymore, should be one that fosters cooperation and bipartisanship,” said Kristen Hawn, the head of a center-left super-PAC that is also helping former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) push their bipartisan debt reduction plan.¶ GOP strategist Ford O’Connell, who has long called for immigration reform, said he was worried Obama’s pressure could hurt bipartisan talks.¶ “<u><strong>Folks inside the Beltway in both parties don't like being shown up</u></strong> and when the president gallivants around the countryside saying 'this is what it is' that burns up people in Congress. It's certainly helping him on the message side right now, but I think some <u><strong>people inside and outside the Beltway are tiring of this,</u></strong>” O'Connell said. ¶ “<u><strong>You're talking about some very delicate issues and what <mark>people want within Congress </mark>is <mark>a leader, </mark>not a legislative dictator. <mark>It's going to take</mark> some</u></strong> very big <u><strong>behind the doors action where people have to put their cards on the table </u></strong>and <u><strong><mark>if people feel like he's going to burn them they're not going to do it.”</p></u></strong></mark> </s>

US loosening ties with Cuba sufficient to crowd out China’s influence-

China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis Leaders are expected to push Obama to loosen the U S policy toward Cuba China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America

China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner after the United States. But the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence in the hemisphere. “This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “The loans are an example of the checkbook power in the world moving to new places, with the Chinese becoming more active.” Mr. Obama will meet with leaders from the region this weekend. They will discuss the economic crisis, including a plan to replenish the Inter-American Development Bank, a Washington-based pillar of clout that has suffered losses from the financial crisis. Leaders at the summit meeting are also expected to push Mr. Obama to further loosen the United States policy toward Cuba. Meanwhile, China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America as it pursues not only long-term access to commodities like soybeans and iron ore, but also an alternative to investing in United States Treasury notes.

<h4><strong>US loosening ties with Cuba sufficient to crowd out China’s influence-</h4><p>Romero and Barrionuevo 09</p><p></strong>(Simon and Alexei, The New York Times, “Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America,” April 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/world/16chinaloan.html) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner </u></strong>after the United States. But <u><strong>the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence</u></strong> in the hemisphere. “<u><strong>This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis</u></strong>,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “The loans are an example of the checkbook power in the world moving to new places, with the Chinese becoming more active.” Mr. Obama will meet with leaders from the region this weekend. They will discuss the economic crisis, including a plan to replenish the Inter-American Development Bank, a Washington-based pillar of clout that has suffered losses from the financial crisis. <u><strong>Leaders</u></strong> at the summit meeting <u><strong>are</u></strong> also <u><strong>expected to push</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong>Obama to</u></strong> further <u><strong>loosen the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>policy toward Cuba</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America</u></strong> as it pursues not only long-term access to commodities like soybeans and iron ore, but also an alternative to investing in United States Treasury notes.</p>

Romero and Barrionuevo 09 (Simon and Alexei, The New York Times, “Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America,” April 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/world/16chinaloan.html) /wyo-mm)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Romero and Barrionuevo 09 (Simon and Alexei, The New York Times, “Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America,” April 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/world/16chinaloan.html) /wyo-mm) fulltext: China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner after the United States. But the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence in the hemisphere. “This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “The loans are an example of the checkbook power in the world moving to new places, with the Chinese becoming more active.” Mr. Obama will meet with leaders from the region this weekend. They will discuss the economic crisis, including a plan to replenish the Inter-American Development Bank, a Washington-based pillar of clout that has suffered losses from the financial crisis. Leaders at the summit meeting are also expected to push Mr. Obama to further loosen the United States policy toward Cuba. Meanwhile, China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America as it pursues not only long-term access to commodities like soybeans and iron ore, but also an alternative to investing in United States Treasury notes. [/INST] <h4><strong>US loosening ties with Cuba sufficient to crowd out China’s influence-</h4><p>Romero and Barrionuevo 09</p><p></strong>(Simon and Alexei, The New York Times, “Deals Help China Expand Sway in Latin America,” April 15, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/world/16chinaloan.html) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China’s trade with Latin America has grown quickly this decade, making it the region’s second largest trading partner </u></strong>after the United States. But <u><strong>the size and scope of these loans point to a deeper engagement with Latin America at a time when the Obama administration is starting to address the erosion of Washington’s influence</u></strong> in the hemisphere. “<u><strong>This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis</u></strong>,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “The loans are an example of the checkbook power in the world moving to new places, with the Chinese becoming more active.” Mr. Obama will meet with leaders from the region this weekend. They will discuss the economic crisis, including a plan to replenish the Inter-American Development Bank, a Washington-based pillar of clout that has suffered losses from the financial crisis. <u><strong>Leaders</u></strong> at the summit meeting <u><strong>are</u></strong> also <u><strong>expected to push</u></strong> Mr. <u><strong>Obama to</u></strong> further <u><strong>loosen the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>policy toward Cuba</u></strong>. Meanwhile, <u><strong>China is rapidly increasing its lending in Latin America</u></strong> as it pursues not only long-term access to commodities like soybeans and iron ore, but also an alternative to investing in United States Treasury notes.</p> </s>

Colombia’s economy is resilient

The Colombian economy has shown resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has become more efficient, and business procedures have been streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong private sector are being implemented Government spending has been expanding in recent years

The Colombian economy has shown resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, ¶ and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars ¶ of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has ¶ become more efficient, and business procedures have been ¶ streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong ¶ private sector are being implemented Government ¶ spending has been expanding in recent years

The Colombian economy has shown a moderate degree of ¶ resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, ¶ and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars ¶ of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has ¶ become more efficient, and business procedures have been ¶ streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong ¶ private sector are being implemented, enhancing flows of ¶ investment and the vitality of entrepreneurship. Government ¶ spending has been expanding in recent years.

<h4>Colombia’s economy is resilient</h4><p><strong>The Heritage Foundation ’12</strong> [“2012 Index of Economic Freedom,” http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2012/countries/colombia.pdf]</p><p><u><mark>The Colombian economy has shown</u></mark> a moderate degree of ¶ <u><mark>resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, </u>¶<u> and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars </u>¶<u> of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has </u>¶<u> become more efficient, and business procedures have been </u>¶<u> streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong </u>¶<u> private sector are being implemented</u></mark>, enhancing flows of ¶ investment and the vitality of entrepreneurship. <u><mark>Government </u>¶<u> spending has been expanding in recent years</u></mark>.</p>

The Heritage Foundation ’12 [“2012 Index of Economic Freedom,” http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2012/countries/colombia.pdf]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Heritage Foundation ’12 [“2012 Index of Economic Freedom,” http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2012/countries/colombia.pdf] fulltext: The Colombian economy has shown a moderate degree of ¶ resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, ¶ and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars ¶ of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has ¶ become more efficient, and business procedures have been ¶ streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong ¶ private sector are being implemented, enhancing flows of ¶ investment and the vitality of entrepreneurship. Government ¶ spending has been expanding in recent years. [/INST] <h4>Colombia’s economy is resilient</h4><p><strong>The Heritage Foundation ’12</strong> [“2012 Index of Economic Freedom,” http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2012/countries/colombia.pdf]</p><p><u><mark>The Colombian economy has shown</u></mark> a moderate degree of ¶ <u><mark>resilience in the face of a challenging economic environment, </u>¶<u> and reform efforts have continued in many of the four pillars </u>¶<u> of economic freedom. The overall regulatory framework has </u>¶<u> become more efficient, and business procedures have been </u>¶<u> streamlined. Policies that support open markets and a strong </u>¶<u> private sector are being implemented</u></mark>, enhancing flows of ¶ investment and the vitality of entrepreneurship. <u><mark>Government </u>¶<u> spending has been expanding in recent years</u></mark>.</p> </s>

[D.] The plan solves leadership in Latin America, the Cuban embargo is the key stumbling block to boosting relations

An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help. Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments. If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.

[Robert, International Herald Tribune, A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations, 3-9-13, Lexis] /Wyo-MB An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy's focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and ''la noche mas larga'' - ''the longest night'' - began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military's responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We Americans armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that U.S. policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, ''we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.''¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - which excludes the United States and Canada - as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Chávez said that ''the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ Chávez was masterful at manipulating America's antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro's announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate - Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas - are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶ If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.

<h4>[D.] <strong>The plan solves leadership in Latin America, the Cuban embargo is the key stumbling block to boosting relations</h4><p>White, 2013</p><p></strong>[Robert, International Herald Tribune, A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations, 3-9-13, Lexis] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas</u></strong>.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy's focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and ''la noche mas larga'' - ''the longest night'' - began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military's responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We Americans armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that U.S. policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, ''we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.''¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - which excludes the United States and Canada - as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Chávez said that ''the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ Chávez was masterful at manipulating America's antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. <u><strong>After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime</u></strong>.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro's announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate - Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas - are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ <u><strong>The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders</u></strong> like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. <u><strong>The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.</p></u></strong>

White, 2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: White, 2013 fulltext: [Robert, International Herald Tribune, A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations, 3-9-13, Lexis] /Wyo-MB An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy's focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and ''la noche mas larga'' - ''the longest night'' - began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military's responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We Americans armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that U.S. policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, ''we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.''¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - which excludes the United States and Canada - as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Chávez said that ''the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ Chávez was masterful at manipulating America's antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.¶ Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro's announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate - Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas - are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.¶ Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.¶ If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote. [/INST] <h4>[D.] <strong>The plan solves leadership in Latin America, the Cuban embargo is the key stumbling block to boosting relations</h4><p>White, 2013</p><p></strong>[Robert, International Herald Tribune, A chance to remake U.S.-Cuba relations, 3-9-13, Lexis] /Wyo-MB</p><p><u><strong>An end to the Cuba embargo would send a powerful signal to all of Latin America that the United States wants a new, warmer relationship with democratic forces seeking social change throughout the Americas</u></strong>.¶ I joined the State Department as a Foreign Service officer in the 1950s and chose to serve in Latin America in the 1960s. I was inspired by President John F. Kennedy's creative response to the revolutionary fervor then sweeping Latin America. The 1959 Cuban revolution, led by the charismatic Fidel Castro, had inspired revolts against the cruel dictatorships and corrupt pseudodemocracies that had dominated the region since the end of Spanish and Portuguese rule in the 19th century.¶ Kennedy had a charisma of his own, and it captured the imaginations of leaders who wanted democratic change, not violent revolution. Kennedy reacted to the threat of continental insurrection by creating the Alliance for Progress, a kind of Marshall Plan for the hemisphere that was calculated to achieve the same kind of results that saved Western Europe from communism. He pledged billions of dollars to this effort. In hindsight, it may have been overly ambitious, even naïve, but Kennedy's focus on Latin America rekindled the promise of the Good Neighbor Policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt and transformed the whole concept of inter-American relations.¶ Tragically, after Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the ideal of the Alliance for Progress crumbled and ''la noche mas larga'' - ''the longest night'' - began for the proponents of Latin American democracy. Military regimes flourished, democratic governments withered, moderate political and civil leaders were labeled Communists, rights of free speech and assembly were curtailed and human dignity crushed, largely because the United States abandoned all standards save that of anti-communism.¶ During my Foreign Service career, I did what I could to oppose policies that supported dictators and closed off democratic alternatives. In 1981, as the ambassador to El Salvador, I refused a demand by the secretary of state, Alexander M. Haig Jr., that I use official channels to cover up the Salvadoran military's responsibility for the murders of four American churchwomen. I was fired and forced out of the Foreign Service.¶ The Reagan administration, under the illusion that Cuba was the power driving the Salvadoran revolution, turned its policy over to the Pentagon and C.I.A., with predictable results. During the 1980s the United States helped expand the Salvadoran military, which was dominated by uniformed assassins. We Americans armed them, trained them and covered up their crimes.¶ After our counterrevolutionary efforts failed to end the Salvadoran conflict, the Defense Department asked its research institute, the RAND Corporation, what had gone wrong. RAND analysts found that U.S. policy makers had refused to accept the obvious truth that the insurgents were rebelling against social injustice and state terror. As a result, ''we pursued a policy unsettling to ourselves, for ends humiliating to the Salvadorans and at a cost disproportionate to any conventional conception of the national interest.''¶ Over the subsequent quarter-century, a series of profound political, social and economic changes have undermined the traditional power bases in Latin America and, with them, longstanding regional institutions like the Organization of American States. The organization, which is headquartered in Washington and which excluded Cuba in 1962, was seen as irrelevant by Chávez. He promoted the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - which excludes the United States and Canada - as an alternative.¶ At a regional meeting that included Cuba and excluded the United States, Chávez said that ''the most positive thing for the independence of our continent is that we meet alone without the hegemony of empire.''¶ Chávez was masterful at manipulating America's antagonism toward Fidel Castro as a rhetorical stick with which to attack the United States as an imperialist aggressor, an enemy of progressive change, interested mainly in treating Latin America as a vassal continent, a source of cheap commodities and labor.¶ Like its predecessors, the Obama administration has given few signs that it has grasped the magnitude of these changes or cares about their consequences. <u><strong>After President Obama took office in 2009, Latin America's leading statesman at the time, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, then the president of Brazil, urged Obama to normalize relations with Cuba.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> Lula, as he is universally known, correctly identified our Cuba policy as the chief stumbling block to renewed ties with Latin America, as it had been since the very early years of the Castro regime</u></strong>.¶ After the failure of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, Washington set out to accomplish by stealth and economic strangulation what it had failed to do by frontal attack. But the clumsy mix of covert action and porous boycott succeeded primarily in bringing shame on the United States and turning Castro into a folk hero.¶ And even now, despite the relaxing of travel restrictions and Raúl Castro's announcement that he will retire in 2018, the implacable hatred of many within the Cuban exile community continues. The fact that two of the three Cuban-American members of the Senate - Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas - are rising stars in the Republican Party complicates further the potential for a recalibration of Cuban-American relations. (The third member, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, is the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but his power has been weakened by a continuing ethics controversy.)¶ Are there any other examples in the history of diplomacy where the leaders of a small, weak nation can prevent a great power from acting in its own best interest merely by staying alive?¶ <u><strong>The re-election of President Obama, and the death of Chávez, give America a chance to reassess the irrational hold on our imaginations that Fidel Castro has exerted for five decades. The president and his new secretary of state, John Kerry, should quietly reach out to Latin American leaders</u></strong> like President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and José Miguel Insulza, secretary general of the Organization of American States. <u><strong>The message should be simple: The president is prepared to show some flexibility on Cuba and asks your help.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> Such a simple request could transform the Cuban issue from a bilateral problem into a multilateral challenge. It would then be up to Latin Americans to devise a policy that would help Cuba achieve a sufficient measure of democratic change to justify its reintegration into a hemisphere composed entirely of elected governments.</u></strong>¶<u><strong> If, however, our present policy paralysis continues, we will soon see the emergence of two rival camps, the United States versus Latin America. While Washington would continue to enjoy friendly relations with individual countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, the vision of Roosevelt and Kennedy of a hemisphere of partners cooperating in matters of common concern would be reduced to a historical footnote.</p></u></strong> </s>

Renewables fail – subject to unforeseen market developments – prefer our evidence its by qualified economic advisors

The subsidies ostensibly address several issues — dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation — but without clear priorities, much less rigorous cost-benefit analysis The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade, As such, current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off than President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corp all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars, Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Cart

The subsidies address several issues dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars,

U.S. energy subsidies — spending, tax breaks, loan guarantees — increased from $17.9 billion in fiscal 2007 to $37.2 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Energy Department. Yet fossil fuels' overwhelming market advantages have produced a litany of clean-energy failures, from electric cars to Solyndra. The subsidies ostensibly address several issues — dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation — but without clear priorities, much less rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Unintended consequences and political influence abound. The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments — such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade, which Obama has now embraced. To the extent that it's coherent at all, the federal energy “portfolio” represents a return to industrial policy — governmental selection of economic winners — which was fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s, before it collapsed under the weight of its intellectual and practical contradictions. As such, current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off than President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corp., which blew $9 billion, or President George W. Bush's $1.2 billion program for hydrogen vehicles. This isn't just my opinion or the finding of some right-wing think tank. Rather, all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars, Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter. The researchers pick apart clean-energy subsidies rationale by rationale.

<h4>Renewables<strong> fail – subject to unforeseen market developments – prefer our evidence its by qualified economic advisors </h4><p>Lane 6/19/12 </strong>(Charles, Member of the Washington Post Editoral Board, “The U.S. Government’s Bad Bets on Energy Policy”)<strong> </p><p></strong>U.S. energy subsidies — spending, tax breaks, loan guarantees — increased from $17.9 billion in fiscal 2007 to $37.2 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Energy Department. Yet fossil fuels' overwhelming market advantages have produced a litany of clean-energy failures, from electric cars to Solyndra. <u><mark>The subsidies</mark> ostensibly <mark>address several issues</mark> — <mark>dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation</mark> — but without clear priorities, much less rigorous cost-benefit analysis</u>. Unintended consequences and political influence abound. <u><strong><mark>The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments</u></strong></mark> — <u><mark>such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade</mark>,</u> which Obama has now embraced. To the extent that it's coherent at all, the federal energy “portfolio” represents a return to industrial policy — governmental selection of economic winners — which was fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s, before it collapsed under the weight of its intellectual and practical contradictions. <u>As such, <mark>current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off</mark> than President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corp</u>., which blew $9 billion, or President George W. Bush's $1.2 billion program for hydrogen vehicles. This isn't just my opinion or the finding of some right-wing think tank. Rather, <u><mark>all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars,</mark> Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Cart</u>er. The researchers pick apart clean-energy subsidies rationale by rationale.</p>

Lane 6/19/12 (Charles, Member of the Washington Post Editoral Board, “The U.S. Government’s Bad Bets on Energy Policy”)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Lane 6/19/12 (Charles, Member of the Washington Post Editoral Board, “The U.S. Government’s Bad Bets on Energy Policy”) fulltext: U.S. energy subsidies — spending, tax breaks, loan guarantees — increased from $17.9 billion in fiscal 2007 to $37.2 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Energy Department. Yet fossil fuels' overwhelming market advantages have produced a litany of clean-energy failures, from electric cars to Solyndra. The subsidies ostensibly address several issues — dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation — but without clear priorities, much less rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Unintended consequences and political influence abound. The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments — such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade, which Obama has now embraced. To the extent that it's coherent at all, the federal energy “portfolio” represents a return to industrial policy — governmental selection of economic winners — which was fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s, before it collapsed under the weight of its intellectual and practical contradictions. As such, current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off than President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corp., which blew $9 billion, or President George W. Bush's $1.2 billion program for hydrogen vehicles. This isn't just my opinion or the finding of some right-wing think tank. Rather, all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars, Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Carter. The researchers pick apart clean-energy subsidies rationale by rationale. [/INST] <h4>Renewables<strong> fail – subject to unforeseen market developments – prefer our evidence its by qualified economic advisors </h4><p>Lane 6/19/12 </strong>(Charles, Member of the Washington Post Editoral Board, “The U.S. Government’s Bad Bets on Energy Policy”)<strong> </p><p></strong>U.S. energy subsidies — spending, tax breaks, loan guarantees — increased from $17.9 billion in fiscal 2007 to $37.2 billion in fiscal 2010, according to the Energy Department. Yet fossil fuels' overwhelming market advantages have produced a litany of clean-energy failures, from electric cars to Solyndra. <u><mark>The subsidies</mark> ostensibly <mark>address several issues</mark> — <mark>dependence on foreign oil, job creation, international economic competitiveness and environmental degradation</mark> — but without clear priorities, much less rigorous cost-benefit analysis</u>. Unintended consequences and political influence abound. <u><strong><mark>The best-laid plans are vulnerable to unforeseen market developments</u></strong></mark> — <u><mark>such as the boom in oil and natural gas “fracking” over the past decade</mark>,</u> which Obama has now embraced. To the extent that it's coherent at all, the federal energy “portfolio” represents a return to industrial policy — governmental selection of economic winners — which was fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s, before it collapsed under the weight of its intellectual and practical contradictions. <u>As such, <mark>current clean-energy programs are no likelier to pay off</mark> than President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corp</u>., which blew $9 billion, or President George W. Bush's $1.2 billion program for hydrogen vehicles. This isn't just my opinion or the finding of some right-wing think tank. Rather, <u><mark>all of the above comes from a new paper by three certifiably centrist Brookings Institution scholars,</mark> Adele Morris, Pietro S. Nivola and Charles L. Schultze; Schultze was a senior economic adviser to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Cart</u>er. The researchers pick apart clean-energy subsidies rationale by rationale.</p> </s>

Companies investing in Cuba have extensive offshore experience---no risk of spills

It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a spill Scarabeo-9 is built to Norwegian standards, including extra equipment to shut off blown-out wells beyond what is required in the U S Repsol has significant offshore experience Petrobras and Statoil have extensive offshore experience and are seen as accomplished offshore operators

It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a spill. According to Saipem, Scarabeo-9 is built to Norwegian standards, including extra equipment to shut off blown-out wells beyond what is required in the United States.30 Repsol has significant offshore experience, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. It has had issues with oil spills, which is not abnormal for an oil company.31 Among other Cuban lease holders, Petrobras and Statoil have extensive offshore experience, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and are generally seen as accomplished offshore operators. Petronas, ONGC, and PetroVietnam also have offshore experience. PdVSA does not, but its offshore project appears the furthest from seeing drilling activity among existing licenses.

<h4>Companies investing in Cuba have extensive offshore experience---no risk of spills </h4><p><strong>Nerurkar & Sullivan 10</strong> – Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, November 29, 2010, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” online: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41522_20101129.pdf</p><p><u><strong>It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a spill</u></strong>. According to Saipem, <u><strong>Scarabeo-9</u></strong> <u><strong>is built to Norwegian standards, including</u></strong> <u><strong>extra equipment to shut off blown-out wells</u></strong> <u><strong>beyond what is required in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.30 <u><strong>Repsol has</u></strong> <u><strong>significant offshore experience</u></strong>, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. It has had issues with oil spills, which is not abnormal for an oil company.31 Among other Cuban lease holders, <u><strong>Petrobras and Statoil have extensive offshore experience</u></strong>, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, <u><strong>and are</u></strong> generally <u><strong>seen as accomplished offshore operators</u></strong>. Petronas, ONGC, and PetroVietnam also have offshore experience. PdVSA does not, but its offshore project appears the furthest from seeing drilling activity among existing licenses.</p>

Nerurkar & Sullivan 10 – Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, November 29, 2010, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” online: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41522_20101129.pdf

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Nerurkar & Sullivan 10 – Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, November 29, 2010, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” online: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41522_20101129.pdf fulltext: It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a spill. According to Saipem, Scarabeo-9 is built to Norwegian standards, including extra equipment to shut off blown-out wells beyond what is required in the United States.30 Repsol has significant offshore experience, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. It has had issues with oil spills, which is not abnormal for an oil company.31 Among other Cuban lease holders, Petrobras and Statoil have extensive offshore experience, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and are generally seen as accomplished offshore operators. Petronas, ONGC, and PetroVietnam also have offshore experience. PdVSA does not, but its offshore project appears the furthest from seeing drilling activity among existing licenses. [/INST] <h4>Companies investing in Cuba have extensive offshore experience---no risk of spills </h4><p><strong>Nerurkar & Sullivan 10</strong> – Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, November 29, 2010, “Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” online: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41522_20101129.pdf</p><p><u><strong>It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a spill</u></strong>. According to Saipem, <u><strong>Scarabeo-9</u></strong> <u><strong>is built to Norwegian standards, including</u></strong> <u><strong>extra equipment to shut off blown-out wells</u></strong> <u><strong>beyond what is required in the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates.30 <u><strong>Repsol has</u></strong> <u><strong>significant offshore experience</u></strong>, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. It has had issues with oil spills, which is not abnormal for an oil company.31 Among other Cuban lease holders, <u><strong>Petrobras and Statoil have extensive offshore experience</u></strong>, including projects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, <u><strong>and are</u></strong> generally <u><strong>seen as accomplished offshore operators</u></strong>. Petronas, ONGC, and PetroVietnam also have offshore experience. PdVSA does not, but its offshore project appears the furthest from seeing drilling activity among existing licenses.</p> </s>

PC key – necessary to repair White House-Boehner relations

The disrepair of personal relationships in Washington plays only a minor role more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current players can control. As legislators try to craft difficult bipartisan compromises, a willingness to cross party lines is crucial. It's why Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised; Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner and Kennedy collaborated on No Child Left Behind Gingrich got along famously with Clinton because the two men respected each other lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing It can overcome stringent disagreements Democrats are openly encouraging Obama, to rebuild those relationships

disrepair of personal relationships plays a role players can control. As legislators try to craft bipartisan compromises Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner collaborated ocrats are openly encouraging Obama

The disrepair of personal relationships in Washington plays only a minor role in the absence of party comity. But more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current players can control. As legislators try to craft difficult bipartisan compromises, a willingness to cross party lines, even at the risk of criticism from colleagues, is crucial. It's why Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised; such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare.¶ Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy collaborated on No Child Left Behind. And Gingrich got along famously with Clinton, Breaux said, because the two men respected each other. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing, exceeding any philosophical differences. It can overcome stringent disagreements."¶ Hill Democrats are openly encouraging Obama, whom they saw as failing to reach out during his first term, to rebuild those relationships. "What kind of commitment from the White House will there be to work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either."

<h4>PC key – necessary to repair White House-Boehner relations </h4><p>Alex <strong>Roarty, </strong>politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/<strong>2013</strong> </p><p><u><strong>The <mark>disrepair of personal relationships</mark> in Washington <mark>plays</mark> only <mark>a</mark> minor <mark>role</u></strong></mark> in the absence of party comity. But <u><strong>more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current <mark>players can control. As legislators try to craft</mark> difficult <mark>bipartisan compromises</mark>, a willingness to cross party lines</u></strong>, even at the risk of criticism from colleagues, <u><strong>is crucial. It's why </u></strong>Republican Sen. Marco <u><strong>Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or</u></strong> Democratic Rep. Ron <u><strong>Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised;</u></strong> such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare.¶ <u><strong><mark>Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner </mark>and </u></strong>the late Sen. Edward <u><strong>Kennedy <mark>collaborated</mark> on No Child Left Behind</u></strong>. And <u><strong>Gingrich got along famously with Clinton</u></strong>, Breaux said, <u><strong>because the two men respected each other</u></strong>. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that <u><strong>lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing</u></strong>, exceeding any philosophical differences. <u><strong>It can overcome stringent disagreements</u></strong>."¶ Hill <u><strong>Dem<mark>ocrats are openly encouraging Obama</mark>,</u></strong> whom they saw as failing to reach out during his first term, <u><strong>to rebuild those relationships</u></strong>. "What kind of commitment from the White House will there be to work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either."</p>

Alex Roarty, politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/2013

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Alex Roarty, politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/2013 fulltext: The disrepair of personal relationships in Washington plays only a minor role in the absence of party comity. But more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current players can control. As legislators try to craft difficult bipartisan compromises, a willingness to cross party lines, even at the risk of criticism from colleagues, is crucial. It's why Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised; such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare.¶ Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy collaborated on No Child Left Behind. And Gingrich got along famously with Clinton, Breaux said, because the two men respected each other. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing, exceeding any philosophical differences. It can overcome stringent disagreements."¶ Hill Democrats are openly encouraging Obama, whom they saw as failing to reach out during his first term, to rebuild those relationships. "What kind of commitment from the White House will there be to work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either." [/INST] <h4>PC key – necessary to repair White House-Boehner relations </h4><p>Alex <strong>Roarty, </strong>politics for the National Journal and the Atlantic “There's Reason to Be Optimistic About Congress—Seriously” The Atlantic, 2/21/<strong>2013</strong> </p><p><u><strong>The <mark>disrepair of personal relationships</mark> in Washington <mark>plays</mark> only <mark>a</mark> minor <mark>role</u></strong></mark> in the absence of party comity. But <u><strong>more so than other long-term factors, this is something the current <mark>players can control. As legislators try to craft</mark> difficult <mark>bipartisan compromises</mark>, a willingness to cross party lines</u></strong>, even at the risk of criticism from colleagues, <u><strong>is crucial. It's why </u></strong>Republican Sen. Marco <u><strong>Rubio's inclination to work with Democrats on immigration reform or</u></strong> Democratic Rep. Ron <u><strong>Wyden's collaboration with Ryan on health care were so widely praised;</u></strong> such efforts attract positive attention because they are so rare.¶ <u><strong><mark>Political enemies have worked together for the common good before. Boehner </mark>and </u></strong>the late Sen. Edward <u><strong>Kennedy <mark>collaborated</mark> on No Child Left Behind</u></strong>. And <u><strong>Gingrich got along famously with Clinton</u></strong>, Breaux said, <u><strong>because the two men respected each other</u></strong>. "Even when he was trying to impeach [Clinton], they were still able to overcome that and get things done," Breaux said. He added: "I think that <u><strong>lack of personal relationships in the legislative body is absolutely the most harmful thing</u></strong>, exceeding any philosophical differences. <u><strong>It can overcome stringent disagreements</u></strong>."¶ Hill <u><strong>Dem<mark>ocrats are openly encouraging Obama</mark>,</u></strong> whom they saw as failing to reach out during his first term, <u><strong>to rebuild those relationships</u></strong>. "What kind of commitment from the White House will there be to work the Congress aggressively, daily and continuously?" wondered Glickman, who is now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It can be painful to do that, because presidents don't like that part of the job. I'm not sure this president likes it either."</p> </s>

China will abject to US attempts to occupy the Pacific-

The Chinese may take objection to exactly how much of the Pacific each country is currently occupying. A map of US military bases in the region shows that China is effectively surrounded right off her coast by the American navy Clinton's second stop on her way to China underlined the Chinese fears of regional encirclement and containment Any moves by the American government to get involved in the South China Sea territorial row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese leadership sees American backing of the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part of a concerted effort at strategically encircling China

(Brendan, Asian Times, “Clinton brush off marks new Sino-US rivalry,” September 7, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NI07Dj02.html) /wyo-mm Indeed, the vast Pacific Ocean is large enough to accommodate the ambitions and interest of the world's two most powerful nations. The Chinese, though, may take objection to exactly how much of the Pacific each country is currently occupying. A map of US military bases in the region shows that China is effectively surrounded right off her coast by the American navy. One can imagine the protests by the US if China were to set up a massive naval base in Fiji, much less the apocalyptic rhetoric which would result from China stationing tens of thousands of troops in Cuba. As China's economic might is increasingly invested in military capabilities, the Chinese may seek the means to push the line of effective US naval control in the Pacific away from Chinese shores. Secretary Clinton's second stop on her way to China further underlined the Chinese fears of regional encirclement and containment. While meeting with Indonesian leaders in Jakarta, Clinton spoke of Indonesia's role as a guarantor of a united ASEAN front regarding the South China Sea dispute: "That show of unity is very important for us …No party should take any steps that would increase tension." She promised to address the South China Sea issue with Chinese leadership, saying: "I will be discussing this [the South China Sea dispute] in Beijing and hopefully we will make progress before the East Asia Summit."[3] While these words by no means appear belligerent on their surface, they are widely interpreted in China as American interference. Any moves by the American government to get involved in the South China Sea territorial row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese leadership sees American backing of the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part of a concerted effort at strategically encircling China.

<h4>China will abject to US attempts to occupy <strong>the Pacific-</h4><p>O'Reilly 12</p><p></strong>(Brendan, Asian Times, “Clinton brush off marks new Sino-US rivalry,” September 7, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NI07Dj02.html) /wyo-mm</p><p>Indeed, the vast Pacific Ocean is large enough to accommodate the ambitions and interest of the world's two most powerful nations. <u><strong>The Chinese</u></strong>, though, <u><strong>may take objection to exactly how much of the Pacific each country is currently occupying. A map of US military bases in the region shows that China is effectively surrounded right off her coast by the American navy</u></strong>. One can imagine the protests by the US if China were to set up a massive naval base in Fiji, much less the apocalyptic rhetoric which would result from China stationing tens of thousands of troops in Cuba. As China's economic might is increasingly invested in military capabilities, the Chinese may seek the means to push the line of effective US naval control in the Pacific away from Chinese shores. Secretary <u><strong>Clinton's second stop on her way to China</u></strong> further <u><strong>underlined the Chinese fears of regional encirclement and containment</u></strong>. While meeting with Indonesian leaders in Jakarta, Clinton spoke of Indonesia's role as a guarantor of a united ASEAN front regarding the South China Sea dispute: "That show of unity is very important for us …No party should take any steps that would increase tension." She promised to address the South China Sea issue with Chinese leadership, saying: "I will be discussing this [the South China Sea dispute] in Beijing and hopefully we will make progress before the East Asia Summit."[3] While these words by no means appear belligerent on their surface, they are widely interpreted in China as American interference. <u><strong>Any moves by the American government to get involved in the South China Sea territorial row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese leadership sees American backing of the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part of a concerted effort at strategically encircling China</u></strong>.</p>

O'Reilly 12

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: O'Reilly 12 fulltext: (Brendan, Asian Times, “Clinton brush off marks new Sino-US rivalry,” September 7, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NI07Dj02.html) /wyo-mm Indeed, the vast Pacific Ocean is large enough to accommodate the ambitions and interest of the world's two most powerful nations. The Chinese, though, may take objection to exactly how much of the Pacific each country is currently occupying. A map of US military bases in the region shows that China is effectively surrounded right off her coast by the American navy. One can imagine the protests by the US if China were to set up a massive naval base in Fiji, much less the apocalyptic rhetoric which would result from China stationing tens of thousands of troops in Cuba. As China's economic might is increasingly invested in military capabilities, the Chinese may seek the means to push the line of effective US naval control in the Pacific away from Chinese shores. Secretary Clinton's second stop on her way to China further underlined the Chinese fears of regional encirclement and containment. While meeting with Indonesian leaders in Jakarta, Clinton spoke of Indonesia's role as a guarantor of a united ASEAN front regarding the South China Sea dispute: "That show of unity is very important for us …No party should take any steps that would increase tension." She promised to address the South China Sea issue with Chinese leadership, saying: "I will be discussing this [the South China Sea dispute] in Beijing and hopefully we will make progress before the East Asia Summit."[3] While these words by no means appear belligerent on their surface, they are widely interpreted in China as American interference. Any moves by the American government to get involved in the South China Sea territorial row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese leadership sees American backing of the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part of a concerted effort at strategically encircling China. [/INST] <h4>China will abject to US attempts to occupy <strong>the Pacific-</h4><p>O'Reilly 12</p><p></strong>(Brendan, Asian Times, “Clinton brush off marks new Sino-US rivalry,” September 7, 2012, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NI07Dj02.html) /wyo-mm</p><p>Indeed, the vast Pacific Ocean is large enough to accommodate the ambitions and interest of the world's two most powerful nations. <u><strong>The Chinese</u></strong>, though, <u><strong>may take objection to exactly how much of the Pacific each country is currently occupying. A map of US military bases in the region shows that China is effectively surrounded right off her coast by the American navy</u></strong>. One can imagine the protests by the US if China were to set up a massive naval base in Fiji, much less the apocalyptic rhetoric which would result from China stationing tens of thousands of troops in Cuba. As China's economic might is increasingly invested in military capabilities, the Chinese may seek the means to push the line of effective US naval control in the Pacific away from Chinese shores. Secretary <u><strong>Clinton's second stop on her way to China</u></strong> further <u><strong>underlined the Chinese fears of regional encirclement and containment</u></strong>. While meeting with Indonesian leaders in Jakarta, Clinton spoke of Indonesia's role as a guarantor of a united ASEAN front regarding the South China Sea dispute: "That show of unity is very important for us …No party should take any steps that would increase tension." She promised to address the South China Sea issue with Chinese leadership, saying: "I will be discussing this [the South China Sea dispute] in Beijing and hopefully we will make progress before the East Asia Summit."[3] While these words by no means appear belligerent on their surface, they are widely interpreted in China as American interference. <u><strong>Any moves by the American government to get involved in the South China Sea territorial row are strongly condemned by Beijing. The Chinese leadership sees American backing of the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam's, as well as support for Japan in the East China Sea, as part of a concerted effort at strategically encircling China</u></strong>.</p> </s>

[E.] Hemispheric relations is key to solving organized crime

Organized crime in the hemisphere today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows The nations of the Western Hemisphere have adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime Most of the hemisphere’s countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive. The narcotics trade remains at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’ counternarcotics efforts A hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal drug trade but also other forms of crime.

Crime and insecurity are growing scourges in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC region has only 9 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 27 percent of global homicides—about 140,000 a year. Crime, especially organized crime, poses a serious threat to public security and undermines public institutions and the legitimate business sector. Organized crime in the hemisphere today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows. Violent youth gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha, have a presence in the United States. Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border from north to south every day, helping to fuel violence among drug cartels and with the army and police. About 17,500 persons are smuggled into the United States annually as trafficking victims, and another 500,000 come as illegal immigrants. The United States remains both a leading consuming country across the full range of illicit narcotics and a country with major domestic production of methamphetamines, cannabis, and other synthetic narcotics. The nations of the Western Hemisphere have adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime. Virtually every country in the Americas has ratified the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Most of the hemisphere’s countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive. The narcotics trade remains at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’ counternarcotics efforts. The drug trade is also singularly adept at corrupting judicial, political, and law enforcement institutions. In Mexico, open war between the cartels and all levels of government has killed 4,000 people so far in 2008 alone—about as many casualties as the United States has sustained in almost six years of war in Iraq. This violence already threatens to spill into the United States and to destabilize Mexico’s political institutions. Because it lies at the core of regional criminal activity, this section focuses on the illegal drug trade. A hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal drug trade but also other forms of crime.

<h4>[E.] Hemispheric relations is key to solving organized crime</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8</strong> (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>Crime and insecurity are growing scourges in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC region has only 9 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 27 percent of global homicides—about 140,000 a year. Crime, especially organized crime, poses a serious threat to public security and undermines public institutions and the legitimate business sector. <u><strong>Organized crime in the hemisphere today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows</u></strong>. Violent youth gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha, have a presence in the United States. Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border from north to south every day, helping to fuel violence among drug cartels and with the army and police. About 17,500 persons are smuggled into the United States annually as trafficking victims, and another 500,000 come as illegal immigrants. The United States remains both a leading consuming country across the full range of illicit narcotics and a country with major domestic production of methamphetamines, cannabis, and other synthetic narcotics. <u><strong>The nations of the Western Hemisphere have adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime</u></strong>. Virtually every country in the Americas has ratified the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. <u><strong>Most of the hemisphere’s countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive.</u></strong> <u><strong>The narcotics trade remains at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’ counternarcotics efforts</u></strong>. The drug trade is also singularly adept at corrupting judicial, political, and law enforcement institutions. In Mexico, open war between the cartels and all levels of government has killed 4,000 people so far in 2008 alone—about as many casualties as the United States has sustained in almost six years of war in Iraq. This violence already threatens to spill into the United States and to destabilize Mexico’s political institutions. Because it lies at the core of regional criminal activity, this section focuses on the illegal drug trade. <u><strong>A hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal drug trade but also other forms of crime.</p></u></strong>

Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brookings 8 (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx) fulltext: Crime and insecurity are growing scourges in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC region has only 9 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 27 percent of global homicides—about 140,000 a year. Crime, especially organized crime, poses a serious threat to public security and undermines public institutions and the legitimate business sector. Organized crime in the hemisphere today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows. Violent youth gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha, have a presence in the United States. Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border from north to south every day, helping to fuel violence among drug cartels and with the army and police. About 17,500 persons are smuggled into the United States annually as trafficking victims, and another 500,000 come as illegal immigrants. The United States remains both a leading consuming country across the full range of illicit narcotics and a country with major domestic production of methamphetamines, cannabis, and other synthetic narcotics. The nations of the Western Hemisphere have adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime. Virtually every country in the Americas has ratified the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Most of the hemisphere’s countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive. The narcotics trade remains at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’ counternarcotics efforts. The drug trade is also singularly adept at corrupting judicial, political, and law enforcement institutions. In Mexico, open war between the cartels and all levels of government has killed 4,000 people so far in 2008 alone—about as many casualties as the United States has sustained in almost six years of war in Iraq. This violence already threatens to spill into the United States and to destabilize Mexico’s political institutions. Because it lies at the core of regional criminal activity, this section focuses on the illegal drug trade. A hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal drug trade but also other forms of crime. [/INST] <h4>[E.] Hemispheric relations is key to solving organized crime</h4><p><strong>Brookings 8</strong> (The Brookings Institution. November. Rethinking. U.S.–Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>Crime and insecurity are growing scourges in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC region has only 9 percent of the world’s population, yet it has 27 percent of global homicides—about 140,000 a year. Crime, especially organized crime, poses a serious threat to public security and undermines public institutions and the legitimate business sector. <u><strong>Organized crime in the hemisphere today encompasses a variety of criminal enterprises, including narcotics trafficking, money laundering, alien smuggling, human trafficking, kidnapping, and arms and counterfeit goods smuggling. The United States stands at the crossroads of many of these illicit flows</u></strong>. Violent youth gangs, such as the Mara Salvatrucha, have a presence in the United States. Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border from north to south every day, helping to fuel violence among drug cartels and with the army and police. About 17,500 persons are smuggled into the United States annually as trafficking victims, and another 500,000 come as illegal immigrants. The United States remains both a leading consuming country across the full range of illicit narcotics and a country with major domestic production of methamphetamines, cannabis, and other synthetic narcotics. <u><strong>The nations of the Western Hemisphere have adopted a variety of international instruments to tackle organized crime</u></strong>. Virtually every country in the Americas has ratified the 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. <u><strong>Most of the hemisphere’s countries have also signed and ratified international agreements that deal with the trafficking of persons, the smuggling of migrants, illicit firearms trafficking, and the illicit drug trade. Yet a significant reduction in crime in the hemisphere remains elusive.</u></strong> <u><strong>The narcotics trade remains at the core of organized crime in the hemisphere. This is by far the most lucrative of illegal trades, generating hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Its immense cash flow, vast employment opportunities, and sophisticated networks feed other kinds of criminal activity and allow drug traffickers to adapt with extraordinary speed to governments’ counternarcotics efforts</u></strong>. The drug trade is also singularly adept at corrupting judicial, political, and law enforcement institutions. In Mexico, open war between the cartels and all levels of government has killed 4,000 people so far in 2008 alone—about as many casualties as the United States has sustained in almost six years of war in Iraq. This violence already threatens to spill into the United States and to destabilize Mexico’s political institutions. Because it lies at the core of regional criminal activity, this section focuses on the illegal drug trade. <u><strong>A hemisphere-wide counternarcotics strategy encompassing consuming, producing, and transshipment countries is required to combat not only the illegal drug trade but also other forms of crime.</p></u></strong> </s>

Colombia’s economy is resilient

Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year resilience stems from an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile

Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year resilience stems from an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile

WHEN the figures are finally tallied, Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year. This resilience stems from continued foreign investment, an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile.

<h4>Colombia’s economy is resilient</h4><p><strong>The Economist ’09</strong> [“No recession here,” 10-15-09, http://www.economist.com/node/14644366]</p><p>WHEN the figures are finally tallied, <u><mark>Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year</u></mark>. This <u><mark>resilience stems from </u></mark>continued foreign investment, <u><mark>an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile</u></mark>.</p>

The Economist ’09 [“No recession here,” 10-15-09, http://www.economist.com/node/14644366]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: The Economist ’09 [“No recession here,” 10-15-09, http://www.economist.com/node/14644366] fulltext: WHEN the figures are finally tallied, Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year. This resilience stems from continued foreign investment, an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile. [/INST] <h4>Colombia’s economy is resilient</h4><p><strong>The Economist ’09</strong> [“No recession here,” 10-15-09, http://www.economist.com/node/14644366]</p><p>WHEN the figures are finally tallied, <u><mark>Colombia may prove to have weathered the world recession better than any other of the larger Latin American countries. After a slight contraction at the end of 2008, the economy has been growing modestly this year</u></mark>. This <u><mark>resilience stems from </u></mark>continued foreign investment, <u><mark>an increase in government spending on public works and easier money: since December the central bank has cut interest rates by six percentage points, to 4%, a steeper drop than anywhere in the region outside Chile</u></mark>.</p> </s>

High oil prices increases likelihood of Russian economic crash

with increased oil revenue comes the danger of complacency But the cash also feeds corruption, encourages increased financial opacity and discourages attempts to shake up the system - all of which could spell trouble down the road It's a powerful prop for the status quo which is unsustainable When the price last spiked, in 2007, Moscow was flooded with money and people close to Putin were suggesting that Russia was genuinely self-sufficient and had no need to engage more deeply with the West The economic crisis the following year brought that talk to an abrupt end, and Medvedev began pushing for a Western-oriented program of modernization and diversification the oil bulge makes the Westernization of the Russian economy less likely. It helps big companies already dominate the economy to a much greater extent than in other developed countries - and it hurts small ones, where jobs and creativity tend to be nurtured Information technology firms, with high labor costs, will suffer

with increased revenue comes complacency the cash feeds corruption which could spell trouble down the road It's a powerful prop for the status quo - which is unsustainable When in 07, Moscow was flooded with money Russia had no need to engage with the West The crisis the following year brought that to an end the oil bulge makes Westernization less likely It helps big companies and hurts small ones, where jobs tend to be nurtured

But with increased oil revenue also comes the danger of complacency. Bureaucrats, defense contractors, pensioners and workers in construction and finance all stand to gain from the money coming in, along with the oil companies. But the cash also feeds corruption, encourages increased financial opacity and discourages attempts to shake up the system - all of which could spell trouble for Russia down the road. "All of the dominant groups in Russia get a share of the increased oil revenue," said Alexander Auzan, an economist and adviser to Medvedev. "Yet it contradicts their long-term interests." Largest oil producer It's a powerful prop for the status quo - which Auzan and others say is unsustainable. But as Sergei Guriev, head of the New Economic School in Moscow, pointed out, any change is going to involve a cost for someone, so why take the risk if the money is flowing in? Russia is currently the world's largest oil producer. When the price last spiked, in 2007, Moscow was flooded with money and people close to Putin were suggesting that Russia was genuinely self-sufficient and had no need to engage more deeply with the West. The economic crisis the following year brought that talk to an abrupt end, and Medvedev began pushing for a Western-oriented program of modernization and diversification away from dependence on energy exports. The Kremlin moved to stimulate the economy in 2008 by increasing government salaries and hiking pensions by 35 percent. Now it is stuck with those increases. With oil revenue providing 40 percent of the Russian budget, the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy here has calculated that at any price less than $105 a barrel the government will be in the red. That tempers any inclination toward hubris, said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA who follows Russian developments. The Kremlin was looking at a difficult financial crunch, with parliamentary elections coming late this year and a presidential election next March, so the timing of this rise in revenue is more a relief than a goad to aggressive behavior. "We don't need high prices," said Leonid Grigoriev, an economist and former World Bank adviser. "We need good relations, a long-term market and reasonable prices," which he put in the $70-to-$90 range. Russia will not turn its back on the West, by any means, he said. But, especially in an election year, its leaders may be more vocal in pointing up differences with the West. In 2010, Russia had enough problems at home that it was actively trying to avoid them abroad; now, with money to address domestic issues, that caution may not be so evident. Treisman, like many others, did not think much would ever come of Medvedev's modernization plans - it's not the sort of change, he said, that can be ordered from the top down. But the oil bulge makes the Westernization of the Russian economy less likely. It helps big companies - which, Grigoriev said, already dominate the economy to a much greater extent than in other developed countries - and it hurts small ones, where jobs and creativity tend to be nurtured. Information technology firms, with high labor costs, will suffer, Guriev said, and they are central to Medvedev's vision for the future of Russia.

<h4>High oil prices increases likelihood of Russian economic crash</h4><p><strong><mark>ENGLUND ’11</strong></mark> – Washington Post Staff Writer (Englund, Will. “Increase in oil revenue amid unrest in Arab world gives Russia some breathing room”. March 21, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031001553.html)</p><p>But <u><mark>with increased</mark> oil <mark>revenue</u></mark> also <u><mark>comes</mark> the danger of <mark>complacency</u></mark>. Bureaucrats, defense contractors, pensioners and workers in construction and finance all stand to gain from the money coming in, along with the oil companies. <u>But <mark>the cash</mark> also <mark>feeds</mark> <mark>corruption</mark>, encourages increased financial opacity and discourages attempts to shake up the system - all of <mark>which could spell trouble</mark> </u>for Russia<u> <mark>down the road</u></mark>. "All of the dominant groups in Russia get a share of the increased oil revenue," said Alexander Auzan, an economist and adviser to Medvedev. "Yet it contradicts their long-term interests." Largest oil producer <u><mark>It's a powerful prop for the status quo</u> - <u>which</u></mark> Auzan and others say <u><mark>is unsustainable</u></mark>. But as Sergei Guriev, head of the New Economic School in Moscow, pointed out, any change is going to involve a cost for someone, so why take the risk if the money is flowing in? Russia is currently the world's largest oil producer. <u><mark>When</mark> the price last spiked, <mark>in</mark> 20<mark>07, Moscow was flooded with money</mark> and people close to Putin were suggesting that <mark>Russia </mark>was genuinely self-sufficient and <mark>had no need to engage</mark> more deeply <mark>with the West</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>The</strong></mark> economic <strong><mark>crisis the following year brought that</strong></mark> talk <strong><mark>to an</strong></mark> abrupt <strong><mark>end</strong></mark>, and Medvedev began pushing for a Western-oriented program of modernization and diversification </u>away from dependence on energy exports. The Kremlin moved to stimulate the economy in 2008 by increasing government salaries and hiking pensions by 35 percent. Now it is stuck with those increases. With oil revenue providing 40 percent of the Russian budget, the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy here has calculated that at any price less than $105 a barrel the government will be in the red. That tempers any inclination toward hubris, said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA who follows Russian developments. The Kremlin was looking at a difficult financial crunch, with parliamentary elections coming late this year and a presidential election next March, so the timing of this rise in revenue is more a relief than a goad to aggressive behavior. "We don't need high prices," said Leonid Grigoriev, an economist and former World Bank adviser. "We need good relations, a long-term market and reasonable prices," which he put in the $70-to-$90 range. Russia will not turn its back on the West, by any means, he said. But, especially in an election year, its leaders may be more vocal in pointing up differences with the West. In 2010, Russia had enough problems at home that it was actively trying to avoid them abroad; now, with money to address domestic issues, that caution may not be so evident. Treisman, like many others, did not think much would ever come of Medvedev's modernization plans - it's not the sort of change, he said, that can be ordered from the top down. But <u><mark>the <strong>oil</strong> <strong>bulge</strong> makes</mark> the <mark>Westernization</mark> of the Russian economy <mark>less likely</mark>.</u> <u><mark>It helps big companies</u></mark> - which, Grigoriev said, <u>already dominate the economy to a much greater extent than in other developed countries - <mark>and</mark> it <strong><mark>hurts small ones, where jobs</strong></mark> and creativity <strong><mark>tend to be nurtured</u></strong></mark>. <u>Information technology firms, with high labor costs, will suffer</u>, Guriev said, and they are central to Medvedev's vision for the future of Russia. </p>

ENGLUND ’11 – Washington Post Staff Writer (Englund, Will. “Increase in oil revenue amid unrest in Arab world gives Russia some breathing room”. March 21, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031001553.html)

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: ENGLUND ’11 – Washington Post Staff Writer (Englund, Will. “Increase in oil revenue amid unrest in Arab world gives Russia some breathing room”. March 21, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031001553.html) fulltext: But with increased oil revenue also comes the danger of complacency. Bureaucrats, defense contractors, pensioners and workers in construction and finance all stand to gain from the money coming in, along with the oil companies. But the cash also feeds corruption, encourages increased financial opacity and discourages attempts to shake up the system - all of which could spell trouble for Russia down the road. "All of the dominant groups in Russia get a share of the increased oil revenue," said Alexander Auzan, an economist and adviser to Medvedev. "Yet it contradicts their long-term interests." Largest oil producer It's a powerful prop for the status quo - which Auzan and others say is unsustainable. But as Sergei Guriev, head of the New Economic School in Moscow, pointed out, any change is going to involve a cost for someone, so why take the risk if the money is flowing in? Russia is currently the world's largest oil producer. When the price last spiked, in 2007, Moscow was flooded with money and people close to Putin were suggesting that Russia was genuinely self-sufficient and had no need to engage more deeply with the West. The economic crisis the following year brought that talk to an abrupt end, and Medvedev began pushing for a Western-oriented program of modernization and diversification away from dependence on energy exports. The Kremlin moved to stimulate the economy in 2008 by increasing government salaries and hiking pensions by 35 percent. Now it is stuck with those increases. With oil revenue providing 40 percent of the Russian budget, the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy here has calculated that at any price less than $105 a barrel the government will be in the red. That tempers any inclination toward hubris, said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA who follows Russian developments. The Kremlin was looking at a difficult financial crunch, with parliamentary elections coming late this year and a presidential election next March, so the timing of this rise in revenue is more a relief than a goad to aggressive behavior. "We don't need high prices," said Leonid Grigoriev, an economist and former World Bank adviser. "We need good relations, a long-term market and reasonable prices," which he put in the $70-to-$90 range. Russia will not turn its back on the West, by any means, he said. But, especially in an election year, its leaders may be more vocal in pointing up differences with the West. In 2010, Russia had enough problems at home that it was actively trying to avoid them abroad; now, with money to address domestic issues, that caution may not be so evident. Treisman, like many others, did not think much would ever come of Medvedev's modernization plans - it's not the sort of change, he said, that can be ordered from the top down. But the oil bulge makes the Westernization of the Russian economy less likely. It helps big companies - which, Grigoriev said, already dominate the economy to a much greater extent than in other developed countries - and it hurts small ones, where jobs and creativity tend to be nurtured. Information technology firms, with high labor costs, will suffer, Guriev said, and they are central to Medvedev's vision for the future of Russia. [/INST] <h4>High oil prices increases likelihood of Russian economic crash</h4><p><strong><mark>ENGLUND ’11</strong></mark> – Washington Post Staff Writer (Englund, Will. “Increase in oil revenue amid unrest in Arab world gives Russia some breathing room”. March 21, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031001553.html)</p><p>But <u><mark>with increased</mark> oil <mark>revenue</u></mark> also <u><mark>comes</mark> the danger of <mark>complacency</u></mark>. Bureaucrats, defense contractors, pensioners and workers in construction and finance all stand to gain from the money coming in, along with the oil companies. <u>But <mark>the cash</mark> also <mark>feeds</mark> <mark>corruption</mark>, encourages increased financial opacity and discourages attempts to shake up the system - all of <mark>which could spell trouble</mark> </u>for Russia<u> <mark>down the road</u></mark>. "All of the dominant groups in Russia get a share of the increased oil revenue," said Alexander Auzan, an economist and adviser to Medvedev. "Yet it contradicts their long-term interests." Largest oil producer <u><mark>It's a powerful prop for the status quo</u> - <u>which</u></mark> Auzan and others say <u><mark>is unsustainable</u></mark>. But as Sergei Guriev, head of the New Economic School in Moscow, pointed out, any change is going to involve a cost for someone, so why take the risk if the money is flowing in? Russia is currently the world's largest oil producer. <u><mark>When</mark> the price last spiked, <mark>in</mark> 20<mark>07, Moscow was flooded with money</mark> and people close to Putin were suggesting that <mark>Russia </mark>was genuinely self-sufficient and <mark>had no need to engage</mark> more deeply <mark>with the West</u></mark>. <u><strong><mark>The</strong></mark> economic <strong><mark>crisis the following year brought that</strong></mark> talk <strong><mark>to an</strong></mark> abrupt <strong><mark>end</strong></mark>, and Medvedev began pushing for a Western-oriented program of modernization and diversification </u>away from dependence on energy exports. The Kremlin moved to stimulate the economy in 2008 by increasing government salaries and hiking pensions by 35 percent. Now it is stuck with those increases. With oil revenue providing 40 percent of the Russian budget, the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy here has calculated that at any price less than $105 a barrel the government will be in the red. That tempers any inclination toward hubris, said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA who follows Russian developments. The Kremlin was looking at a difficult financial crunch, with parliamentary elections coming late this year and a presidential election next March, so the timing of this rise in revenue is more a relief than a goad to aggressive behavior. "We don't need high prices," said Leonid Grigoriev, an economist and former World Bank adviser. "We need good relations, a long-term market and reasonable prices," which he put in the $70-to-$90 range. Russia will not turn its back on the West, by any means, he said. But, especially in an election year, its leaders may be more vocal in pointing up differences with the West. In 2010, Russia had enough problems at home that it was actively trying to avoid them abroad; now, with money to address domestic issues, that caution may not be so evident. Treisman, like many others, did not think much would ever come of Medvedev's modernization plans - it's not the sort of change, he said, that can be ordered from the top down. But <u><mark>the <strong>oil</strong> <strong>bulge</strong> makes</mark> the <mark>Westernization</mark> of the Russian economy <mark>less likely</mark>.</u> <u><mark>It helps big companies</u></mark> - which, Grigoriev said, <u>already dominate the economy to a much greater extent than in other developed countries - <mark>and</mark> it <strong><mark>hurts small ones, where jobs</strong></mark> and creativity <strong><mark>tend to be nurtured</u></strong></mark>. <u>Information technology firms, with high labor costs, will suffer</u>, Guriev said, and they are central to Medvedev's vision for the future of Russia. </p> </s>

No impact to terrorism – too hard to pull off post 9/11, not enough personnel to carry out an attack, too much pressure because of security restrictions

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-why-arent-there-more-times-square-style-terrorist-attacks/19463843) Terrorism sounds easy Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S. It's hard to grow your own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is against you. Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded. Today, it's much harder to pull something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. But even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there. Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about the major terrorist plots we've foiled in the U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks were largely nut cases operating alone Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would have it.

Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization the major terrorist plots foiled

(Bruce, a security technologist and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.", “Opinion: Where Are All the Terrorist Attacks?”, March 2010, http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-why-arent-there-more-times-square-style-terrorist-attacks/19463843) Hard to Pull Off Terrorism sounds easy, but the actual attack is the easiest part. Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S. It's hard to grow your own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is against you. Movies and television make terrorist plots look easier than they are. It's hard to hold conspiracies together. It's easy to make a mistake. Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded. Today, it's much harder to pull something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. Few Terrorists But even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there. Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization with movie-plot-villain capabilities; it's a loose collection of people using the same name. Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about the major terrorist plots we've foiled in the U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks -- the Fort Hood shooter, the guy who flew his plane into the Austin IRS office, the anthrax mailer -- were largely nut cases operating alone. Even the unsuccessful shoe bomber, and the equally unsuccessful Christmas Day underwear bomber, had minimal organized help -- and that help originated outside the U.S. Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would have it.

<h4><strong>No impact to terrorism – too hard to pull off post 9/11, not enough personnel to carry out an attack, too much pressure because of security restrictions </h4><p>Schneier 10</p><p></strong>(Bruce, a security technologist and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.", “Opinion: Where Are All the Terrorist Attacks?”, March 2010, <u>http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-why-arent-there-more-times-square-style-terrorist-attacks/19463843<strong>)</p><p></u></strong>Hard to Pull Off <u><strong>Terrorism sounds easy</u></strong>, but the actual attack is the easiest part. <u><strong><mark>Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S</mark>. It's hard to grow your own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is against you. </u></strong>Movies and television make terrorist plots look easier than they are. It's hard to hold conspiracies together. It's easy to make a mistake. <u><strong><mark>Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded</mark>. Today, it's much harder to pull something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. </u></strong>Few Terrorists <u><strong>But <mark>even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there</mark>. <mark>Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization</u></strong></mark> with movie-plot-villain capabilities; it's a loose collection of people using the same name. <u><strong>Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about <mark>the major terrorist plots</mark> we've <mark>foiled</mark> in the U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks</u></strong> -- the Fort Hood shooter, the guy who flew his plane into the Austin IRS office, the anthrax mailer -- <u><strong>were largely nut cases operating alone</u></strong>. Even the unsuccessful shoe bomber, and the equally unsuccessful Christmas Day underwear bomber, had minimal organized help -- and that help originated outside the U.S. <u><strong>Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would have it.</p></u></strong>

Schneier 10

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Schneier 10 fulltext: (Bruce, a security technologist and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.", “Opinion: Where Are All the Terrorist Attacks?”, March 2010, http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-why-arent-there-more-times-square-style-terrorist-attacks/19463843) Hard to Pull Off Terrorism sounds easy, but the actual attack is the easiest part. Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S. It's hard to grow your own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is against you. Movies and television make terrorist plots look easier than they are. It's hard to hold conspiracies together. It's easy to make a mistake. Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded. Today, it's much harder to pull something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. Few Terrorists But even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there. Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization with movie-plot-villain capabilities; it's a loose collection of people using the same name. Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about the major terrorist plots we've foiled in the U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks -- the Fort Hood shooter, the guy who flew his plane into the Austin IRS office, the anthrax mailer -- were largely nut cases operating alone. Even the unsuccessful shoe bomber, and the equally unsuccessful Christmas Day underwear bomber, had minimal organized help -- and that help originated outside the U.S. Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would have it. [/INST] <h4><strong>No impact to terrorism – too hard to pull off post 9/11, not enough personnel to carry out an attack, too much pressure because of security restrictions </h4><p>Schneier 10</p><p></strong>(Bruce, a security technologist and author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.", “Opinion: Where Are All the Terrorist Attacks?”, March 2010, <u>http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-why-arent-there-more-times-square-style-terrorist-attacks/19463843<strong>)</p><p></u></strong>Hard to Pull Off <u><strong>Terrorism sounds easy</u></strong>, but the actual attack is the easiest part. <u><strong><mark>Putting together the people, the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S</mark>. It's hard to grow your own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is against you. </u></strong>Movies and television make terrorist plots look easier than they are. It's hard to hold conspiracies together. It's easy to make a mistake. <u><strong><mark>Even 9/11, which was planned before the climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded</mark>. Today, it's much harder to pull something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. </u></strong>Few Terrorists <u><strong>But <mark>even more important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out there</mark>. <mark>Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization</u></strong></mark> with movie-plot-villain capabilities; it's a loose collection of people using the same name. <u><strong>Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about <mark>the major terrorist plots</mark> we've <mark>foiled</mark> in the U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks</u></strong> -- the Fort Hood shooter, the guy who flew his plane into the Austin IRS office, the anthrax mailer -- <u><strong>were largely nut cases operating alone</u></strong>. Even the unsuccessful shoe bomber, and the equally unsuccessful Christmas Day underwear bomber, had minimal organized help -- and that help originated outside the U.S. <u><strong>Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would have it.</p></u></strong> </s>

PC key – immigration arm twisting of GOP is needed

Obama lashed the GOP for torpedoing immigration on two occasions The bruising fights over deficit reduction, spending, health care were endless and time consuming. The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground The 2012 election gave Obama the opening to go full throttle on immigration . Bush was blamed for Obama's challenge to the GOP about immigration if handled right can do much to shove the issue off the political table

Obama lashed the GOP for torpedoing immigration bruising fights over deficit health care were endless fights required political capital and arm twisting to make headway against an intransigent on immigration

But Obama even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He lashed the GOP for torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress on the two occasions when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. The crushing problems and bruising fights over deficit reduction, spending, health care reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis were endless and time consuming. The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent and petty GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground he sought to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. The 2012 election changed one other thing. It gave Obama the long sought and awaited opening he needed to go full throttle on immigration reform. ¶ The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W. Bush was widely and unfairly blamed for making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. ¶ Still, Obama's frontal challenge to the GOP to do something about immigration reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that if handled right can do much to shove the wrenching issue of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, off the nation's political table. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen.

<h4>PC key – immigration arm twisting of GOP is needed </h4><p>Earl <strong>Hutchinson</strong>, Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report, “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight” Huffington Post, 2/1/<strong>2013</strong>.</p><p>But <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He <u><strong><mark>lashed the GOP for torpedoing</u></strong></mark> comprehensive <u><strong><mark>immigration</u></strong></mark> reform legislation in Congress <u><strong>on</u></strong> the <u><strong>two occasions</u></strong> when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. <u><strong>The</u></strong> crushing problems and <u><strong><mark>bruising fights over deficit</mark> reduction, spending, <mark>health care</u></strong></mark> reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis <u><strong><mark>were endless </mark>and time consuming. The <mark>fights required </mark>every bit of his <mark>political capital and arm twisting to make</mark> any <mark>headway against an</mark> obstructionist, <mark>intransigent</u></strong></mark> and petty <u><strong>GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground</u></strong> he sought to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. <u><strong>The 2012 election</u></strong> changed one other thing. It <u><strong>gave Obama the</u></strong> long sought and awaited <u><strong>opening</u></strong> he needed <u><strong>to go full throttle <mark>on immigration</u></strong></mark> reform. ¶ The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W<u><strong>. Bush was</u></strong> widely and unfairly <u><strong>blamed for</u></strong> making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. ¶ Still, <u><strong>Obama's</u></strong> frontal <u><strong>challenge to the GOP</u></strong> to do something <u><strong>about immigration</u></strong> reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that <u><strong>if handled right can do much to shove the</u></strong> wrenching <u><strong>issue</u></strong> of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, <u><strong>off the</u></strong> nation's <u><strong>political table</u></strong>. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen.</p>

Earl Hutchinson, Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report, “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight” Huffington Post, 2/1/2013.

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Earl Hutchinson, Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report, “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight” Huffington Post, 2/1/2013. fulltext: But Obama even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He lashed the GOP for torpedoing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress on the two occasions when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. The crushing problems and bruising fights over deficit reduction, spending, health care reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis were endless and time consuming. The fights required every bit of his political capital and arm twisting to make any headway against an obstructionist, intransigent and petty GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground he sought to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. The 2012 election changed one other thing. It gave Obama the long sought and awaited opening he needed to go full throttle on immigration reform. ¶ The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W. Bush was widely and unfairly blamed for making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. ¶ Still, Obama's frontal challenge to the GOP to do something about immigration reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that if handled right can do much to shove the wrenching issue of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, off the nation's political table. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen. [/INST] <h4>PC key – immigration arm twisting of GOP is needed </h4><p>Earl <strong>Hutchinson</strong>, Political Analyst for New America and host of the Hutchinson Report, “No Risk for President Obama in Immigration Reform Fight” Huffington Post, 2/1/<strong>2013</strong>.</p><p>But <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> even as his popularity numbers slightly fell among Latinos did not totally ignore the issue. He <u><strong><mark>lashed the GOP for torpedoing</u></strong></mark> comprehensive <u><strong><mark>immigration</u></strong></mark> reform legislation in Congress <u><strong>on</u></strong> the <u><strong>two occasions</u></strong> when it appeared that an immigration bill might be reintroduced.¶ Obama was not to blame that this didn't happen. <u><strong>The</u></strong> crushing problems and <u><strong><mark>bruising fights over deficit</mark> reduction, spending, <mark>health care</u></strong></mark> reform, coupled with high soaring gas prices and the jobless crisis <u><strong><mark>were endless </mark>and time consuming. The <mark>fights required </mark>every bit of his <mark>political capital and arm twisting to make</mark> any <mark>headway against an</mark> obstructionist, <mark>intransigent</u></strong></mark> and petty <u><strong>GOP determined to make him pay a steep political price for every inch of legislative ground</u></strong> he sought to gain.¶ The 2012 election changed only one thing with the GOP. That was its in your face, xenophobic rants against illegals supposedly stealing jobs from Americans and breaking the law. GOP leaders had no choice but to tamp down their saber rattle immigration rhetoric for the simple fact that Latino voters punished the party mightily in 2012 for that rhetoric, and sent an even stronger signal that it would continue to punish the GOP if it didn't change at least its tone on immigration. <u><strong>The 2012 election</u></strong> changed one other thing. It <u><strong>gave Obama the</u></strong> long sought and awaited <u><strong>opening</u></strong> he needed <u><strong>to go full throttle <mark>on immigration</u></strong></mark> reform. ¶ The election result was not the only strong point for Obama on reform. In 2007, then President George W<u><strong>. Bush was</u></strong> widely and unfairly <u><strong>blamed for</u></strong> making a mess of the immigration reform fight in Congress by not pushing hard enough for passage of the bill. Immigrant rights groups lambasted Republican senators for piling crippling demands for tight amnesty, citizenship and border security provisions in the bill. Leading Republican presidential contenders didn't help matters by flatly opposing the bill as much too soft on amnesty and border enforcement. ¶ This did much to kill whatever flickering hope there was for the bill's passage. This undid the inroads that Bush made in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections when he scored big with Latino voters. A big part of that then was due to the perception (and reality) that Bush would push hard for immigration reform. But the GOP didn't learn a thing from this. It was almost as if Bush's Latino vote ramp up was an aberration. The GOP's metallic ear on immigration culminated in the idiotic quip from GOP presidential loser Mitt Romney that the best way to solve the immigration crisis was for undocumented workers to "self-deport." ¶ Obama's battle for the Latino vote in 2012 was never intended to head off any mass defection of Latino voters to the GOP. There was never any chance of that. The polls that showed Latinos less than enthusiastic about Obama also showed absolutely no enthusiasm for any GOP would-be presidential candidate, let alone that there would be a massive vote for GOP candidates. ¶ Still, <u><strong>Obama's</u></strong> frontal <u><strong>challenge to the GOP</u></strong> to do something <u><strong>about immigration</u></strong> reform is not only a long overdue move to right a long simmering policy wrong, but a move that <u><strong>if handled right can do much to shove the</u></strong> wrenching <u><strong>issue</u></strong> of what to do about the nation's millions that are here without papers, and are here to stay, <u><strong>off the</u></strong> nation's <u><strong>political table</u></strong>. There's absolutely no risk, only gain, for Obama in taking the point on immigration reform to try and make that happen.</p> </s>

China exerting political influence now in Cuba now- encircling the US

China has achieved unparalleled growth in its power, influence, and importance over the past 20 The PRC is seeking allies to advance its agenda in Latin America. China is committed to improving the performance of its economy and spreading its political influence if Washington wants to neutralize China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere, it needs to take action. An effective strategy would include expanding the U.S. free trade network, helping friendly nations develop strong market economies, and fostering closer, more cooperative security relations with our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. The growing political, economic and military relationships aggressively pursued by China on America’s doorstep, are centered around its relationship with Castro we could label China’s growing strategic ties with Havana and other Latin American nations, as well as the ability to attack from the sea and in cyber-space makes the ancient Wei Chi technique far more effective today. What can be done to counter China’s moves into Latin America?

(Peter, The Heritage Foundation, “China's Influence in the Western Hemisphere,” April 19, 2005, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/chinas-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere) /wyo-mm) China has achieved unparalleled growth in its power, influence, and importance over the past 20 years. Its grand strategy is to become the preeminent power in the Pacific--and in the world--replacing the United States as the world's most powerful nation. Though that point is not here today, China is making progress on both counts. The PRC is seeking friends and allies to advance its agenda in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East--and Latin America. Like most other nations, China is committed to improving the performance of its economy and spreading its political influence. Its actions are worrisome in Latin America and the Caribbean because some national leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, welcome the arrival of another world power to offer an alternative to the United States. There are challenges to China's advance in Latin America and the Caribbean, including geographic proximity, culture, and language. But if Washington wants to neutralize China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere, it needs to take action. An effective strategy would include expanding the U.S. free trade network, helping friendly nations develop strong market economies, and fostering closer, more cooperative security relations with our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. The growing political, economic and military relationships aggressively pursued by China on America’s doorstep, are centered around its relationship with Fidel Castro, the region’s still-vibrant anti-America political warfare practitioner and his oil-rich prote´ ge´ Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This presence, coupled with China’s growing political and economic influence, with its submarines now ready to be equipped with nuclear multiple-warhead missiles, pose an encircling military threat to the United States, never before seen in our nation’s history. In effect, the Chinese are engaged in building a multi-dimensional strategic and tactical surrounding of the United States: on the Latin American land mass and islands, beneath the Pacific Ocean waves and in aero- and cyber-space. A new generation of well-schooled and determined Chinese strategists, have become grand masters of the age-old Chinese game of strategy called ‘‘Wei Chi’’ or ‘‘Goh.’’ In a Wei Chi contest, a player makes the decisive winning move when his opponent is completely surrounded and unable to maneuver, as in the clutches of a python. In effect, we could label China’s growing strategic ties with Havana and other Latin American nations, as well as the ability to attack from the sea and in cyber-space makes the ancient Wei Chi technique far more effective today. What can be done to counter China’s moves into Latin America? I recommend the following: • First and foremost, we must not take our southern neighbors for granted, militarily, economically or politically. Efforts must be made to budget American developmental resources towards cost effective grassroots economic development programs to counter strategic humanitarianism such as Chavez’s Bolivarian populism and Castro’s medical teams. • U.S. policymakers should make a thorough review of the Monroe Doctrine to see how it may be applied to today’s developments in the region. • U.S. policymakers should not take for granted the renewed anti-U.S. alliance between Russia and China, whether in Eurasia or in Latin America, including intelligence and organized crime networks. • In the 21st Century, electronic- and cyber-warfare bases in Cuba are as serious a threat to U.S. security as Russian missiles were in the 1960s. There should be counter-measures developed to neutralize these bases without creating collateral casualties to Cuban civilian populations. • Training of Latin American military officers should be preconditioned with a ban on these officers from attending military training or observing war games in China. • Although it may be a late effort, a review of how Hutchison Whampoa received the Panama Canal ports contract should be reviewed by U.S. Congressional and Trade Commissions, with appropriate action taken if corruption is proven. • Hugo Chavez in Venezuela should be seen as more dangerous to the United States than any Middle Eastern dictator. A variety of methods should be made to strengthen the Venezuelan opposition movements against Chavez. • China should not be permitted to participate in United Nations peace-keeping missions in the Americas. Beijing’s behavior on politicizing the Haitian peace-keeping mission should be an indicator of China’s negative intentions today and in the future. • American policymakers, counter-intelligence and military officials should be required to study the same texts, ancient and modern, on geo-strategy and war fighting that are studied and practiced by Chinese military and geo-strategy officials.

<h4><strong>China exerting political influence now in Cuba now- encircling the US </h4><p>Brookes 05</p><p></strong>(Peter, The Heritage Foundation, “China's Influence in the Western Hemisphere,” April 19, 2005, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/chinas-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China has achieved unparalleled growth in its power, influence, and importance over the past 20</u></strong> years. Its grand strategy is to become the preeminent power in the Pacific--and in the world--replacing the United States as the world's most powerful nation. Though that point is not here today, China is making progress on both counts. <u><strong>The PRC is seeking</u></strong> friends and <u><strong>allies to advance its agenda in </u></strong>Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East--and <u><strong>Latin America.</u></strong> Like most other nations, <u><strong>China is committed to improving the performance of its economy and spreading its political influence</u></strong>. Its actions are worrisome in Latin America and the Caribbean because some national leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, welcome the arrival of another world power to offer an alternative to the United States. There are challenges to China's advance in Latin America and the Caribbean, including geographic proximity, culture, and language. But <u><strong>if Washington wants to neutralize China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere, it needs to take action. An effective strategy would include expanding the U.S. free trade network, helping friendly nations develop strong market economies, and fostering closer, more cooperative security relations with our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors.</p><p>The growing political, economic and military relationships aggressively pursued by China on America’s doorstep, are centered around its relationship with</u></strong> Fidel <u><strong>Castro</u></strong>, the region’s still-vibrant anti-America political warfare practitioner and his oil-rich prote´ ge´ Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This presence, coupled with China’s growing political and economic influence, with its submarines now ready to be equipped with nuclear multiple-warhead missiles, pose an encircling military threat to the United States, never before seen in our nation’s history. In effect, the Chinese are engaged in building a multi-dimensional strategic and tactical surrounding of the United States: on the Latin American land mass and islands, beneath the Pacific Ocean waves and in aero- and cyber-space. A new generation of well-schooled and determined Chinese strategists, have become grand masters of the age-old Chinese game of strategy called ‘‘Wei Chi’’ or ‘‘Goh.’’ In a Wei Chi contest, a player makes the decisive winning move when his opponent is completely surrounded and unable to maneuver, as in the clutches of a python. In effect, <u><strong>we could label China’s growing strategic ties with Havana and other Latin American nations, as well as the ability to attack from the sea and in cyber-space makes the ancient Wei Chi technique far more effective today. What can be done to counter China’s moves into Latin America?</u></strong> I recommend the following: • First and foremost, we must not take our southern neighbors for granted, militarily, economically or politically. Efforts must be made to budget American developmental resources towards cost effective grassroots economic development programs to counter strategic humanitarianism such as Chavez’s Bolivarian populism and Castro’s medical teams. • U.S. policymakers should make a thorough review of the Monroe Doctrine to see how it may be applied to today’s developments in the region. • U.S. policymakers should not take for granted the renewed anti-U.S. alliance between Russia and China, whether in Eurasia or in Latin America, including intelligence and organized crime networks. • In the 21st Century, electronic- and cyber-warfare bases in Cuba are as serious a threat to U.S. security as Russian missiles were in the 1960s. There should be counter-measures developed to neutralize these bases without creating collateral casualties to Cuban civilian populations. • Training of Latin American military officers should be preconditioned with a ban on these officers from attending military training or observing war games in China. • Although it may be a late effort, a review of how Hutchison Whampoa received the Panama Canal ports contract should be reviewed by U.S. Congressional and Trade Commissions, with appropriate action taken if corruption is proven. • Hugo Chavez in Venezuela should be seen as more dangerous to the United States than any Middle Eastern dictator. A variety of methods should be made to strengthen the Venezuelan opposition movements against Chavez. • China should not be permitted to participate in United Nations peace-keeping missions in the Americas. Beijing’s behavior on politicizing the Haitian peace-keeping mission should be an indicator of China’s negative intentions today and in the future. • American policymakers, counter-intelligence and military officials should be required to study the same texts, ancient and modern, on geo-strategy and war fighting that are studied and practiced by Chinese military and geo-strategy officials.</p>

Brookes 05

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Brookes 05 fulltext: (Peter, The Heritage Foundation, “China's Influence in the Western Hemisphere,” April 19, 2005, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/chinas-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere) /wyo-mm) China has achieved unparalleled growth in its power, influence, and importance over the past 20 years. Its grand strategy is to become the preeminent power in the Pacific--and in the world--replacing the United States as the world's most powerful nation. Though that point is not here today, China is making progress on both counts. The PRC is seeking friends and allies to advance its agenda in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East--and Latin America. Like most other nations, China is committed to improving the performance of its economy and spreading its political influence. Its actions are worrisome in Latin America and the Caribbean because some national leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, welcome the arrival of another world power to offer an alternative to the United States. There are challenges to China's advance in Latin America and the Caribbean, including geographic proximity, culture, and language. But if Washington wants to neutralize China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere, it needs to take action. An effective strategy would include expanding the U.S. free trade network, helping friendly nations develop strong market economies, and fostering closer, more cooperative security relations with our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. The growing political, economic and military relationships aggressively pursued by China on America’s doorstep, are centered around its relationship with Fidel Castro, the region’s still-vibrant anti-America political warfare practitioner and his oil-rich prote´ ge´ Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This presence, coupled with China’s growing political and economic influence, with its submarines now ready to be equipped with nuclear multiple-warhead missiles, pose an encircling military threat to the United States, never before seen in our nation’s history. In effect, the Chinese are engaged in building a multi-dimensional strategic and tactical surrounding of the United States: on the Latin American land mass and islands, beneath the Pacific Ocean waves and in aero- and cyber-space. A new generation of well-schooled and determined Chinese strategists, have become grand masters of the age-old Chinese game of strategy called ‘‘Wei Chi’’ or ‘‘Goh.’’ In a Wei Chi contest, a player makes the decisive winning move when his opponent is completely surrounded and unable to maneuver, as in the clutches of a python. In effect, we could label China’s growing strategic ties with Havana and other Latin American nations, as well as the ability to attack from the sea and in cyber-space makes the ancient Wei Chi technique far more effective today. What can be done to counter China’s moves into Latin America? I recommend the following: • First and foremost, we must not take our southern neighbors for granted, militarily, economically or politically. Efforts must be made to budget American developmental resources towards cost effective grassroots economic development programs to counter strategic humanitarianism such as Chavez’s Bolivarian populism and Castro’s medical teams. • U.S. policymakers should make a thorough review of the Monroe Doctrine to see how it may be applied to today’s developments in the region. • U.S. policymakers should not take for granted the renewed anti-U.S. alliance between Russia and China, whether in Eurasia or in Latin America, including intelligence and organized crime networks. • In the 21st Century, electronic- and cyber-warfare bases in Cuba are as serious a threat to U.S. security as Russian missiles were in the 1960s. There should be counter-measures developed to neutralize these bases without creating collateral casualties to Cuban civilian populations. • Training of Latin American military officers should be preconditioned with a ban on these officers from attending military training or observing war games in China. • Although it may be a late effort, a review of how Hutchison Whampoa received the Panama Canal ports contract should be reviewed by U.S. Congressional and Trade Commissions, with appropriate action taken if corruption is proven. • Hugo Chavez in Venezuela should be seen as more dangerous to the United States than any Middle Eastern dictator. A variety of methods should be made to strengthen the Venezuelan opposition movements against Chavez. • China should not be permitted to participate in United Nations peace-keeping missions in the Americas. Beijing’s behavior on politicizing the Haitian peace-keeping mission should be an indicator of China’s negative intentions today and in the future. • American policymakers, counter-intelligence and military officials should be required to study the same texts, ancient and modern, on geo-strategy and war fighting that are studied and practiced by Chinese military and geo-strategy officials. [/INST] <h4><strong>China exerting political influence now in Cuba now- encircling the US </h4><p>Brookes 05</p><p></strong>(Peter, The Heritage Foundation, “China's Influence in the Western Hemisphere,” April 19, 2005, http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/chinas-influence-in-the-western-hemisphere) /wyo-mm) </p><p><u><strong>China has achieved unparalleled growth in its power, influence, and importance over the past 20</u></strong> years. Its grand strategy is to become the preeminent power in the Pacific--and in the world--replacing the United States as the world's most powerful nation. Though that point is not here today, China is making progress on both counts. <u><strong>The PRC is seeking</u></strong> friends and <u><strong>allies to advance its agenda in </u></strong>Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East--and <u><strong>Latin America.</u></strong> Like most other nations, <u><strong>China is committed to improving the performance of its economy and spreading its political influence</u></strong>. Its actions are worrisome in Latin America and the Caribbean because some national leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, welcome the arrival of another world power to offer an alternative to the United States. There are challenges to China's advance in Latin America and the Caribbean, including geographic proximity, culture, and language. But <u><strong>if Washington wants to neutralize China's growing influence in the Western Hemisphere, it needs to take action. An effective strategy would include expanding the U.S. free trade network, helping friendly nations develop strong market economies, and fostering closer, more cooperative security relations with our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors.</p><p>The growing political, economic and military relationships aggressively pursued by China on America’s doorstep, are centered around its relationship with</u></strong> Fidel <u><strong>Castro</u></strong>, the region’s still-vibrant anti-America political warfare practitioner and his oil-rich prote´ ge´ Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. This presence, coupled with China’s growing political and economic influence, with its submarines now ready to be equipped with nuclear multiple-warhead missiles, pose an encircling military threat to the United States, never before seen in our nation’s history. In effect, the Chinese are engaged in building a multi-dimensional strategic and tactical surrounding of the United States: on the Latin American land mass and islands, beneath the Pacific Ocean waves and in aero- and cyber-space. A new generation of well-schooled and determined Chinese strategists, have become grand masters of the age-old Chinese game of strategy called ‘‘Wei Chi’’ or ‘‘Goh.’’ In a Wei Chi contest, a player makes the decisive winning move when his opponent is completely surrounded and unable to maneuver, as in the clutches of a python. In effect, <u><strong>we could label China’s growing strategic ties with Havana and other Latin American nations, as well as the ability to attack from the sea and in cyber-space makes the ancient Wei Chi technique far more effective today. What can be done to counter China’s moves into Latin America?</u></strong> I recommend the following: • First and foremost, we must not take our southern neighbors for granted, militarily, economically or politically. Efforts must be made to budget American developmental resources towards cost effective grassroots economic development programs to counter strategic humanitarianism such as Chavez’s Bolivarian populism and Castro’s medical teams. • U.S. policymakers should make a thorough review of the Monroe Doctrine to see how it may be applied to today’s developments in the region. • U.S. policymakers should not take for granted the renewed anti-U.S. alliance between Russia and China, whether in Eurasia or in Latin America, including intelligence and organized crime networks. • In the 21st Century, electronic- and cyber-warfare bases in Cuba are as serious a threat to U.S. security as Russian missiles were in the 1960s. There should be counter-measures developed to neutralize these bases without creating collateral casualties to Cuban civilian populations. • Training of Latin American military officers should be preconditioned with a ban on these officers from attending military training or observing war games in China. • Although it may be a late effort, a review of how Hutchison Whampoa received the Panama Canal ports contract should be reviewed by U.S. Congressional and Trade Commissions, with appropriate action taken if corruption is proven. • Hugo Chavez in Venezuela should be seen as more dangerous to the United States than any Middle Eastern dictator. A variety of methods should be made to strengthen the Venezuelan opposition movements against Chavez. • China should not be permitted to participate in United Nations peace-keeping missions in the Americas. Beijing’s behavior on politicizing the Haitian peace-keeping mission should be an indicator of China’s negative intentions today and in the future. • American policymakers, counter-intelligence and military officials should be required to study the same texts, ancient and modern, on geo-strategy and war fighting that are studied and practiced by Chinese military and geo-strategy officials.</p> </s>

Venezuelan oil revenue spurs effective social reform, not oppression

One of the main factors for the popularity of Chávez is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed extreme poverty reduced from 40% to a very low level of 7.3% 20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs

One of the main factors for the popularity of Chávez is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed extreme poverty reduced from 40% to a very low level of 7.3% 20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs

One of the main factors for the popularity of the Chávez Government and its landslide victory in this re-election results of October 2012, is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues, not for benefit of a small class of renters as previous governments had done, but to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed. During the last ten years, the government has increased social spending by 60.6%, a total of $772 billion [i]. Poverty is not defined solely by lack of income nor is health defined as the lack of illness. Both are correlated and both are multi-factorial, that is, determined by a series of social processes. To make a more objective assessment of the real progress achieved by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during the last 13 years it is essential to review some of the key available data on the social determinants of health and poverty: education, inequality, jobs and income, health care, food security and social support and services.¶ With regard to these social determinants of health indicators, Venezuela is now the country in the region with the lowest inequality level (measured by the Gini Coefficient) having reduced inequality by 54%, poverty by 44%. Poverty has been reduced from 70.8% (1996) to 21% (2010). And extreme poverty reduced from 40% (1996) to a very low level of 7.3% (2010). About 20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs, called “Misiones” (Up to now, 2.1 million elderly people have received old-age pensions – that is 66% of the population while only 387,000 received pensions before the current government.

<h4>Venezuelan oil revenue spurs effective social reform, not oppression</h4><p><strong>Mutaner et al ’12</strong> [Carles Muntaner is Professor of Nursing, Public Health and Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, María Páez Victor is a Venezuelan sociologist, specializing in health and medicine, Joan Benach is a professor of Public Health at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, “The Achievements of Hugo Chavez: An Update on the Social Determinants of Health in Venezuela,” 12-20-12, <u>http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7568</u>]</p><p><u><mark>One of the main factors for the popularity of</u></mark> the <u><mark>Chávez</u> </mark>Government and its landslide victory in this re-election results of October 2012, <u><mark>is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues</u></mark>, not for benefit of a small class of renters as previous governments had done, but <u><mark>to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed</u></mark>. During the last ten years, the government has increased social spending by 60.6%, a total of $772 billion [i]. Poverty is not defined solely by lack of income nor is health defined as the lack of illness. Both are correlated and both are multi-factorial, that is, determined by a series of social processes. To make a more objective assessment of the real progress achieved by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during the last 13 years it is essential to review some of the key available data on the social determinants of health and poverty: education, inequality, jobs and income, health care, food security and social support and services.¶ With regard to these social determinants of health indicators, Venezuela is now the country in the region with the lowest inequality level (measured by the Gini Coefficient) having reduced inequality by 54%, poverty by 44%. Poverty has been reduced from 70.8% (1996) to 21% (2010). And <u><mark>extreme poverty reduced from 40%</u> </mark>(1996) <u><mark>to a very low level of 7.3%</u> </mark>(2010). About <u><mark>20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs</u></mark>, called “Misiones” (Up to now, 2.1 million elderly people have received old-age pensions – that is 66% of the population while only 387,000 received pensions before the current government.</p>

Mutaner et al ’12 [Carles Muntaner is Professor of Nursing, Public Health and Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, María Páez Victor is a Venezuelan sociologist, specializing in health and medicine, Joan Benach is a professor of Public Health at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, “The Achievements of Hugo Chavez: An Update on the Social Determinants of Health in Venezuela,” 12-20-12, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7568]

<s> [INST] Convert the following into an HTML formatted debate card with tag, citation, and formatted underlined/highlighted text: citation: Mutaner et al ’12 [Carles Muntaner is Professor of Nursing, Public Health and Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, María Páez Victor is a Venezuelan sociologist, specializing in health and medicine, Joan Benach is a professor of Public Health at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, “The Achievements of Hugo Chavez: An Update on the Social Determinants of Health in Venezuela,” 12-20-12, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7568] fulltext: One of the main factors for the popularity of the Chávez Government and its landslide victory in this re-election results of October 2012, is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues, not for benefit of a small class of renters as previous governments had done, but to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed. During the last ten years, the government has increased social spending by 60.6%, a total of $772 billion [i]. Poverty is not defined solely by lack of income nor is health defined as the lack of illness. Both are correlated and both are multi-factorial, that is, determined by a series of social processes. To make a more objective assessment of the real progress achieved by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during the last 13 years it is essential to review some of the key available data on the social determinants of health and poverty: education, inequality, jobs and income, health care, food security and social support and services.¶ With regard to these social determinants of health indicators, Venezuela is now the country in the region with the lowest inequality level (measured by the Gini Coefficient) having reduced inequality by 54%, poverty by 44%. Poverty has been reduced from 70.8% (1996) to 21% (2010). And extreme poverty reduced from 40% (1996) to a very low level of 7.3% (2010). About 20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs, called “Misiones” (Up to now, 2.1 million elderly people have received old-age pensions – that is 66% of the population while only 387,000 received pensions before the current government. [/INST] <h4>Venezuelan oil revenue spurs effective social reform, not oppression</h4><p><strong>Mutaner et al ’12</strong> [Carles Muntaner is Professor of Nursing, Public Health and Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, María Páez Victor is a Venezuelan sociologist, specializing in health and medicine, Joan Benach is a professor of Public Health at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, “The Achievements of Hugo Chavez: An Update on the Social Determinants of Health in Venezuela,” 12-20-12, <u>http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7568</u>]</p><p><u><mark>One of the main factors for the popularity of</u></mark> the <u><mark>Chávez</u> </mark>Government and its landslide victory in this re-election results of October 2012, <u><mark>is the reduction of poverty, made possible because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues</u></mark>, not for benefit of a small class of renters as previous governments had done, but <u><mark>to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed</u></mark>. During the last ten years, the government has increased social spending by 60.6%, a total of $772 billion [i]. Poverty is not defined solely by lack of income nor is health defined as the lack of illness. Both are correlated and both are multi-factorial, that is, determined by a series of social processes. To make a more objective assessment of the real progress achieved by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during the last 13 years it is essential to review some of the key available data on the social determinants of health and poverty: education, inequality, jobs and income, health care, food security and social support and services.¶ With regard to these social determinants of health indicators, Venezuela is now the country in the region with the lowest inequality level (measured by the Gini Coefficient) having reduced inequality by 54%, poverty by 44%. Poverty has been reduced from 70.8% (1996) to 21% (2010). And <u><mark>extreme poverty reduced from 40%</u> </mark>(1996) <u><mark>to a very low level of 7.3%</u> </mark>(2010). About <u><mark>20 million people have benefited from anti-poverty programs</u></mark>, called “Misiones” (Up to now, 2.1 million elderly people have received old-age pensions – that is 66% of the population while only 387,000 received pensions before the current government.</p> </s>