The Instigator
TheWheel
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
tochter_aus_elysium
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,417 times Debate No: 10520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (9)

 

TheWheel

Pro

I resolve: I affirm that Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. To begin with, I would like to define the necessary terms to fully understand the round, and our resolution. Economic Sanctions, as defined by Businessdictionary.com, "Economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or UN's or WTO's demands." Foreign Policy, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states." Objectives, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "a strategic position to be attained or a purpose to be achieved by a Military Operation." Justice, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable." The premise of my case is Justice; the criterion would be increasing the quality of life. The Quality of Life, as defined by the Quality of Life Research Unit, University of Toronto: The degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life. Possibilities result from the opportunities and limitations each person has in his/her life and reflect the interaction of personal and environmental factors. Enjoyment has two components: the experience of satisfaction and the possession or achievement of some characteristic, as illustrated by the expression: "She enjoys good health." Three major life domains are identified: Being, Belonging, and Becoming. The conceptualization of Being, Belonging, and Becoming as the domains of quality of life were developed from the insights of various writers. The Quality of Life is hoped to be increased by preventing the downgrade of it by Economic Sanctions.

1st Contention:

The applied economic sanctions can lead to deaths in the foreign country that the country halted trade with. Joy Gordon, a Philosophy department teacher at Fairfield University, helps to further explain how deaths can occur, with a brief look at the 1991 document of deaths due to Economic Sanctions. Joy Gordon had the following to explain:

"Since 1991, international agencies have documented Iraq's explosion in child mortality rates, water-borne diseases from untreated water supplies, malnutrition in large sectors of the population, and on and on. The most reliable estimate holds that 237,000 Iraqi children under five are dead because of sanctions, with other estimates going as high as one million. The deaths from sanctions are far greater than the number of Iraqis directly killed in the Persian Gulf War -- an estimated 40,000 casualties, both military and civilian."

Thus, as given in the example above, great deaths have resulted from Economic Sanctions. The Associated Press States: "…more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009." The Iraq Family Health Survey for the World Health Organization concluded: "an Estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence." Both separate pieces of results, as given, show how even Economic Sanctions give more harm than war; thus, showing how bad they can truly be, and how they help cause deaths.

John Mueller & Karl Mueller, help to give more information on that same example. The two had the following to say:

"No one knows with any precision how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result, but various agencies of the United Nations, which overseen the sanctions, have estimated that they have contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. By 1998 Iraqi infant mortality had reportedly risen from the Pre-Gulf War rate of 3.7 percent to 12 percent. Inadequate food and medical supplies, as well as breakdowns in sewage and sanitation systems and in the electrical power systems needed to run them, reportedly cause an increase of 40,000 deaths annually of children under the age of 5 and of 50,000 deaths annually of older Iraqis."

Together, they both, the Muellers' and Gordon explained how much damage to the population the sanctions had caused.

2nd Contention:

Economic Sanctions can reduce the amount of resources the foreign country that its used upon has. Mr. Bossuyt2 had words to describe this, using an example from the country of Burundi. He had the following to say:

"While the sanctions were in place, serious shortages of fuel, spare parts, medicines and fertilizers were experienced, with corresponding dramatic price increases and inflation. Commerce and industry were paralyzed by the lack of raw materials and spare parts, unemployment skyrocketed and incomes plummeted. Agriculture also suffered because of the shortage of seeds and fertilizers.
Development assistance, approximately $250 million annually, was cut off and foreign currency reserves were exhausted. Burundi's health infrastructure was heavily hit, and the inability to obtain even emergency medical supplies led to severe shortages of medicines and vaccines. Sanitation and water programs were scaled down or eliminated. Humanitarian aid agencies were left helpless in the face of escalating need and increasingly difficult working conditions - the World Food Program (WFP) alone was distributing emergency food assistance to an average of 218,000 people each month in 1998."

Thus, it proves how Economic Sanctions are proven to reduce the amount of resources for a foreign country it is used upon. Therefore, it connects to my first contention as a means of causing deaths as my next card provides.

Cotright and Lopez gave a brief talk about both resource reduction, and deaths in the case of the Iraq Sanction. They had the following to say:

"Never before has a country faced such prolonged economic strangulation, with the value of lost revenues from prohibited oil exports amounting to more than $130 billion, industrial output dropping by 50 percent, inflation rising by more than 5,000 percent and per capita income plummeting to levels equivalent to those found in the poorest nations. Most critically at stake is the survival of the Iraqi people, especially the most vulnerable, who suffer doubly under the oppression of a totalitarian dictatorship and the grueling consequences of one of the harshest economic blockades in history. The social impacts of the Iraq crisis reveal a shocking human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people have died prematurely from the health disaster that has swept Iraq in the wake of war and during more than eight years of comprehensive sanctions. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported in 1996 that 4,500 children under the age of five were dying every month in Iraq from hunger and disease."

Thus, the resource reduction causes death in the population when they're put under a sanction. Thus, providing a link between the two contentions; not to mention the criterion of increasing quality of life.

With completion of my case, I look open to any clarification questions, and then the case of my opponent, along with their rebuttal.
tochter_aus_elysium

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this resolution and look forward to a productive debate. I will first present my case, then address my opponent's.

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I negate the stated resolution and intend to show that a wholesale dismissal of the use of economic sanctions in the achievement of foreign policy objectives is shortsighted and unnecessary. While economic sanctions are not the only instrument by which foreign policy objectives may be achieved (and certainly should not be used as such), they ought to remain available as an option in regards to foreign policy.

I accept my opponent's definitions of economic sanctions and foreign policy.

I reject my opponent's definition of "objective." While foreign policy does encompass military interests, it is limiting to simply discuss the impact of economic sanctions upon military targets. Indeed, foreign policy objectives may also include the protection of economic interests, human rights, and national security. I instead offer the Random House definition:

Objective: something one's efforts are intended to attain or accomplish

I would also like to present the following definitions.

Ought: to be bound in duty (Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary)

Achieve: to bring to a successful end; carry through; accomplish (Random House)

I believe that this is Merriam-Webster's definition of the verb "justify." I would ask for some clarification as to whether my opponent intends the defined word to be "justify," "justified," or if he equates justice with something that has been proven or shown "to be just right or reasonable." Furthermore, according to the provided definition, whatever its application may be, my opponent shall have the burden of proof in this debate.

My Case:

Value: Government legitimacy. Government legitimacy is the means by which a government fulfills its responsibility to those who it governs. Those responsibilities include the preservation of natural rights—life, liberty, and property.

Criterion: Natural rights—is the government doing what needs to be done to ensure these aforementioned rights?

Contention 1: Well-planned and designed economic sanctions with clearly defined objectives offer a more targeted and less costly alternative to war and have a greater impact than diplomatic talks alone.

A. North Korea
Diplomatic talks with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il over that country's development of nuclear weapons had been stalled for eighteen months when, in 2007, US officials froze select Banco Delta Asia accounts in Macao. This selective blocking of financial transactions brought North Korea back to the negotiating table. This is but a small step towards a nonproliferation agreement, but the restarting of talks caused by the narrow application of economic sanctions marks an improvement over the previous stalemate. The US government therefore satisfies the value of government legitimacy in that it used economic sanctions as a means to restart talks that would assure the safety of its citizens.

B. Iran
In February of 2007, the US Government enacted a trade ban against three Iranian companies known to be direct suppliers of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, a government agency known to be building weapons of mass destruction—that is, a nuclear bomb. Such an action resulted in no deaths on either side, but effectively blocked major sources of materials for Iran's nuclear energy program. By denying Iran the resources it needs to build a WMD, the US renders its citizens and the citizens of other nations safer from the threat of a nuclear bomb.

Contention 2: Economic sanctions used specifically or in conjunction with other strategies are an effective way of achieving foreign policy objectives.

A. South Africa
Multilateral sanctions, along with the threat of military action and increased instability within South Africa led to the fall of apartheid. While sources dispute the exact role that sanctions played in the end of apartheid, they were successfully used to end a system that violated natural rights and led to the creation of a government that would uphold those rights.

My Opponent's Case:

Value: I will assume something resembling the Socratic version of justice for this rebuttal; this may change pending clarification (see above). Socrates defines justice as giving each person what is due to him or her. In the context of modern society, one may assume that each individual is owed his/her natural rights—those of life, liberty, and property. My opponent attacks economic sanctions, but fails to provide any other alternatives.

A nation may use diplomatic talks to convince other nations to comply with its demands. This is an attempt to achieve a foreign policy objective in a way that causes minimal harm to the nations involved, and are therefore a preferred method for nations. However, recent events (Iran) indicate that diplomatic negotiations alone are not necessarily effective in achieving these objectives, therefore violating my opponent's value of justice. If talks are not effective, the quality of life is not improved and further fails to satisfy the criterion.

A nation may choose to take military action against nations who oppose them. How does this satisfy justice? How does the murder of civilians protect their right to life or give to them what is their due? It does not.

My opponent states that "the quality of life is hoped to be increased by preventing the downgrade of it by economic sanctions." A lack of failure is not a success; likewise, preventing a downgrade of the quality of life is not equal to an increase in the quality of life.

My opponent, as previously stated, has not presented an alternative to economic sanctions. A failure to act is not an option—if there is a need for sanctions in the first place, a failure to act will lead to a decrease in the quality of life in either the imposing or offending countries.

C1 and C2:

The gist of these two contentions is that economic sanctions should not be used because they unjustly cause harm to their recipients, and I will therefore treat them as one contention.

The people of an offending country may suffer as a result of economic sanctions—that is an acknowledged consequence of their use. I ask my opponent: would it be preferable to allow the continuation of the violation of natural rights by failing to act--in essence, complicity--or would it be morally justified to take action to rectify the issue, although doing so might result in harm?

In the case of Iraq, economic sanctions were applied too broadly with too little opportunity for humanitarian intervention. As per my first contention, well-defined and specifically targeted sanctions, like those used on Iran and North Korea, would be an effective method of expressing international displeasure at Iraq' invasion of Kuwait. Likewise, the imposed sanctions in Burundi were far too blunt, with a conceded disproportionate impact upon the poor and too small an effect to justify their use. Nevertheless, the poor performance of concededly ill-designed sanctions does not warrant a wholesale dismissal of their use. As I have shown, smart usage of sanctions can work.

(http://www.latimes.com...)
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
(http://www.africa.upenn.edu...)

I now stand for cross examination and any clarifications, followed by my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TheWheel

Pro

** Cross Examination **

1.) What about Government Legitimacy?
- What about Natural Rights?
-- What are you "actually" trying to achieve?

2.) As regards to your first contention, could there possibly be something more effective?

3.) As regards to your second contention... Sanctions used in conjunction with what?
- What have they been using in conjunction with Sanctions?
** End of Cross Examination **

Rebuttal:

** My Case **

1.) To extend my Values - "Justice," yes, does include those rights. In Modern Society, my opponent would be breaking justice, by taking away the natural right to Life. By taking away the right to life, they don't receive 'said' liberty, and property, either. Of course, discussing things may not ALWAYS work, but it is better than simply killing the innocent. By doing so, the real monster isn't the foreign country - it's the person/country who initiated the sanction. We may act on our own behalf, and at least try the non-harmful means of achieving them. Like my opponent said, try to talk it over. To get over the arguments, I will sum up my Values. I achieve my two values all throughout my case. First, my Value of Justice is clearly achieved by how I explained that I'm increasing the Quality of Life, and ESPECIALLY preserving the natural rights. With that, I hope to increase my criterion: Quality of Life.

2.) To extend my contentions - My opponent asks: "would it be preferable to allow the continuation of the violation of natural rights by failing to act--in essence, complicity--or would it be morally justified to take action to rectify the issue, although doing so might result in harm?" I simply respond: "Yes, it would." If we commit acts of harm, there can worse consequences than the harm the country expected. We cannot just assume the Sanctions will work, and kill people so the Foreign Policy Objectives can be attained. I ask my opponent: "would you be alright if you were in their place - you were an innocent live that was taken because of the need for a foreign country to achieve their objectives on your country? Would you?" And to get off my opponent's arguments, I shall further extend my arguments. My opponent asks for proof? I gave my opponent clear evidence on how even more deaths are being caused than those of war. My second contention clearly has proof for the Iraq Sanctions as well; inflation rose by 5000%, and income was an equivalent to that in the poorest nations.

** My Opponent's Case **

1.) To attack my opponent's values: my opponent never tells what they hope to achieve with these to values (Government Legitimacy & Natural Rights). You can remove their Criterion, due to, as I recently explained, am protecting it more than they are.

2.) Contention 1: I'd like to start off by clearing up the statement: "less costly," where money has no means in LD debate. But, I shall attack it with haste- When it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is if the Foreign Policy Objective is achieved. So... my opponent's talk about "money," can be disclosed from the discussion. To continue, my opponent briefly talks about war, and diplomatic talks. My opponent DOES infact refer to diplomatic talks, but never to war in his cards. Thus, we cannot know if war would have been more successful, as detach the money issue from the debate.

3.) Contention 2: My opponent discusses team-work to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. Doing such actions may make it worse for the Foreign Country in wanting to achieve the objective. Seeing as my opponent only has one piece of example of how it actually worked, we cannot thoroughly believe that it will work. With my opponent's results, why haven't most sanctioned foreign country's' used it?

I look open to any clarification/cross-ex, and my opponent's voting issues.
tochter_aus_elysium

Con

Response to Cross-Ex:

1. According to Locke, governments are created to protect the natural rights of people. Government legitimacy is important because it guarantees people their natural rights—those of life, liberty, and property, which are essential to humankind.

I'm unsure as to what my opponent intends for me to answer with the question "what about natural rights?" Natural rights as postulated by Locke are the rights to life, liberty, and property. I would also request clarification as to what else my opponent would like me to answer about natural rights.

(This question is also rather vaguely worded, so I will do my utmost to answer what I believe my opponent is asking of me.) I intend to argue a qualified negative. While economic sanctions are not always the best method to achieve foreign policy objectives, sanctions (or the threat thereof) should remain an option in a country's foreign policy "toolkit." This type of usage of sanctions, combined with diplomacy and etc., will maximize the preservation of natural rights, which are essential to humanity.

2. In some cases, the use of economic sanctions may not be the best option in achieving foreign policy objectives. As you have said, the Gulf War was a more effective way of ending Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That being said, because economic sanctions are not effective in all cases does not discount their use in some scenarios.

3. I'll address the two questions together, as they seem to be the same. Sanctions have been used in conjunction with diplomacy, for one. In the recent negotiations with North Korea, as shown in Card A for my first contention, sanctions have been levied against North Korea in order to bring diplomats back to the negotiating table. In the case of Iran, sanctions and the threat of sanctions have been used as bargaining tools in their nuclear disarmament program.

My Opponent's Case:
1) In the cases that I have provided, my opponent has failed to prove that the stated sanctions violated any individual's right to life. I propose the targeted application of sanctions like those used on North Korea in my first contention, card A. In C1(A), the Banco Delta Asia accounts that were frozen by the US government were used to fund bribes and gifts to Il's cronies.

My opponent mistakes my advocacy of the use of sanctions, I believe, for an advocacy of their blanket use. I do believe that if a diplomatic solution can be negotiated without the use of sanctions or the compromise of natural rights, diplomatic avenues of resolution should, by all means, be pursued. However, my opponent has conceded that diplomatic talks may not always work, but does not propose any alternative for cases where talks fail.

Let us, for the sake of argument, examine the case of North Korea. It has become rather evident over the past few years that North Korea is a) an unstable regime, b) wishes to have a nuclear weapon, and c) has taken steps towards achieving its goal of nuclear armament. These three factors pose a serious threat to the lives of people living in the United States and other Western nations. The US has engaged in talks with North Korea, but in 2006, those talks stalled. As my opponent has failed to offer any alternative but diplomacy, I shall assume inaction would be the only option remaining. How does allowing an unstable nation to develop weapons that constitute a grave threat to peace and security embody justice? By refusing to use sanctions, my opponent willingly disregards the lives of millions. This is not justice.

I rebut my opponent's contention that he increases the quality of life by not imposing sanctions. His contentions attempt to prove that the use of sanctions will downgrade the quality of life, not that their not-use increases it (see above paragraph on inaction). I have shown that in the scheme provided by my opponent, natural rights are not being preserved, but destroyed. My opponent's case fails to uphold justice or government legitimacy.

2. My opponent therefore (I'm inferring, as the answer wasn't an answer to the question asked) says that it would be preferable to allow the continuation of the VIOLATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS by failing to take action. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has directly contradicted his own argument. While he says that he would like to preserve the quality of life by upholding natural rights, he condones—no—advocates their violation.

As I have stated in my contentions, the sanctions usage I propose would not kill people—it would do the utmost to spare them. This question is a moot point in the context of my case—there are no lives taken in a well-designed, targeted sanctions like those in C1 A and B cards.

I have stated that Iraq represents a situation in which military action was less costly than the use of economic sanctions. I have made no claims that economic sanctions will always be more effective than war, nor vice versa. Nevertheless, the Gulf War is not indicative of a general trend—or if it is, my opponent has not provided any evidence to support that assertion.

My Case:
To clarify, government legitimacy is my value and the protection of natural rights is my criterion.

I have stated my intentions clearly in my response to cross examination. I have debunked my opponent's claim that he is protecting natural rights more than I am. My contentions clearly demonstrate that economic sanctions, when used properly, protect natural rights, thus ensuring government legitimacy.

C1:
My opponent misunderstands the conception of costly. I wholeheartedly agree that money has no place in Lincoln-Douglas. Costs, however, are not necessarily monetary in nature. I'm sure we can agree that human lives have worth, and loss of life is costly. I do not once refer to "money" in my contention, only to costs. I give you the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of costly: "entailing loss or sacrifice." Thus, the assessment of less costly still stands. The sanctions levied against North Korea and Iran resulted in no loss of life to either party, whereas war would have inevitably resulted in deaths. Although the results may have been the same, it is rather obvious that the use of sanctions is the less costly route.

Furthermore, my opponent fails to rebut the core of my contention, which is that well-designed sanctions, in conjunction with other methods, can be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. As such, the use of sanctions does protect natural rights and thus ensure government legitimacy. My contention still stands.

C2:
I have, in fact, given three pieces of evidence. My card A from the first contention also supports this claim. Sanctions have been used in conjunction with the threat of military force (South Africa) and with diplomacy (North Korea) to achieve tangible results (the end of apartheid and the restart of negotiations, respectively). In negotiations with Iran, the threat of international sanctions is also currently used to persuade Iran to stop developing a nuclear bomb. There has been no direct refutation of my contention, therefore it flows through.

I have showed that my opponent's case is flawed and logically unsound. He directly contradicts himself by claiming to protect natural rights while advocating their violation. Furthermore, his plan fails to satisfy the criteria of natural rights, nor does it increase the quality of life. He has failed to rebut either of my contentions, though I have shown that his are not relevant to my case. I have shown that the intelligent, targeted use of economic sanctions can be effective at achieving foreign policy objectives, thereby protecting natural rights, upholding government legitimacy, and enacting justice. I therefore urge you to vote neg.

I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate and look forward to his rebuttal and voting issues. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheWheel

Pro

Response to response-d Cross Ex:

* I thank you for clarifying your Value Premise.

* I meant, through the clarification necessity on their criterion, what do they wish to accomplish in their case? What about Natural Rights? What are you trying to do with them?

____

Discussing my case:

* My opponent is basically implying, in the first argument, that there is no win factor. Basically, doing "something" and doing "nothing" results in harm, not to mention deaths in the country.

* It is not, nor never, will it be my job to uphold their values. It is blantantly clear, and obvious, that if one action downgrades the quality of the life - the opposite maneuver will increase it. If we are not doing the damage anymore, than it will increase. The country may progress greater if never having it, causing the improvement of quality of life.

* I do not wish to damage, or hurt the quality of life. My statements merely said I will not allow the FURTHER violation, which would hurt the people more than help. If we did this, they would be worse off than without the sanctions.

* Sanctions cannot always be well-planned, and can cause unintended deaths. Thus, you cannot fully trust in no harm, and you may believe in possible harm. With that said, they cannot be applied.

__
Opponent's Case:

* I rebring to my opponent that they cannot always be used properly, and may be misused. Given that concept, you cannot truly trust them. Therefore, not ensuring Government Legitimacy.

* For the first contention, my opponent gives examples on NK & Iran. However, there can be different results. As in the Iraq Sanctions and War, the Sanctions caused more deaths than war - thus, the death factor can be differential.

* My opponent fails to say, seeing as he is proving they do not cause deaths when used correctly, if there were deaths in the SF Sanctions. We can't trust it when we don't know if it's true.

__
Voting Issues:

Scenario-
* NEG World: More people die everyday in Sanctioned Countries due to deathtolls surpassing that of War. People die due to a low quality of life, and unavailable health supplies (Medicines, Vaccines, etc.), not to mention food and water.

* AFF World: The People in Foreign Countries have a higher quality of life due to them not dying, and having the right amount of supplies for life.

__
Cont. Voting Issues:

* My opponent state their values, but never gave a definite description of what they plan to do about Natural Rights. Thus, you cannot go on what they say.

* My opponent is basically making an assumption that the sanctions will be well-thought out, and used properly due to previous sanctions. Therefore, you have no true way to know for sure if you can trust the sanctions to work without major harm, thus you should negate them.

* My contentions thoroughly prove the damage they CAN cause, thus stating why it harms the Quality of Life. Thus, I'm increasing it by not allowing the Sanctions to be out.

I look to you, the judge(s) to Affirm.
tochter_aus_elysium

Con

I will provide a brief rebuttal to my opponent's case, then restate voting issues:

Cross-Ex:

Government legitimacy calls for the upholding of natural rights. That has been my stated objective since the first round.

My Opponent's Case:

*I am stating explicitly that in some cases, doing something--using sanctions--is better than doing nothing, which is what my opponent advocates.

*While my opponent is not obligated to uphold my values, he values quality of life, which he has agreed encompasses natural rights. It is therefore his responsibility to uphold natural rights, which is coincidentally my criterion.

Furthermore, it is not "blatantly clear and obvious that if one action downgrades the quality of life, the opposite maneuver will increase it." For example, in a country in which the government violates human rights, the imposition of a sanction may downgrade the quality of life for a few, but allowing the continued violation of human rights by not imposing a sanction downgrades quality of life as well. Claim refuted.

*My opponent claims that it is not his intent to damage the quality of life. Intent, though, means nothing. He has shown during questioning that the actions proposed by his case will downgrade the quality of life.

*Nothing can ever be perfectly planned, but in cases where the very real and present risk of doing nothing and allowing a severe loss of natural rights outweighs the possible risk of imposing a sanction, the risk of imposing an imperfect sanction is one that may be taken.

My Case:

*See above rebuttal.

*I have accepted my opponent's case of Iraq's sanctions as an example of a wrongfully imposed sanction. I repeat, I AM NOT advocating economic sanctions as some sort of foreign policy panacea. I am simply arguing that certain applications of sanctions are effective and morally sound, and therefore sanctions should remain open as an option in foreign policy.

*In the literature I read, there were no recorded deaths from the South Africa sanctions.

Voting Issues:

I have showed that my opponent's case is a case study in self-contradiction. Furthermore, his plan fails to satisfy the criteria of natural rights, nor does it increase the quality of life, which, as he has stated, include the protection of natural rights. He has failed to rebut either of my contentions except for through peripheral attempts on minutia. His contentions are irrelevant to my case and should not, therefore, be considered. I have shown that the intelligent, targeted use of economic sanctions can be effective at achieving foreign policy objectives, thereby protecting natural rights, upholding government legitimacy, and enacting justice, whereas my opponent would willingly allow the further degradation of natural rights through inaction. In light of this, I therefore urge you to vote neg.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Very good debate. Just try to keep a calmer tone. Effective arguments come from a rational person. You both were close to condescending. I say this because I get told periodically not to do the same, so I know what condescending looks like. But otherwise, very nice!
Posted by tochter_aus_elysium 6 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I was at our first league debate tournament yesterday night and discovered that several debaters were using my and my opponent's cases from this debate. In debate, imitation is NOT the sincerest form of flattery. I don't have an issue with anyone using these debates as a reference while crafting their own cases, but I do see that there's an issue when they've been shamelessly plagiarized. Write your own cases, people. 1) It makes the debate more fun. 2) Your opponent will NOT be able to anticipate your case.
Thanks!
~tochter
Posted by idkmybffbill 6 years ago
idkmybffbill
Thanks so much! (:
Posted by tochter_aus_elysium 6 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
Yes, it was. Strictly speaking, the foreign policy objective of preventing Iranian nuclear proliferation has yet to be achieved, but the targeted sanction does make it significantly more difficult for Iran to build atomic bombs.
Posted by idkmybffbill 6 years ago
idkmybffbill
In the Con's NC, was the Iranian example an example of "targeted" sanctions?
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
PRO states in round 2, "When it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is if the Foreign Policy Objective is achieved."

I think it was rather foolish since this would seem to give CON perfect grounds to argue against the efficacy of sanctions.
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
I apologize for the abrasiveness of my earlier comment. Hadn't had my coffee yet

Though your point is valid, I'd contend that with you being in negation of the resolution, and your near absolute focus on the effectiveness, you do not provide ample argumentation against the resolution.
Though the impact on whether or not they should or ought be used is great within the spectrum of effectiveness it is not a definitive point.
The affirmative didn't touch upon it enough either in my opinion..
Now on to the semantic argument. The evaluative term of ought expresses at least a duty and at most a moral obligation. The limiting phrase of "To achieve foreign policy objectives" provides a clear boundary of only economic sanctions used as a means to the ends of foreign policy. Now the pragmatic argument of effectiveness, though it has a place, does not address the evaluative term, nor does it (Pertaining to this specific debate) address the limiting terms. At no point can one contend affirmation or negation without directly addressing the evaluative term (In this case ought) and the plethora of issues that it includes.

Now on to clarifying my stance on this debate.
Both sides presented well thought out arguments in a clear manner. The style of this debate, though appreciated, is not the style that makes me smile.
The value premises were nice.
Posted by tochter_aus_elysium 6 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
<snark> Your praise knows no bounds, kind sir. </snark>

I think it would be fair to say that if sanctions were ineffective, nations ought not to use them. While the effectiveness of sanctions is not the whole of the resolution, their effectiveness is an issue that does have a significant impact upon both sides. Either way, I'd like to hear an expansion upon your point. Thanks!
~tochter
Posted by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
Glad to see your completely disregarding the evaluative term of the resolution.
Very nice. (Sarcasm)
weather or not we ought to use them is the point. not weather or not they are effective.
just saying.....
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by tbtaylor 6 years ago
tbtaylor
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by trdegreen 6 years ago
trdegreen
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tochter_aus_elysium 6 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by snake 6 years ago
snake
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by idkmybffbill 6 years ago
idkmybffbill
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ds3020 6 years ago
ds3020
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
TheWheeltochter_aus_elysiumTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05