The Instigator
stardb8er101
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Protagoras
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Protagoras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,633 times Debate No: 10571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

stardb8er101

Pro

First of all, thanks for accepting my debate, whoever it may be. I hope that we can have a very constructive debate. Oh, and sources will be posted in the comments.

I affirm, Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

For purposes of clarification, I offer the following definitions from Business Dictionary, and Webster's Dictionary 2009.

Economic Sanctions: Economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or demands. (Business Dictionary)

Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation. (Webster's Dictionary)

I would like to offer the value of Justice. Justice, which is defined as the quality of being just and right, is the core value of this round. Justice makes sure that we look deep into the moral and ethical issues of our actions before starting to carry them out. If justice is lost in the society, the society will not able to last any longer.

To accompany my value I offer the criterion of governmental legitimacy. A legitimate government is one that makes sure that the citizens of its own country are safe, providing them protection to their life and liberty. A legitimate government is also one that is just, and will also make sure that its own actions won't negatively affect the lives of the citizens of other countries.

C1: Economic sanctions do not adequately punish corrupt leaders.
Instead, the full brunt of the "punishment" falls on to the shoulders of the weak.

� The sanctions�against�Iraq,�and�the�massive,�long- term human suffering the have inflicted, have undermined this common view of sanctions. 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
as�a�result�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.
But the�sanctions�are�shocking�not�only�because�of�the�extent�of�the human�damage,
but�also�because�the�suffering�has�been�borne�primarily�by women,�children,�the
elderly,�the�sick,�and�the�poor;�the�state�and�the�wealthy classes seem to be inconvenienced,�but�are�otherwise�exempt�from�extreme hardship.
The impact is that sanctions are not adequately "punishing" the corrupt leader, instead, the leader can push the brunt of the blow onto the civillians, thus economic sanctions should not be used to achieve forein policy objectives.

C2 Economic Sanctions have only been effective about 5% of the time
The major empirical study of sanctions episodes in the twentieth century is Economic Sanctions�Reconsidered7,�which looked at over a hundred sanctions episodes�since�the�end�of�World�War�I.�The�authors�concluded�that�in�about�one-�‐third�of�the�cases,�the�sanctions�had�some�success�in�achieving�their�stated�goals.
However,�a�critic�of�those�studies,�Robert Pape,�argued�that�many�of�those�cases
were�overdetermined:�the�state's�conduct�did change,�but�there�were�other�factors
besides�sanctions,�such�as�military intervention,�to�which�this�could�have�been
attributed. If�we�consider�only�those�cases�where�there�was�some�success,�and
where�that�success�could�with�some certainty�be�attributed�to�sanctions,�we�are
left�with�less�than 5%�of�the�cases.�Thus,�by�the�most�optimistic�evaluation,
sanctions are�likely�to�be�ineffectual�in�two�out�of three�cases; and�those�more
critical�would say�that�we�cannot�attribute�any effectiveness to sanctions 95% of the time.
The impact of this argument is that sanctions clearly are extremely ineffective. So why should we continue using them when they dont' "punish" the corrupt regime, inflict suffering onto citizens, and are pretty much ineffective all together? Other alternatives to sanctions such as treaty talks and even war will be more effective at achieving foreign policy objetives.

Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's NC!
Protagoras

Con

If you are going to plagiarize, don't plagiarize Joy Gordon.(1) Thanks for the challenge. Commence debate.

--------------------
CON Position
--------------------

I negate the "resolved" and agree with the definitions minus the definition of "ought".

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ought is "used to indicate duty or correctness." Note that duties are not necessarily moral considerations. (2)

The duties of nations are politically rather than ethically grounded because it only makes sense to attribute moral agency to actors capable of choosing rationally between two courses of action, whereas nations behave as they do only through the aggregation of multiple individual's choices. Additionally, since value-laden statements have no empirical referents and moral rules cannot be objectively justified, shared agreement – whether explicitly or implicitly through the establishment of a political community – is a prerequisite for the assignment of duties and obligations.

Moral rules are only binding under conditions of reciprocity. While violence may generally be immoral, we accept self-defense because the attacker has disregarded the moral agency of the victim. Similarly, international politics is a self-help world. Because there is no central global authority to create and enforce rules for the behavior of nations, the sole obligation of states is to exploit whatever opportunities are available to secure their survival and thereby uphold their commitment to secure the rights of citizens.

Consequently, my standard is the principle that states ought to take whatever actions necessary to promote their security.

My position can be understood as two compatible but distinct negations of the resolution:

The first is a strict reading of the principle: because states must maximize their relative power while adapting to the flux and flow of the global community, no option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use.

The second formulation follows the first with a minor addition: economic sanctions are oftentimes an effective way for states to pursue hegemony.

Norrin M. Ripsman writes,
"Their optimism is bolstered by high profile cases of apparent sanctions success, such as Western sanctions against the South African apartheid regime. Moreover, as David A. Baldwin argues, sanctions can achieve important political objectives—such as deterring third parties from taking unwelcome actions—even if they fail to achieve their stated purposes "(3)

Even if, in the worst case, sanctions prove ineffective most of the time, it is often worth it for states to implement them because they have an extremely low cost and can become "carrots" to achieve other political goals. Sanctions require little or no troop deployment and minimal resource expenditure, making them a valuable option for powers on the brink of being overstretched. Additionally, sanctions are key to power projection even if they don't meet explicit goals.

--------------------
Answers to PRO position
--------------------

V: "Justice". The idea of justice is only applicable in the case describe if we were talking about an individual agent composed of only one rational mind. (ref. to my arg. regarding "ought"). Hence, the value of Realism is most applicable because it is a theory that clearly articulates the role of a governing body in the international sphere.

VC: "Governmental legitimacy".

I agree with the first half of a legitimate government and why it will protect its own citizens. However the part after that is err, erroneous. Ask yourself what would happen when the two are in conflict? What happens when a society is in danger? Is it then ok for that society to protect its own interests over that of another nations? Because his interpretation does not allow for us to determine a policy actions when two nations are in conflict, prefer the notion of realism.

Remember, realism indicates that a nation ought to act in its own self-interest. The reasons for this are stated in my "position". Thus, there isn't ever any stagnations in policy plans because the idea is not contradictory. Prefer my standard for these reasons.

C1: "Economic sanctions do not adequately punish corrupt leaders"

1st: My evidence above indicates that even if the sanctions are always effective, it is it is worth it for the states to implement a low-cost measure to save lives on their side.

2nd: My first argument indicates that no option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use because of the idea of realism.

3rd: My opponent talks about human rights atrocities, however economic sanctions are key to fighting back the human rights violations that are occurring in the target nation.

Katherine Hughes writes,
"Sanctions would also symbolize international outrage at the perpetration of gross human rights violations, demonstrating that the major powers of the U.N.[...] Such a message would deter other nations from committing similar human rights violations. The U.N.'s growing reliance upon sanctions over the past fifteen years and the lessons learned in the implementation of these programs provide a base of experience for crafting an effective program."(4).

C2: "Economic Sanctions have only been effective about 5% of the time".

1st: All of the arguments above regarding the efficacy of the sanction apply here still (ref. arg. 1 & 2).

2nd: My opponent's evidence relies on whether or not the explicit goal was achieved, however, the explicit goal may not be the actual one nor the only one.

Norrin M. Ripsman writes,
"[P]ublicly stated objectives may amount to no more than a smokescreen concealing the true purposes of sanctions. In his re-examination of British sanctions against Rhodesia, for example, Rowe (1999a, pp. 254-287) indicates that British leaders had not in fact desired to topple Ian Smith's regime with their oil embargo. Instead, they had merely wanted to send a signal of resolve to the African members of the British Commonwealth that would not be so strong as to invite retaliation from South Africa."(same as 3).

--------------------
Originality is crutch in this activity.
--------------------

I know you guys like to steal crap for your own little debates (as this has happened to me before), but please guys: Be Original. Plus, it's more fun when the arguments are your own.

- Protagoras is back (again)

Sources:
1) http://www.crosscurrents.org...
2) "Ought." Def. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print.
3) Nov 2006 Pol. Sci. Dept. Concordia, Ridgeway Ctr, "FALSE DICHOTOMIES: WHY ECONOMICS IS HIGH POLITICS" http://se1.isn.ch...? serviceID=47&fileid=6144E778-87B7-7760-48A3-485BC0B871D3&lng=en JMM
4) [J.D. Candidate, 2008, Fordham University School of Law] "NOTE: OPERATION ‘DRIVE OUT THE TRASH': THE CASE FOR IMPOSING TARGETED UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS AGAINST ZIMBABWEAN OFFICIALS" 76 Fordham L. Rev. 323 (2007) LexisNexis JMM
Debate Round No. 1
stardb8er101

Pro

OK, I really didn't plagiarize! I'm using evidence ! I've posted the sources , I'll post them again in the actual debate if you want! This is a case that I wrote a week ago. I'm playing with it in a round so I can know what I need to do to make this better. And these are my own arguments!
I will attack, then rebuild.
On his interpretation of the definition of "ought", he says that duties are not necessarily moral considerations. But even if you grant him the definitions, shouldn't we try our best to make sure that our duties are moral? Why should we take on a duty that is not moral? So ought should still be bound with some sort of moral conscience.

Standard: States should try to maintain their own security, but they should try their best to make sure that the least number of lives are lost. Why should the life of one country's citizens be valued over the life of the other country's citizens? Alternatives that have worked before such as peace treaties, negotiations and compromises should always be seeked first.

C1: A state's desire to maximize its power in the globe is just, but it should not forget to examine the morality in their method of maximizing power. His saying that a state should use every option possible to maximize its power is just like saying a business person should use whatever option possible to earn the most money possible. We have to examine the morality of our actions. Morality is always more important than achieving foreign policy objectives.

C2: One. He claims that economic sanctions are sometimes effective. His only example is of the one in Africa.
Ahem... Joy Gordon writes in Economic Sanctions, Just War Doctrine, and the fearful spectacle of the civillian dead:
In South Africa, for example, the external sanctions imposed on the country were accompanied by extensive political activity toward extensive political activity toward democracy inside South Africa. The factor contributed directly to the end of apartheid, and it is not clear whether the changes which finally took place were attributable to the sanctions themselves or to the political movements within and outside the country.

He claims that it is worth it for states to implement sanctions because they have a low cost.
One. Should money valued over the lives of citizens of the other country?
Two. False Argument. Donald Losman writes in Economic Sanctions: An Emerging Business Menace
Direct costs include the loss of current earnings when sales to a target state are terminated. Additionally, asset values may decline and lease revenues can fall. For example, because of Helms-Burton, an American company leasing aircraft was forced to get assurances from a Canadian airline that the airplane would not be operated in Cuba, resulting in the value of the lease falling by 1.5$ million annually. Simarlily, a number of American owned properties in Panama had to be sold at distress prices. If import restrictions are part of the sanctions package, it is also likely that higher cost substitue suppliers, either domestic or foreign, will have to be utilized.
Three. Even if you grant him the claim that sanctions have a low cost for the state implementing the sanctions, it is true that people suffer because of the implementation of sanctions. Why should we implement the sanctions knowing that it will hurt people, and knowing that it is not effective? Just for the cause of expanding power? The question comes again: Should foreign policy objectives be valued over morality?
My case
Value: He claims that Justice is only applicable if we are talking about an individual agent. He offers no warrant for this claim, and a government of a state is basically the individual agent, so justice is still applicable.

Criterion: When two are in conflict a legitimate government should always seek alternatives to economic sanctions. Alternatives offered above have succeeded many times more than economic sanctions, and have prevented millions from needless suffering. A nation should be aware of the morality of its actions. Just because a nation wants to expand its power doesn't mean it has the right to deprive citizens of another country their food and water. Gov. Legitmacy will always be preferred over realism.

C1: 1st: cross apply the argument that a nation shouldn't implement sanctions when they know that they are ineffective and will cause suffering just because they want more power.
2nd. Cross apply the argument that a nation should always examine the moral aspects of their actions. A desire for more power does not justify depriving citizens of another country their basic necessities.
3rd. Cross apply the argument that sanctions are ineffective most of the time, thus the human rights atrocities they are designed to prevent are not actually being prevented.

C2: His argument claims that explicit objectives are a smokescreen concealing the true purposes. Again comes the question of morality. We should never value a greed for power over the lives of innocent people.

Thank you, I didn't not plagiarize, and I look forward to my opponent's NR
Protagoras

Con

For the issue of whether she plagiarized, you may see the citations for her case in the comments sections.

--------------------
CON Position (rebuilt)
--------------------

My opponent makes a huge mistake by under-covering my interpretation of ought. Her response is a question, "But even if you grant him the definitions, shouldn't we try our best to make sure that our duties are moral? Why should we take on a duty that is not moral? So ought should still be bound with some sort of moral conscience."

What she doesn't attack, however, is the warrants that are apparent in my interpretation of "ought".

The first warrant is that the "duties of nations are politically rather than ethically grounded because...nations are a aggregation of multiple individual's choices". This means that IF the nation were to act "morally", then that nation would have to succumb to the morality presented by the sovereign. The issue with this is that every individual has their own distinct interpretation of morality. Thus, policy actions that are purely grounded in morality are impossible to implement because some sector of the sovereign body will be ignored.

The second warrant is that "value-laden statements have no empirical referents and [thus] moral rules cannot be objectively justified..." This means that absent some way to determine which morals are the best, the ideal government that my opponent has presented would be unable to engage in any political maneuver.

The last warrant is that "international politics is a self-help world. Because there is no central global authority to create and enforce rules for the behavior of nations, the sole obligation of states is to exploit whatever opportunities are available to secure their survival and thereby uphold their commitment to secure the rights of citizens". This is self-explanatory and this alone justifies my standard of "the principle that states ought to take whatever actions necessary to promote their security".

Standard: (ref. to my third warrant)

C1: 1st: Remember, that their is a distinct difference between a business man and a nation (ref. to my third warrant). The nation lives in a political sphere of anarchy (there isn't a global authority) and the nation has one obligation and that is to protect itself. The notion that the nation ha an inherent obligation to other nations (cosmopolitanism) has not been effectively warranted by my opponent due to lack of necessity for morally influenced policies.

2nd: My opponent still hasn't show you - outside of morality - why realism is not the best policy.

C2: My argument was very clear: Sanctions help hegemony. So then, her "Ahem...Joy Gordon" does nothing but help my cause. Her Gordon evidence indicates that the stated objective was not achieve, but rather that they may have been because of "political movements within and outside the country". Remember the Ripsman evidence indicates that, "sanctions can achieve important political objectives—such as deterring third parties from taking unwelcome actions—even if they fail to achieve their stated purposes". This means that even if the stated purpose was not achieved, the target nation changed their opinion of the sender nation, and this is all I need to win this point.

Costs:

Here my opponent doesn't fully take into consideration what I meant by "costs".

1st: The option is not money vs citizen's lives, but rather saving money AND citizen's lives. Remember "sanctions require little or no troop deployment and minimal resource expenditure, making them a valuable option for powers on the brink of being overstretched". This means that because sanctions equate to less military officials than the competing option of war, they cost less lives.

2nd: Economic sanctions, historically, have been utilized as the last resort. Oftentimes economic sanctions aren't even used, but we ought to have them as a "tool in the toolbox".

3rd: Regarding her Losman evidence. Her evidence does not falsify my claim. My claim is that economic sanction costs less than the alternative of war. This means that her evidence doesn't take into considerations the costs of war if diplomacy and other soft-power failed.

--------------------
PRO's case
--------------------

Value: The warrant for this was articulated earlier in my speech. "duties of nations are politically rather than ethically grounded because...nations are a aggregation of multiple individual's choices". This means that IF the nation were to act "morally", then that nation would have to succumb to the morality presented by the sovereign. However, as I stated earlier, this isn't feasible.

Criterion: The conflict that I was referring two was what do we do when the nation is at risk because another nation is threatening them? Does the nation protect itself, or does the nation do nothing because they might harm another nation. My opponent tries to paint a pretty picture, however the conflict is apparent and purely analyzing morality is not always the answer.

C1: These are all cross applications of arguments that I have already refuted earlier in this speech. Remember, the sanction causes less harm that other options and intends on preventing human rights crisis. (ref. to the Hughes evidence). Also, the idea of morality has already been answered, and so has the issue of efficiency. (ref. to the Ripsman evidence).

C2: Morality has been answered. Sanctions prevent genocide (ref. to Rwanda ex.), and other ideological conflicts (ref. to Hughes evidence), thus they are moral. Additionally, morality is not all that binds policy actions because there are no absolute notions of morality accepted by even the majority of the sovereign due to many competing nuances of moral theories.

It is thus for these reasons that it apparent that we ought to keep the option of economic sanctions on the table.

Happy Holidays,
- Protagoras of Abdera

Sources:
All sources have already been posted above.
Debate Round No. 2
stardb8er101

Pro

I will attack, rebuild.

C1: He says there is a distinct difference between a business man and a nation. But the situation of a business man wanting more money and a country wanting more power is very analogous. He says that a nation has an obligation to protect itself. I agree with that. But protecting one's own citizens does not mean implementing sanctions, because sanctions are ineffective. (see Gordon 5% of time evidence). So sanctions are an ineffective way of trying to protect one's own citizens.
Also, most of the time when countries impose sanctions, it is not for the purpose of protecting one country's own citizens, like the South Africa case. Recall that his first argument was that states should "maximize their relative power", and that "no option ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives." His claim means that sanctions aren't really a purpose for protecting a country's citizens, but rather a tool to maximize power.

C2: Sanctions do not help hegemony. Hegemony is defined (merriam-websters) as preponderant influence or authority over others. This is basically another claim saying that sanctions should be used to excercise authority over other countries and expand power. He states that if the target nation changed their opnion of the sender nation, it is all that he needs to win the second point. Refer to my Iraq evidence that citizens are hurt by sanctions. So changed opinion of the sender nation by the target nation, and expanded power justifies killing citizens in the target country? A major point of the debate is that foreign policy objectives (such as expanded power, authority, etc.) shouldn't be valued over morality. My opponent apparently agrees with this point since he drops it.

My case
Criterion: He states that a country should try to protect itself once again. But cross apply the argument that sanctions usually aren't used to protect a country. Also, if we look back a history, when the US placed a sanction on Cuba, the only thing that happened was that Russia strenghtened the bond between it and Cuba and sent all the needed supplies to Cuba (including nuclear weapons). This strenghtens the point that sanctions are ineffective and also refutes the point that sanctions aren't effective at resolving conflicts.

C1: Cross apply the argument that Sanctions do not prevent less harm. (Refer to Iraq evidence in Round 1), they actually inflict more harm.
Thomas G. Weiss writes in Sanctions as a foreign policy tool:
Long term damage from sanctions can be more deadly than warfare. Yet Short term suffering and long term structural damage can be as harmful as war. The negative impact on nutrition, health, and other social services as well as on basic infrastructure have been most thouroughly documented in Iraq, where sanctions have caused more deaths than Operation Desert Storm.
Sanctions INTEND on preventing human rights crisis. Since they are not effective (Gordon 5% evidence), they don't effectively prevent human rights crisis.

C2: Remember the drop on morality is valued over foreign policy objectives. The claim that sanctions prevent genocide and other ideological conflicts is false because they are very ineffective (Gordon 5% evidence).

It is because I refuse to let citizens die in the name of expanding power that I affirm the resolution, and urge an affirmative ballot.

Thank you Protagoras for this debate! :)

Voters: Could you post your reason for decision in the comments? Thanks! :)
Protagoras

Con

"Man is the measure of all things"
- Protagoras

--------------------
CON Position (rebuilt)
--------------------

C1: The argument regarding the businessman versus the nation was made very clear in my last post. The businessmen have a central governing figure, thus there is no hint of anarchy. For the businessman to do whatever is in his self-interest would be an unethical practice. However, nations do not have a central authority, thus they are forced to act in self-defense or in a manner than best protects themselves and their constituents. Merely throwing these two together as "very analogous" is a huge misrepresentation.

My opponent continues by saying, "he says that a nation has an obligation to protect itself. I agree with that.". The only thing that's different in our analysis is how we interpret what it means for a state to have an obligation to protect itself. My opponent says that the sanctions are ineffective but remember what I said in earlier posts:

1st: My evidence indicates that even if the sanctions aren't always effective, it is worth it for the states to implement a low-cost measure to save lives on their side. The alternative is worse.

2nd: No option – including the use of economic sanctions – ought to be off the table in their pursuit of foreign policy objectives. In short, there is nothing that governments ought not to do and no tool they ought not to use because of the idea of realism (she agrees with the part of realism that states ought to act to defend themselves).

3rd: My opponent's evidence relies on whether or not the explicit goal was achieved, however, the explicit goal may not be the actual one nor the only one.

Norrin M. Ripsman writes,
"[P]ublicly stated objectives may amount to no more than a smokescreen concealing the true purposes of sanctions. In his re-examination of British sanctions against Rhodesia, for example, Rowe (1999a, pp. 254-287) indicates that British leaders had not in fact desired to topple Ian Smith's regime with their oil embargo. Instead, they had merely wanted to send a signal of resolve to the African members of the British Commonwealth that would not be so strong as to invite retaliation from South Africa."(cited earlier).

4th: My opponent contends that I am trying to "maximize my own power", this is absolutely true, and this has been defended as a just action. I have already reiterated the warrants for why realism is preferable in my last post. Realism means that states ought to act in their self-interest. If a nation believes genocide is bad, then it is ok for that nation to impose an economic sanction on nations that are committing genocide. Simple.

C2:My opponent states that her Iraq evidence displays how economic sanctions do not help hegemony because I kill citizens. This argument is wrong on two levels:

1st: There's no connection between people dying and hegemony. Hegemony merely means that a nation will remain an international "super-power". I.E. If the nation continually expresses its views (such as anti-genocide or anti-proliferation), then said nation will continue to be a world super-power. Economic sanctions are key to achieving this end and it has worked in the past (ref. to Ripsman).

2nd: My opponent then claims that policies ought not be valued over morality and that I "apparently agree" with this point since I dropped it. However this is certainly not the case. I have three warrants for my interpretation of ought/morality that I listed in my last post. (ref. to last post: CON position: lines 4-15). These three points remain unanswered. Essentially, one objective set of morality cannot be consistently applied by a nation. Her way of interpreting policy-actions is not feasible. Additionally, if we can agree that genocide is generally an immoral actions, economic sanctions intend on spreading the notion that genocide is bad. Without an outward opposition against genocide, the nation is not "upholding its morals".

--------------------
PRO's case
--------------------

V: Extend my responses to her value. We are evaluating this debate through the lens of realism, not her notion of justice.

Criterion: Her one example still doesn't indicate why we ought to get rid of economic sanctions. Nations that have lost a war do not deem war as ineffective, thus no longer fight. We do not give up on diplomacy just because it has failed multiple times. The point is that we ought to be able to use these sanctions when we deem them as a necessary alternative to war. Furthermore, my criterion has been implicitly accepted by my opponent because she still does not give you an alternative theory to evaluate the round. Hence, my criterion regarding the exercise of realism is best for this debate.

C1:No news points were presented here other than efficiency which has been dealt with earlier in this debate. I will not be redundant.

C2: Morality has been dealt with as well (ref. to CON case).

It is thus because I refuse to: allow genocide to occur, allow the removal of a policy that can be effective, and deny the nation's authority to do whatever it takes to spread its ideals and protect itself, I urge a negative ballot.

Thanks for this opportunity,
- Protagoras of Abdera

Sources:
No new sources were presented.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmarley 7 years ago
missmarley
Both opponents did well!
The Negative has done a much better job with construction of claims, warrants, links, and impacts. It helps the case make sense, and it becomes stronger.
Also, when you use sources, always tie in the person/corporation to the evidence before quoting or even paraphrasing. It sounds complete and so on... (the Aff cases and rebuttals were a bit short? ...Character Limit doesn't look like a problem.. even if so, a name isn't that long.
Besides construction and format...
I really liked the "realism" argument. It works great on the negative side. Although it would have been nice to see a stronger link with realism and national security.
Also, the morality argument... I feel it should have been summarized just as "A nation is only concerned for its own welbeing, therefore morality holds no weight." The rest of the statements were redundant... The Aff really should work on making better arguments, study the topic!
It helps, and economic sanctions can be really unique.
When attacking a point, there should be a suffiecent analysis on the point, and then why it matters.
These are the main things I observed, I hope some of the comments were helpful! =)
Well done with this debate,
-MissMarley-
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Standards went to CON given that much of CON's rebuttals was a large amount of questions (with no stated answer) or unwarranted assertions. CON's rebuttals at this level were more clear and convincing.

Given that the standard was thus pragmatic rather than moral, I voted CON on his 1st contention, which negates the resolution regardless of other contentions.

Good debate
Posted by cbit 7 years ago
cbit
"Hey! I did not plagiarize! The "copied portion" is the evidence I am using to support my arguments."It's word for word. Doesn't matter if it's your "evidence" it's still plagarized. Paraphrase and give credit where credit is due, quote it/make it a card, or use a different source. Plagarism sucks. Don't do it. It makes you look stupid and it takes away the fun in debate. Be original. Aff's case wasn't well prepared or organized. And you should have more sources. Like, a page of them. Warrants?

Neg wins hands down.
Posted by goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
if you're going to use cards, at least treat it as a real debate and say "gordon writes"

I voted on the lack of pro's ability to extend his case, resulting in no offense whatsoever.
Posted by stardb8er101 7 years ago
stardb8er101
Additional sources used were posted in the debate.
Posted by Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
No semantics Protagoras?
Who do you think I am?
- Protagoras.
Posted by goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
pro, your rebuttal has no warrants in it.
Posted by stardb8er101 7 years ago
stardb8er101
Character Limit.
Posted by Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
Why don't you post the sources in your debate? j/w.
Posted by stardb8er101 7 years ago
stardb8er101
Sanctions work in less than 5% of time evidence:
Jay Gordon. When Economic Sanctions Become Weapons of Mass Destruction. Social Science Research Council. March 26, 2004

Poor, weak, women suffer most evidence:
Joy Gordon. Economic Sanctions, Just War Doctrine, And the Fearful Spectacle of the Civillian Dead. Cross Currents, Fall 1999, Vol 49 Issue 3.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
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 7 years ago
Nails
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 lucastrujillo975 7 years ago
lucastrujillo975
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Vote Placed by cbit 7 years ago
cbit
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 goldstandardanarchist 7 years ago
goldstandardanarchist
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 DrAlexander 7 years ago
DrAlexander
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
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 Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
stardb8er101ProtagorasTied
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