The Instigator
missmarley
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
bambiii
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points

Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/1/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,165 times Debate No: 10632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (62)
Votes (13)

 

missmarley

Con

This topic is the current resolution for Lincoln Douglas Debate. Therefore, I ask it remain in LD format.
Only take this debate if you understand the LD format as well as the topic. Thank you. I will begin on Neg, and await an opponent on the Aff.

I negate the resolution, resolved: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Before proceeding I provide the following observations.
One: In order to remain relevant and concise to the resolution, the foreign policy objective will be generalized as an action or precaution in response to another nation's wrongdoing or threat of aggression.
Two: The negative upholds economic sanctions, only if there is a warrant or reason to do so, in order for economic sanctions to remain as a justified action.
This follows the Just Cause principle which states "A state may launch defense only for the right reason. The just causes most frequently mentioned include: defenses against potential attacks; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected…"
Therefore, economic sanctions are only supported if there is a just cause, a potential harm or wrong-doing present.
I accept the definitions of my opponent, but reserve the right to later clarify in the round.
For my value I choose national security
National Security is the condition of the nation, in terms of threats, especially threats from outside. One of the major jobs of the federal government is to ensure the security of the nation.
(defined from history central.com)
A government always looks to its own security as the paramount value, therefore, we should as well. A nation is concerned only for its own citizens, not others.
As I've stated earlier in my case, I only uphold economic sanctions if there is a justified warrant or reason to do so. The general reason that a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, and such measures.
In order to ensure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banning trade keeps the threats out.
Economic sanctions are also used in response to threats of aggression, by banning trade, the sanctioned nation will be pressured to eliminate their wrongdoings.
By enforcing economic sanctions, a nation prevents harms to itself, because a government is concerned only for its own safety. The nation they sanction will be punished for their wrongdoing, thus influencing the nation to drop its threats.

For my value criterion, I choose that of government legitimacy.
Government legitimacy is the means by which a government fulfills its responsibility to those who it governs. Through national security we best achieve government legitimacy; by using economic sanctions for reasons earlier stated.
I proceed to support my case with the following contentions.
Contention One: Economic Sanctions are the most efficient option towards threats of aggression.
The only other alternative to economic sanctions is warfare.
Unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, this remains true.
-Warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions.
The implications of this official report are staggering! As of May 2002, the Gulf War casualties include 83000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to our nation. The official May 2002 Department of Veteran Affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as "disabled veterans". That reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991.
Joy Gordon writes "Since the program began [Economic sanctions] , an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions..."
Where is the greater number here?

Contention Two: Economic sanctions allow governments to protect themselves.
Sub point A: Threats of aggression justify economic sanctions.
The UN Security Council, empowered under Article 16 of the UN Charter to use economic measures to address "threats of aggression" and "breaches of peace," approved partial or comprehensive sanctions.
Sub point B: Why sit on our thumbs and wait for chaos?
Iraq seems to be a common example in this topic. Therefore, let us look at the present day war between the US and the Middle East.
The UNSCOM reported about the Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) that were held by Iraq:
"Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland.
Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war. "
With this warrant [threat of aggression] we sought to end the plan of WMD in order to maintain national security.

Conclusion:
We see that economic sanctions are our only alternative to warfare.
Warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions.
Economic sanctions against threats of aggression are lawful according to Article 16 of the UN Charter.
I remain on justified grounds, that economic sanctions are only upheld if there is reason and/or warrant, my advocacy may not be extended.
In order to minimize harm, eliminate threats, maintain national security, and evade hectic warfare, we employ economic sanctions.

I await the Affirmative opponent's constructive case and cross-examination!
bambiii

Pro

Trade creates the habits of freedom, to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institutions. Societies that open to commerce across their borders are more open to democracy within their borders. And for those of us who care about values and believe in values—not just American Values, but the universal values that promote human dignity—trade is a good way to do that" Because I agree with former President George Bush I stand Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Definitions:
Foreign Policy: the diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.
Economic Sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country (or a group of countries) unto another country for a variety of reasons. Examples are tariffs, trade barriers, import duties, and import or export quotas.

Value:
Free Trade.
Free Trade is basically what it says. It is a policy in which countries exchange goods, services, and money without applying restrictions or tariffs on imports or exports. (www.greeniacs.com/Glossary.html) With this definition of free trade, all countries trade equally and all countries prosper. The affirmative will prove that by not using economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives we will open the world to free trade and all countries will have some gain as a result.

Criterion:
Book IV of Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations.
Book IV is entitled Systems of Political Economy. In this Book Adam Smith argues that government interference in the field of economics creates inefficiency and higher costs in the future. He then goes on to explain the idea of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is the basic concept of why we act the way we do in an economy.
"Adam Smith assumed that consumers choose for the lowest price, and that entrepreneurs choose for the highest rate of profit. He asserted that by thus making their excess or insufficient demand known through market prices, consumers "directed" entrepreneurs' investment money to the most profitable industry." (http://plus.maths.org...)
The invisible hand leads us to a free market, which in turn will benefit the world as a whole. This idea will be demonstrated in my third contention. However, my first two contentions will give us an understanding of how economic sanctions don't work and the flaws that are within them.

Contention I:
1. The Economic Sanction on Cuba is a Foreign Policy Failure
A. In Daniel Griswold's article entitled "Four Decades of Failure: The U.S. Embargo against Cuba" he makes the statement that Cuba is no longer a threat to American or Regional security. Not only does the embargo against Cuba make Cuba's citizens worse off-the effect of political leaders taking any monetary surplus and using it in their best interest-it gives Castro a handy excuse for why his socialism is failing. For example he can complain for hours that his people are suffering under the embargo when his people suffer more under the policies that he passes.
B. The American Economy is injured as a result of the Embargo. As a result of the Embargo on Cuba, America is no longer allowing trade or tourism to come from them unto Cuba. By having the Embargo American firms are loosing, on average, $700 million to $1.2 billion a year. Also in Daniel Griswold's article, he states that by allowing U.S. tourists into Cuba we are allowing money to flow through Cuba. The money that is being spent in Cuba on tourism will come back to America in the purchase of farm goods.

II. Economic sanctions themselves are not enough to achieve foreign policy objectives.
A. The stated resolution wants us to believe that economic sanctions themselves, and only themselves, will be able to achieve foreign policy objectives. However, if we look to the embargo on Cuba we can see that there were two acts passed by the president, The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 and The Cuban Liberty Democratic Soliditary Act of 1996. The later act of 1996 punishes any foreign-based companies that engage in "wrongful trafficking in property confiscated by the Castro Regime." This act does not punish the Castro regime itself, however it punishes our closest commercial allies such as Canada and the European Union. This Act of 1996 was meant to be used as a foreign policy tool however it failed to have any result but to punish our allies and us. However the act of 2000 allows cash only sales to Cuba in the form of farm produce and medical supplies. This act itself helps boost our economy because as stated in my contention I point B we were loosing money because of the sanction itself. Economic Sanctions themselves do not work as a foreign policy tool because as previously stated there will be acts and laws passed to help engrain the strain that the sanction is to put on the desired country.
B. Note the plurality of the word "sanctions" exactly how many do we need to imply to achieve our foreign policy objectives? Just one? Maybe two? Ten tops. The point is that with the lack of clarity in the stated resolution we are using other countries as our little play dolls to show the rest of the world just how powerful the United States is.

III. By getting rid of Economic Sanctions we can promote stable government and better achieve our foreign policy objectives.
A. If we look to the economic sanction on Cuba we see that all the sanction does is harm the citizens of Cuba and not the enemy we were trying to target: Castro himself. The Castro has set up a specialized form of Socialism that is unique to him and his country. However if we get rid of the sanction we will see that it will not be a win for the Castro himself, "It would be an overdue acknowledgement that the four-and-a-half decade embargo has failed" (Daniel Griswold). However, by ending the sanction on Cuba we will not be ending the fight to help the Cuban citizens. With the sanction lifted the United States will once again allow trade and tourism back into Cuba. By allowing both trade and tourism back into Cuba, we can undermine Castro's authority from below.
B. With the extinction of the Socialism Castro created; Cuba will be open to a form of democracy that will allow it to open itself to free trade. With Cuba accepting Democracy as their form of government, they will become more politically stable and grow as a nation. With political stability, foreign policy objectives will be easier to discuss and enforce without the worry of unstable countries rebelling against any objectives that are carried through.

Conclusion:
Given the stated information I have presented today you can see that economics sanctions themselves can result in failure, are not enough, and by eradicating them we will better achieve foreign policy objectives. I have demonstrated reasonable doubt within the resolution without attacking my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
missmarley

Con

Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct?

Can a government impose taxes?

Do any countries of the current day use free trade?
If so… State All Nations.

Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct?

If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade?

What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding?

How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives?

How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically?
Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.)

Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit?
Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition?

If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well?

You state "By allowing both trade and tourism back into Cuba, we can undermine Castro's authority from below."

How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…?

How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism?
What is the link there?

Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present?
(Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?)

A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct?
bambiii

Pro

Answers to her previous questions:
Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct?
Yes.

Can a government impose taxes?
They can but should they?

Do any countries of the current day use free trade?
If so… State All Nations.
Yes they work with other countries. Look to Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 31 July 1975- renamed 2 November 2005 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) AANZFTA ASEAN Plus Three African Free Trade Zone (AFTZ) East African Community (EAC) Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Southern African Development Community SADC) Southern African Customs Union (SACU) Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 5 August 2004 Central American Integration System (SICA) Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ) European Economic Area (EEA) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement (CISFTA) - 15 april 1994 Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) - 29 March 1996 Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) - June 1957 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) - 18 February 1960 Andean Community (CAN) G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) Mercosur (Mercosul) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)… all of these agreements and unions are currently operating under free trade.

Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct?
It depends on what trade you are considering. Are we talking legal trade or illegal trade? They could have the power, however they do not have the authority because they are the government and trade is part of the economic sector of the United States. If the government were to control all trade we would be nothing more than

If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade?
Who said some countries were harmed by free trade? Everything has negative potential. However the degree to which the negative potential is seen is what matters most. Free Trade has a lesser degree of negative potential than what economic sanctions have. So therefore free trade is a better option.

What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding?
Government funding would not be affected because free trade has no government interference. If anything free trade would create jobs and help the environment.

How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives?
By having free trade we allow all countries to grow to some degree and we eliminated unstable governments. By having all stable governments we will be able to achieve what we need without having to worry about the random country that is about to fall back into communism…you know who you are.

How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically?
Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.)

Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit?
Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition?

If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well?
No because industries are different from the one you are talking about. I am going to guess you meant business. However to answer your question, the trade will be done throughout the entire world. The investment of a few entrepreneurs into one industry will be miniscule compared to the entire world.

How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…?
it does so by allowing the citizerns of cuba to gain the money they need and freely trade with the united states to be able to purchase the materials they wish at a cheaper price than having to go through the castro himself.

How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism?
What is the link there?
it would in Cuba because as previously stated we would allow the citizens to purchase goods that are cheaper from other countries and just by doing that, we are taking away income from the castro himself. By taking away a majority of his income we will then continue to criticize his government until it finally collapsed.

Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present?
(Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?)
Because as I stated in my case we would undermine his authority and as previously stated we would criticize his government. Within time the citizens of Cuba would overthrow his socialism and replace it with a much more stable form of government. Democracy is the most common kind of government with the most benefits. It is also one of the most stable forms too. And of course I got a quote from the Castro himself, I went to Cuba asked him and he gave me a quote about his demise. It was especially hard because in the current embargo one cannot travel to Cuba unless they are of Cuban decent. And I am merely German.

A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct?
Depends on the nation.
____________________________________________________________
Now time ask questions :)

What exactly is a right reason?

Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon?

Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars?

Are all laws just and right?

Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them?

Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough?
Debate Round No. 2
missmarley

Con

What exactly is a right reason?
~For economic sanctions... I stated "breaches of peace" or "threats of agression" also outlined by Article 16 of the UN Charter, in my case.

Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon?
~It depends on the citizens...

Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars?
~First of all, children are still people. Second, MEN and WOMEN die in wars, who are still people.

Are all laws just and right?
~Depends what your political views are... Generally, yes.

Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them?
~Depends... are there anymore countries that threaten national security?

Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough?
~No...I uphold them for a reason...?

I move on to rebut my opponent. By attacking my opponent's case through line-by-line.
I'll begin with my opponent's definitions.
I agree with the foreign policy definition, but as I have stated in my Observation One: "foreign policy objectives will be generalized as an action or precaution in response to another nation's wrongdoing or threat of aggression."
Therefore we only act towards a threat of aggression, which I explain in Observation Two and other points of my case.

I agree with the definition of economic sanctions, although my opponent claims it is too vague to decide HOW MANY we place exactly.
This isn't very relevant, whether it is plural or not we still look to one definition, and see that a government can limit as much as it wants within justifications…

My opponent's value is that of Free Trade.
According to the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), the greatest danger of globalization is that it allows corporations to act without accountability, thus enabling them to victimize the poor. In "How to End Poverty: Making Poverty History and the History of Poverty" (http://www.navdanya.org..., March 28, 2005), Vandana Shiva contends that the concept of poverty embodied by the globalization movement is mistaken because it is based on the notion that "simple, sustainable living" is the same as "dispossession and deprivation." According to Shiva, the globalization movement's focus on consumerism (selling products to people through free trade) denies people in traditional cultures the ability to support themselves by growing their own food, making their own clothing, and otherwise providing for themselves. Shiva further maintains that when corporations and industries take land from self-sustaining cultures, they actually push those people into poverty by depriving them of the resources they need to survive, thus causing dependence for the nation, weakening the country, and their economy.
Also, this has no moral link to the resolution as to why it is a considerable alternative. Therefore, we look to warfare or economic sanctions to stay relevant to the resolution.

Her value criterion states that government interference ruins trade. This isn't relevant. The affirmative's burden is to prove why economic sanctions are not moral. Economic sanctions are going to harm an economy in the first place, because they restrict trade...that is the point.
Her third contention also doesn't show how she has a worldwide benefit of free trade.
C1) My opponent states (because of economic sanctions) "Castro has a handy excuse for why his socialism is failing"
Lack of funding is sure to bring down socialism, of course.
But let's look at both sides of the story.
The US posed ES towards Cuba first of all (above evidence)
Castro's Cuba is a prime example of a nation developing such unconventional or asymmetric methods of challenging or threatening the United States.
March 31, 1998 edition, of the Washington Post addressed the topic of the threat from Cuba, stating " Cuba has one of the most sophisticated biotech and pharmaceutical industries in the hemisphere. Because lethal biological materials can be produced by countries with biotech industries, it is difficult to determine when a country moves from simply having the capability to produce deadly viruses, to the intent or plans to do so".
Given Castro's proven instability, ongoing anti-Americanism, and proximity to the U.S., it would be an unacceptable mistake to underestimate his capabilities or his intentions. A report submitted by the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment in late 1995 identified Cuba among seventeen countries believed to possess biological weaponsIn an appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January, 1998, Louis J. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated " State sponsors of terrorism include Cuba".
It has long been a concern also in the scientific community that Soviet scientists led the world in development of Radio Frequency weapon technologies. The Soviet Union had a large and diverse RF weapons program and this work continue today within FSU countries. It is well known the close technical and military relationship in this field between the Soviet Union and Cuba. The relationship includes the establishment of the Lourdes' electronic espionage base, operated in Cuba by the Russians, and most recently, the construction of a similar base in Bejucal, operated solely by Cuban personnel.
Because Castro's Cuba is a remain threat to the US, the US is justified in attempting to ban trade, and weapons from Cuba. A government is always justified in protecting its people from threats with maintaining its national security.
Castro continues with threats of aggression towards the US, thus justifying economic sanctions.
All of her evidence revolves around Cuba and US economic sanctions.
I proved why it is justified for the US to sanction against Cuba. Therefore, all of her points that rely on Cuba's situation fall.
Subpoint B of her first contention states that we are harmed because of the economic sanction with Cuba. She offers only free trade against economic sanctions, I already showed why free trade promotes globalization and poverty.
Warfare is the only alternative that stands in the round.
The Cold War involved with Cuba costed more than economic sanctions costed the US economy...
"Total cost of the Cold War (1948-1991) = $13.1 Trillion.
Average annual military spending during Cold War = $298.5 Billion.
Average annual military spending during peacetime Cold War (excluding Korean Vietnam War years) = $285.4 Billion.
Martin Calhoun, Senior Research Analyst, July 9, 1996."
Compare this to her economic sanction harms and we see that economic sanctions are obviously worth it compared to the warfare costs.
Her C2) Sbpt A states that Economic sanctions cannot be justified because they cannot achieve foreign policy objectives. I stated in my Observation 1. We generalize foreign policy objectives as a response to threats of aggression, that is the only time they are justified, that is only when the negative upholds them, and my advocacy does not extend beyond that.
Her C3) She states by allowing free trade and removing sanctions with Cuba we can make Castro's socialism fail.
She states in cross examination if citizens can tour and trade with the US Castro will loose income.
If the citizens can trade with the US so can Castro's diplomacy. Second, socialism is an economic system based on state/diplomacy's ownership of capital. Therefore, Castro isn't effected at all, and will still be able to control Cuba's industry. As well as remaining a terriorist threat and carrying missles, threatening national security.
Castro's diplomacy never agreed upon democracy... therefore her subpoint B falls.
I conclude:
A government is morally justified in maintaining its own national security.
Governemt is empowered to control trade and tax.
All Cuban evidence has been warranted (why the US is justified in sanctioning see above) therefore all Cuban defense and points
bambiii

Pro

I will be going through the negative case, through the affirmative case, and then on to points of crystallization.

In Her case she states, "A nation is only concerned for its people, not others". However in an article written by David Griswold for the Cato institute, he says that the Economic sanctions are put in place not only to help eradicate the government that is currently in place but also to protect the citizens of the country from the government. Therefore we are concerned for other people and her observation II falls.

In her contention I she states that 500,000 children have died as a result of the economic sanctions. She even goes so far as to tell you that warfare causes more deaths than economic sanctions themselves. I have provided non-violent alternative to the economic sanctions. Therefore I have provided reasonable doubt within her contention I and it falls.

In her Contention II sub point A she addresses the idea of "threats of aggression" and "breeches of peace" being the reason as to why we should use economic sanctions. But tell me this, when is the last time Cuba has threatened us or breeched our peace? Economic sanctions themselves are nothing but a political tool to look powerful amongst all the other countries. If we look to David Griswold's article he gives examples of much more openly threatening countries that should have sanctions but because of their standing with the United States, they do not receive these sanctions. One example he gives is china. China is having serious inner turmoil that can and will threaten the United States. However, because China is currently third in the world for total exports and imports, China does not receive the sanction because China is such a large part of our economy. Because economic sanctions have taken a turn to the political side, you can no longer trust them to be a reliable source.

In her sub point B for contention II she states "Why sit on our thumbs and wait for chaos?". Well you see, we already have. Look to Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is doing more to undermine national interest that both Cuba and China combined. Venezuela has also spent thousands of dollars to support any and all ant-American movements. So in her sub point B she wants to use the economic sanctions as a tool to prevent things from happening; however, what do you do once these things have already happen, like in Venezuela?

I Have provided reasonable doubt in both of her sub points in Contention II and I have also provided doubt in her contention I.

Moving on to the affirmative case.

She states that my value will victimize the poor. However, economic sanctions are already doing just that. If we look to David Griswold's article he states that Cuba has turned into one of the poorest nations in Latin America and that "…Cuba is only a poor and dysfunctional nation of 11 million that poses no threat to American or regional security.". She also goes on to state that my value is not an alternative to the sanctions: however, I must then question how is it not? My value is that of free trade. The resolution itself is that of one based on economics so by having a value that is also based on economics you can see similarities between both. My value is an amazing alternative, not only does it relate to the resolution but it is also a much more peaceful alternative than my opponents alternative which is warfare. Instead of killing men and women in warfare we will merely be trading with the world.

She also goes on to criticize my criterion saying that it does not relate to the stated resolution. However, as I previously stated, my criterion is also of economic background. My criterion is to uphold my value, and my criterion does just that. My value is free trade and it is upheld by Adam Smith's book entitled "The Wealth of Nations".

To my Contention I she is trying to make it seem like Cuba is still a threat to the United States. However, this is not true. In Daniel Griswold's article he directly states that "In a world still inhabited by a number of unfriendly and oppressive regimes, there is simply nothing special about Cuba that warrants the drastic option of a total embargo." Therefore we can look to the past and how the embargo affected Cuba like I did in my case; however, we cannot still say that Cuba itself still posses a threat. She also goes on to say that it is a government's duty to protect its people from threats. However, to what extent do we protect our people? Do we lets say, infringe on the rights of citizens of a foreign country because they pose some form of threat? No. The government can protect its people, but once it starts to infringe on the rights of other citizens it is immoral and wrong. In my sub point B she states that the cold war cost $13.1 trillion. This evidence supports my value as an alternative. Who knows just how much warfare will cost in this decade; however, free trade is as it says, free. Why spend exponential amounts of money when I have provided a cheaper, less violent, and clearly as effective alternative to economic sanctions?

In my contention II sub point A I have given examples of how economic sanctions do not achieve foreign policy objectives, you can find them in my case. However as she goes on she attempts to generalize foreign policy objectives, and this generalization does not go unnoticed. We cannot just lump foreign policy objectives together because each one is individual to its own situation.

In my contention III sub point B she is giving Cuba much more credit than they deserve. As stated earlier in my rebuttal Cuba is not the power they used to be.

She failed to hit on my contention II and sub-point B and contention III sub-point A. Therefore she must agree with all of those points and I have provided reasonable doubt within her case and have managed to solidify and back up my arguments, which she attempted to attack.

On to points of crystallization:
My value is clearly superior to hers. Her value is national security while mine is free trade. Not only does her value focus on domestic issues, it just protects us. Whereas my value focuses on worldly issues, is an alternative, and can help stabilize our economy. My value provides the most benefits and will affect everyone around the world.

My criterion is also clearly superior to hers. Her criterion is government legitimacy whereas mine is Adam Smith's book entitled "The Wealth of Nations". My criterion is superior in only one major way. Like any good criterion, my criterion upholds my value: which just happens to be the basic function of a criterion.
Debate Round No. 3
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alansson 6 years ago
alansson
Don't have time to read the whole thing (my debate on this topic is tomorrow morning ;D), but one thing I noticed.

In the 'con's' first speech, they said, "The stated resolution wants us to believe that economic sanctions themselves, and only themselves, will be able to achieve foreign policy objectives."

This is simply not true. ES cannot be expected to succeed on their own, and using them in conjuction with other methods, if justified, would uphold the affirmative side on this argument. We OUGHT to use them if they can be used morally/justly/whatever value you want to uphold.

They do NOT necessarily have to be used on their own, and the resolution never in any way implies this.
Posted by Shogla 6 years ago
Shogla
http://www.petersoninstitute.org...
Look for the US sanctions on Cuba. Emphasis on the plural. There was a time when we ended sanctions with Cuba (1989) However, we put the sanctions back on. (From 1960-Today, with the one exception)

Free trade doesn't bring down governments-- governments bring down free trade. And in the instance where free trade could bring down a government, that government won't use free trade. Additional note that suicidal behaviors are unnatural, very rare, and irrelevant.
Posted by jayme 6 years ago
jayme
"And when we open up free trade with Cuba, Castro's dictatorial power through the military will end? He had the power when there were no sanctions, and while there still were sanctions, so it can be assumed he will not give up his power just because Cuba got free trade with the U.S."

AGREED, when you really think about it. The in every debate aff's arguments make no sense. Just because you decide to give a country your money again and follow different kinds of sanctions does NOT mean you'll suddenly get your way.

Cuba's a stubborn little country. I doubt anything other than some serious hard power will get them to change.
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
I'd just run a cap K....
Posted by Shogla 6 years ago
Shogla
And when we open up free trade with Cuba, Castro's dictatorial power through the military will end? He had the power when there were no sanctions, and while there still were sanctions, so it can be assumed he will not give up his power just because Cuba got free trade with the U.S.
Posted by bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
look to my cuba example in my case.
that is the perfect example of when we need free trade.
that by using free trade to geet rid of government involvement we can undermine the castro regime.
becasue as i said when they cannot control the economy they have little control over the country.
that quote is only to be implied to nations like cuba that are politically unstable.
Posted by Shogla 6 years ago
Shogla
"...when they cannot control the economy they will have little control over their country"

And how will it do it's job now?
Posted by bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
no i believe the government should do its job
and keep itself out of the economy.
Posted by Shogla 6 years ago
Shogla
That, and her opponent needs to ask the question or otherwise it's related simply because she said so. However, because I love to play devil's advocate:"with free trade countries are more likely to prosper"

So your value is economic prosperity, which you are supporting with free trade? Also, you cannot use free trade in place of economic sanctions in relation to the resolution. Free trade will not change anything about FPO's, while economic sanctions will...

"free trade often gets rid of any unstable government that is in place
because they no longer have the ability to controll the economy
and when they cannot control the economy
they will have little control over their country."

Free trade/laissez faire means the government does NOT interfere with trade/economics, and referring to the above quote from you, this means when the government does not control the economy, it does not control the country as well... So following the chain, we should have free trade, and from that should not have government?
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
No problem =D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by emmons 6 years ago
emmons
missmarleybambiiiTied
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
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 CoachSafe12 6 years ago
CoachSafe12
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 cjl 6 years ago
cjl
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Shogla 6 years ago
Shogla
missmarleybambiiiTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 Jflooo 6 years ago
Jflooo
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by trdegreen 6 years ago
trdegreen
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
missmarleybambiiiTied
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 bambiii 6 years ago
bambiii
missmarleybambiiiTied
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