The Instigator
AmbrahRenee7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Protagoras
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Protagoras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,262 times Debate No: 10690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

AmbrahRenee7

Pro

This is LD debate format , if any one would like to argue me the con side ? :) itd be greatly appreciated.
Protagoras

Con

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. (1)

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 "(2)

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.

--------------------
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) "Ought." Def. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print.
2) Nov 2006 Pol. Sci. Dept. Concordia, Ridgeway Ctr, "FALSE DICHOTOMIES: WHY ECONOMICS IS HIGH POLITICS" http://se1.isn.ch......? serviceID=47
Debate Round No. 1
AmbrahRenee7

Pro

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Protagoras

Con

Extend my points and have a great day.

- Protagoras of Abdera™
Debate Round No. 2
AmbrahRenee7

Pro

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Protagoras

Con

Extend my points and let there be sanctions.
Thank-you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
Ah, ok. That's fair.
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
I think the comment was in reference to the statement
"My position can be understood as two compatible but distinct negations of the resolution:"

I doubt he actually read your position as it doesn't seem like multiple advocacies.
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
Ah, thanks for the explanation. Apparently debate is much more faceted than I once believed. The one thing I still don't understand is in what way/s do I have "multiple advocacies"?
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
Essentially, it's unfair to have multiple advocacies because it skews different aspects of debate. In LD, there is a time crunch in the 1st affirmative rebuttal because you have only four minutes to respond to the negatives seven minutes. If the negative runs multiple advocacies, the aff has to beat back all of the neg's advos as well as beat back arguments against their own. This is often times near impossible and thus makes debate unfair. Fairness is a voting issue in terms of the round for a lot of different reasons that can be given.

Other things that mult advos cause is, for example, advocacy shift. That means that if the aff completely destroys one advocacy, but doesn't do so well against the other, the negative can just go all out for winning that one scenario and kick his/her other argument. It becomes impossible to predict what the neg will do and there's no way that there would be enough time to respond adequately AND beat back their arguments against your own case sufficiently in the time given.

"Theory" in and of itself is a theoretical interpretation of how debate ought to be based on arguments as to why this is or is not the case.
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
My opponent's account is no longer active?
Oh well.
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
I do not compete in "LD" debate. So would you mind explaining what "multiple neg advocacy theory" is?
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
I'll straight ref if you want, using analytics. I don't want my cases stolen, as well I'm sure they'd far exceed the maximum amount of words allowed to be used.

By the way, multiple neg advocacies bad theory has nothing to do with contradictions.
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
Goldstandardanarchist:

Why is it bad if they do not contradict? Or, do they contradict, if so, in what way?
Posted by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
Would you like to have a debate with me over this topic then? Certainly your knowledge of the "lit", will destine you a free win.

Challenge me to a debate.
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
If you think sanctions are "carrots", there's no way you've read the lit, or have any clue as to what sanctions really are. Fail.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Protagoras 6 years ago
Protagoras
AmbrahRenee7ProtagorasTied
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