The Instigator
146190
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: 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: 1/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,895 times Debate No: 10778
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

146190

Con

Please do not accept this if you do not debate LD and don't the Jan/Feb resolution. I'll be the con and I'll await an opponent on the affirmative. Thank you.
studentathletechristian8

Pro

I thank my opponent for a highly unique topic. This debate shall be full of joy and interest.

My opponent creates two conditions as to whom can accept the debate:

1) the affirmative must debate LD.

LD - praise to God
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I do debate regarding praise to God. Therefore, I have met my opponent's first condition.

2) the affirmative cannot "don't the Jan/Feb resolution."

My opponent's second condition does not make sense. Since the statement does not make sense, it shall be disregarded. Thus, I have already met the second criteria. (Essentially, there is no second criteria.)

I am so excited to take the initiative and post argumentation. Thanks, Con! Great decision to depend on an online opponent for practice and possible learning for self purposes. Do not thank me, Con. I thank you.

I shall define key aspects of the resolution. My opponent has generally passed this burden to me, which deserves another "thanks" within itself.

Economic Sanctions - article created by Franklin Foer. "Economic Sanctions" is the name of the article, so it applies to the resolution's reference in its entirety.
http://www.slate.com...

ought - used to express duty or moral obligation. Since my opponent negates a negative statement, my opponent must prove why there is duty or moral obligation to use Economic Sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

It shall be up to my opponent to clarify foreign policy objectives. It would be unfair to define all the terms; I must not take advantage of my opponent's fantastic opening.

Economic Sanctions is an article created by one man, in his own perspective and bias. Why should it be used to achieve foreign policy objectives? It is my opponent's duty to prove this, which he has failed to do. He must be waiting to gather enough information to astound the audience with a response. I shall await.

Besides, my opponent is negating a negative statement. As Instigator, it is my opponent's responsibility to provide argumentation. The affirmative awaits an original and joyous argument from the opposing side.

Thanks for the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
146190

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

I negate the resolution Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

My value for this debate will be Societal Welfare, which is defined according to businessdictionary.com the total well being of an entire society. Societal Welfare is the paramount value in this debate because economic sanctions increase the total well being of an entire society by stopping human rights abuses, effecting regime changes etc.

My criterion for this debate will be Pragmatism, which is defined according to dictionary.com- a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. Economic sanctions are practical way of achieving foreign policy objectives because they are the middle ground between diplomacy and warfare. As the resolution does not state what the foreign policy objective is, we need to be practical and keep all options open.

I'd like to counter define some terms so as to clarify this debate:

Economic sanctions according to 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. My opponent's rationale for his definition of economic sanctions was that since in the resolution the phrase "economic sanctions" was capitalized it must refer to an article. This is silly, thus my definition should be accepted.

My opponents definition of ought according to dictionary.com was- used to express duty or moral obligation. I'd like to point out dictionary.com also has the following definition- used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc. Moreover, what is moral is subjective from person to person. What my opponent views as moral may not be viewed moral by me or vice-versa. Therefore, we should look at ought in accordance to the agent of action within this resolution which is a government.

Foreign policy from Merriam-Webster- the policy of a sovereign state in its interactions with other sovereign states

Objectives from thefreedictionary.com- an aim or purpose

C1: Targeted Sanctions have shown to be effective
According to George A. Lopez and Theodore M. Hesburgh, "Effective Sanctions," some of the most notable successes in this area have been in interdicting "blood diamonds" and related financial networks in seven African internal wars. They have also been used to effectively capture financial assets and lock down fake passport and travel networks belonging to individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in the first six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. With these four considerations integrated into their framework, smart sanctions continue to be used as effective tools for bringing about necessary changes of behavior in delinquent countries ( Sanctions were shown to be effective in South Africa stopping racial discrimination, human rights abuses, and the apartheid. Smart sanctions target specific areas in a target country's economy while still allowing humanitarian supplies and aid such as medical and food supplies to enter the country. Targeted sanctions have upholded my value of social welfare because they increase the total well being of an entire society by stopping human rights abuses committed by the target country's government.

C2: Economic sanctions are necessary because they are a middle ground
Economic sanctions serve as middle ground between diplomacy and war. A nation first tries diplomacy when trying to achieve a foreign policy objective. However, in many cases diplomacy fails because the target nation is unwilling to listen to diplomatic talks. For example, North Korea was testing nuclear weapons even though the United States had asked them to stop. War is the other extreme, which often results in more casualties and suffering than economic sanctions would. As no particular foreign policy objective is defined in the resolution, we don't know which of the three methods is most appropriate (diplomacy, economic sanctions, and war). Therefore, it doesn't make sense we get rid of sanctions. We must keep all the tools in the toolbox. We must keep every option open.

Now going over my opponent's side of the flow:

My opponent hasn't offered a value and criterion so as such I don't know what he is trying to uphold in this debate nor how he will achieve it. My opponent says quote on quote "Besides, my opponent is negating a negative statement. As Instigator, it is my opponent's responsibility to provide argumentation. The affirmative awaits an original and joyous argument from the opposing side".

According to Lincoln-Douglas rules, there needs to be a clash in a debate so both sides need to support their sides not just attack their opponents.

As my opponent as already used up his AC, we must now look towards is 1AR. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
studentathletechristian8

Pro

It appears that my opponent did not understand my argument.

As the first to post definitions and their corresponding sources, it is only reasonable that my definitions stay. My opponent specifically capitalized "Economic Sanctions," which led me to believe that he was citing an article. So, I found that article, gave its resource, and effectively put pressure on my opponent to prove why an article written by one man should be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Sadly, my opponent has failed to do so. As I was the first to define and the only one to provide direct sources, my definitions stand.

All arguments extended. Do not be swayed by my opponent's attempt to skip over the point of my previous post. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
146190

Con

I will defend my case, then move on to my opponent's case, and then voting issues

My opponent has not addressed my value, criterion, and both of my contentions. So they should all be allowed to extend. My opponent hasn't shown any effort in trying to debate the resolution. He states that because economic sanctions are capitalized that they refer to an article. However, if you looked at the January/February LD (Lincoln-Douglas) resolution, you would see that economic sanctions don't refer to an article. My opponent states that since he posted definitions first, we should accept his definitions. However, if my opponent truly knew how to debate Lincoln-Douglas format (which I'm beginning to highly doubt), he would know that the con is allowed to counter-define and show why there definition should be used. I already stated in the NC my rationale for my counter-definitions, which my opponent did not address. So therefore, my definitions should extend as well. Any new arguments regarding this in the 2AR should not be considered since according to Lincoln-Douglas rules, this is my last speech.

Moving on to my opponent's side of the flow:

In Lincoln-Douglas, you need a value and criterion to show what you're upholding and how you will achieve them. Again my opponent hasn't offered any, so when voting we must default to my value and criterion. My opponent hasn't offered any analysis or reasoning as to why we need to affirm the resolution, while I have shown why we need to negate the resolution. My opponent hasn't refuted my counter-definitions. All he states is that since Affirmative goes first, there definitions should be used. I have already refuted this point (see above). My opponent hasn't debated anything in this case, except the fact that economic sanctions were capitalized in the resolution, so therefore it must refer to an article. Once again I have said that you need to take a look at the January/February resolution and you will see that it doesn't refer to an article.

Voting Issues:

These are the reasons why you should vote for negation

1. My opponent doesn't have a value and criterion so we need to default to mine. All my opponent debates are definitions, but Lincoln-Douglas is a debate of values.
2. My opponent has not shown any analysis or reasoning as to why we should affirm the resolution, while I have shown why we need to negate.
3. My opponent has not addressed my case at all, so it must be assumed he agrees with me.

Thank you for this debate.
studentathletechristian8

Pro

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by litfuse55 3 years ago
litfuse55
This debate idea is good (I speak of this site as a whole), however it is too good in an aspect as there are no measures of time, so cases that might be spoken at a different speed are coming out in entirety where as they may not be spoken completely in a 6-3-7-3-4-6-3 LD format.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
@chsTG I'd still like pointers from you like you offered. I could probably learn a lot from you considering this is my first year of debating. I'm not in novice though.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
@ studentathletechristian8 LD is a well known acronym for Lincoln-Douglas...
Posted by chsTG 6 years ago
chsTG
I was a really successful LD debater. Everything is debateable. Watch TOC rounds on victorybriefsdaily.com if you don't believe me. If you establish a burden of proof and fufill it and the judge buys it you win. Values and Criteria are often helpful tools in establishing a burdens structure however one doesn't simply automatically lose by virtue of not having them.

ALso I was wrong about voting for him. Reading this debate just made me upset at life, haha. I apologize.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Guys, I have never "debated" before. I knew that Lincoln-Douglas is a type of debate structure, but I defined "LD" to mean otherwise.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
This debate is getting really dumb. I hope not everyone on debate.org is like my opponent.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
This is Lincoln-Douglas format, so you kind of need a value and criterion...but if you think otherwise, I can discuss it with you.
Posted by chsTG 6 years ago
chsTG
You are both dumb.

Aff your argument is somewhat clever and in a real round i might have to vote for you because the neg is just so taken aback. But I'd give you 0 speaks, why don't you just debate?

And Neg... are you serious? You could have handled that so much better. Not to mention I never ever want to hear someone who claims to be an LD debater say "you don't have a value or criterion so you lose" that's garbage. The only conditions for debate are the speech times. THe rest is debateable.

Seriously kid, if you want coaching hit me up. I was a successful LDer... your coach has taught you something dreadfully wrong.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
You didn't really state any arguments. All you did was define terms, which I refuted in my NC.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Once again, LD is an acronym for lincoln douglas. I don't have to define it as it was not in the resolution. And this was not a trap...you just tried to be amusing in your intrepretation. When I said only accept if you debate LD (lincoln douglas), that wasn't an argument. Since I'm the con, I go after the affirmative. Once again you have provided no value/criterion, as such you lose.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
146190studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO seems to show little interest in the debate, or that he has no knowledge of what a Lincoln-Douglas Debate is. For the time being, Pro has chosen not to give any arguments or counter arguments, but to defend a point about he defining definitions first, which of course does not make a definition stands as according to the rules of LD. For the least part, considering that both didn't provide as much arguments, CON certainly had a good start-up. My vote is as stand.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
146190studentathletechristian8Tied
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