The Instigator
lucastrujillo975
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,235 times Debate No: 10651
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

lucastrujillo975

Con

I'll run neg if you want to debate this it will be in LD format...Please only except this debate if you are willing to actually debate and not forfeit ...thanks and looking forward to debating.
Nails

Pro

To avoid any potential case-stealing efforts, I'm just going to write up some quick arguments.

Ought is defined as desirability. Thus the negative has the burden to prove economic sanctions are desirable, else you err aff. Both sides have the burden to defend their side as a general principle in order to insure competitive equity. It would be unfair, for example, for the negative to only defend a specific sanction (or subset thereof) because there is no way for me to predict what he is going to advocate before the debate which gives him ample time to prepare and find sources and citations, while I only have the duration of the debate to do so.

Thus, we need to determine what constitutes sanctions as a general principle.

First, sanctions are most often unilateral.

"We see that 38% of the security sanctions are multilateral, versus only 10% of the non-security cases."
"In total, there are 99 cases where sanctions were imposed due to security related disputes, which corresponds to approximately 19% of the cases. In the remaining 423 cases, sanctions were imposed for reasons other than security."
[Navin A. Bapat & T. Clifton Morgan. Unilateral versus Multilateral Sanctions Reconsidered. 2009.
http://www.unc.edu... ]

99 + 423 = 522
99 / 522 = .189 | .189 * 38% = 7.21%
423/522 = .81 | .810 * 10% = 8.10%
7.21 + 8.10 = 15.31%

According to Navin A. Bapat, 80 of all 522 sanctions imposed so far have been multilateral, only 15%. The vast majority of sanctions have been imposed by a single country.

Second, economic sanctions are not often implemented in self-defense.

Bapat continues, (same quote as above)
"In total, there are 99 cases where sanctions were imposed due to security related disputes, which corresponds to approximately 19% of the cases. In the remaining 423 cases, sanctions were imposed for reasons other than security."

The value is morality, as LD is a morals debate.

Morality must be determined by rationality, first because it is the only thing all moral agents have in common, thus determining morality based on anything else (such as circumstance) would allow morality to change from person to person, and second because only rationality can hold agents to a moral obligation.

For example, a realist would argue that there are definitive moral facts that people must find, but such a view of morality is nonsensical. Could I hold you accountable for not wishing me 'Happy Birthday' is you didn't know today was my birthday? Would we punish an avalanche for killing people? Of course not! Neither made the rational choice to do so. We only reward people for conciously choosing to act rightly, and we only punish people for choosing to act wrongly, because we only hold rational choices to moral standards.

Thus, to determine the criterion we ought to appeal to solely rationality. As philosopher John Rawls would suggest, we would do this by considering what an unbiased, outside observer would do, a person who does not know his particular talents, nor his place in society. This, my criterion, is known as the Original Position. Rawls makes multiple conclusions about the Original Position. The one's I'll address are:

(1) A person in the Original Position would choose to order society in such a way that class of origin does not affect one's ability to succceed in life. There is no morally significant distinction between those of different social classes, thus discrimination between them cannot be justified.

(2) A person in the Original Position would reject a Utilitarian moral system (where 'good enough' ends can justify any means) in favor of a Deontological one (where persons are given rights that are unconditionally inalienable.)

a. Because only deontology affirms an individual's worth. In a Utilitarian system, one is only valuable so long as he has something to benefit society. Should he be unbeneficial, he is worthless. A Deontological system guarantees worth to an individual unconditionally.

b. An outside observer would choose to enter a society based on Deontological morals so as to guarantee himself rights. Choosing to live in a Utilitarian society means gambling with your rights, hoping you won't be one of the ones thrown under the bus for society's benefits. Societies can run (and run well) based on Deontological principles, as evidenced by America and its Bill of Rights which is a long list of inalienable rights.

Thus my first contention is that sanctions further stratify social classes.

A. Only powerful countries can use sanctions to their advantage because it takes a major economy to effect change.
B. Poorer countries are disproportionately the targets of sanctions because they are easily swayed.

In fact, the average sender of sanctions thus far has been 187 times larger than the average receiver.[1]

C. Sanctions stratify social classes within target countries by allowing the rich to further leech the weak to their benefit.

The United Nations' Secretary General, Kofi Annan explained this, last April:
"When robust and comprehensive economic sanctions are directed against authoritarian regimes, a different problem is encountered. Then, tragically, it is usually the people who suffer, not the political elites whose behavior triggered the sanctions in the first place.
Indeed those in power not only transfer the cost to the less privileged, but perversely often benefit from such sanctions by their ability to control and profit from black market activity, by controlling the distribution of the limited resources, and by exploiting them as a pretext for eliminating domestic sources of political opposition. In some cases, the existence of a sanctions regime has transformed a society for the worse, as sanctions-evaders, smugglers and the like rise to the top of the socio-economic ladder because of their skill at manipulating the situation to their advantage."[2]

My second contention is that sanctions violate innocent civilians' rights, using them as means to an end.

Sanctions are used to punish regimes for wrongdoing; they are used to stop soldiers committing genocide; they target terrorist groups. However, to do this, they punish the citizens who reside in the same countries as these people (hardly a crime!) Sanctions in Iraq, for example, killed 4,500 innocent children every month.[2]

I don't feel that much elaboration on this point is necessary. It's fairly clear: Sanctions use innocent civilians as means to an end, and they do it on a larger scale, making them horribly immoral.

[1] [http://www.iie.com...]

[2] [Annan, Kofi. International Peace Academy Seminar. 17 April, 2009. http://www.un.org... ]

[3] [Cortright, David and George A Lopez. Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and Chair of the Board of the Fourth Freedom Forum. "Are Sanctions Just? The Problematic Case of Iraq." Journal of International Affairs (1999). http://web.nps.navy.mil... ]
Debate Round No. 1
lucastrujillo975

Con

Thanks for accepting my debate..............Cross Examination

Okay you first say under your 1st Cont that ES are most often unilateral and then you provide some stats...how exactly does this link to your value and criterion.

Your value is morality who exactly determines the morality of an action..
And you go onto say that under your criterion of "Original Position" that first there's no justification for discrimination because there is no clear distinction...my first question is how does this relate...and then you go on to say how the rights are inalienable but you never really warrant how this is going to be affected by ES...?

Would you agree that it is a nations main priority to protect its citizens at all cost?

Oh another question you say that they use them as a means to an end..I also ask can you provide another alternative that is going to have less effects...if not hmm?
Nails

Pro

•"Thanks for accepting my debate."

You're welcome.

•"Okay you first say under your 1st Cont that ES are most often unilateral and then you provide some stats...how exactly does this link to your value and criterion."

I outlined 2 contentions, and that wasn't one of them. I was clarifying the resolution. If you plan to advocate unilateral sanctions, it doesn't affect your case.

•"Your value is morality who exactly determines the morality of an action.."

An objective, outside observer, ie. somebody in the Original Position
I explain why above the criterion.

•"And you go onto say that under your criterion of "Original Position" that first there's no justification for discrimination because there is no clear distinction...my first question is how does this relate"

Economic sanctions disproportionately harm those in lower social classes (I outlined 3 reasons why.)

•"...and then you go on to say how the rights are inalienable but you never really warrant how this is going to be affected by ES...?"

Erm, they violate inalienable rights just a little bit in killing 4,500 innocent children every month (among other things such as causing disease, destroying the economy, etc.)

•"Would you agree that it is a nations main priority to protect its citizens at all cost?"

No, a nation's main priority should be to act morally.

•"Oh another question you say that they use them as a means to an end..I also ask can you provide another alternative that is going to have less effects...if not hmm?"

There's tons, such as:

Military intervention. Proper military conflict harms far fewer civilians than sanctions and only targets opposing armed forces.

Economic incentives. We lose money from sanctions by not trading. Why not continue trading and offer the extra economic benefits as an incentive with the money we save?

Actions which target only the culpable leaders, such as refusing travel to other countries or refusing international meeting (as with the Olympics in South Africa) or freezing off-shore bank accounts, etc.

Barack Obama holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' with Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro.
Debate Round No. 2
lucastrujillo975

Con

Barack Obama holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' with Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro.
That is Outstanding hahaha lol i love that!

K i will first start of by presenting my case and move on to attacking my opponets.

As well as my opponet i will jst make up some arguments

"By imposing economic sanctions, corrupt leaders are denied resources needed to continue their unjust courses and tyranny. Further, this is accomplish without killing others and avoiding collateral damage" It is because I agree with Dr. Trevor Sather PhD in foreign policy that I must negates today's resolution.

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
For further clarification I offer the following counter definitions…provided by Merriam Webster dictionary.
1.) Economic sanctions: restrictions upon international trade and finance that one or more countries impose on another for political reasons or to establish a just form of government.
2.) Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation
3.) Foreign policy: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives.

(Value)—the most superior value for today's round is that of societal welfare.
Societal welfare is protection of society as a whole, its health, safety and order, when the agent of action does that which is in their ability to ensure protection and sovereignty of a nation we are achieving societal welfare. The reason this is the value for the round is economic sanctions can provide for societal welfare. Sovereign nations are going to look at their national security as the paramount focus in foreign policy so being able to use economic sanctions if a country feels necessary is to protect the societal welfare of their nation, and in ensuring this protection further extending the opportunities of achieving this to other nations that have not had the opportunity to do so before. Thus societal welfare is paramount.

Criterion- The greatest criterion for today's round is that of Thomas Hobbes Social Contract.
"The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and that which we depend upon to live well." In essences Hobbes is saying that the social contract is the building block for societal welfare and the nation's sovereignty and until a social contract is established it will remain in a "state of nature" This state of nature being anarchy, human rights violations and the lack of societal welfare. Thus it would be immoral for sovereign nations to let this "state of nature" continually occur…thus they are morally obligated to have the option to use a enforcement mechanism and thus we have to accept economic sanctions as one of those tools.

C1) Economic sanctions promote SW
First, Economic sanctions target the corrupt governmental officials, not the citizens
Many believe that economic sanctions are imposed to hurt the people within the nation, when in fact it's contrary to this notion. Citizens of countries oppressed by economic sanctions suffer when intended relief efforts are suppressed by their own corrupt government intercepting supplies. Look at the current economic sanctions on North Korea imposed by the United Nations. George Russell on foreign policy reports that the United Nations World Food Program relief effort came up with a fund of over 75 million this year alone and more than half of that amount 38 million of food aid was not delivered…The main reason for this is tyrannous behavior of the North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il, which climaxed on May 25 in a multi-kiloton nuclear explosion, the second North Korean nuclear blast in three years. As a direct reaction of this the United Nations front-line emergency relief agency says it is only able to offer a "partial ration" or fortified foods to 1.8 million North Koreans, leaving 4.4 million of the country's most vulnerable civilians, which WFP had also intended to feed, outside its safety net." This shows that it is not the sanctions causing suffering but the corrupt governmental officials denying relief efforts for their citizens. This proves that ES intend to promote SW thus would be moral to enact.

Sb2) Economic sanctions are the most efficient option towards threats of aggression.
Other alternatives are not efficient for example warfare is an option and this option should never be picked over sanctions because warfare inflicts more strife and casualties and collateral damage on the nations both participating in this war. So we have to look at a swift and precise targeting option this option is economic sanctions because it minimizes the lives lost within the country imposed with sanctions and the imposing nation therefore we must pick a tool that can do this and that tool is economic sanctions.

C2) ES establish a social contract and uphold the preexisting.

Sb1) Nations look to protect themselves first.
A nation's main priority is to secure its national security and any legitimate government within a nation is going to look to protect its citizens first at all cost. Even if that is to engage in warfare but before a sovereign nation goes to these extreme measures they first must look to alternatives to secure there national security and protect its citizens. We can look to economic sanctions to do this. The main reason 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. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, recently wrote to Congress that "it is unlikely that Iran will have the technical capability or the materials to produce [weapons-grade uranium] necessary for nuclear weapons before 2013". Blair added that U.S. intelligence believes Iran has not yet decided whether to produce weapons-grade materiel, and would be unlikely to do so while its nuclear effort remains under international scrutiny from economic sanctions, This shows that sanctions can stop the threat by preventing the nations materials to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Okay my opponets value is that of morality...i asked him during CX how do we define morality.
his response "An objective, outside observer, ie. somebody in the Original Position
I explain why above the criterion." okay well i have two rebutals to this First, this dosent hold a warrant because he does not give a clear example and this is not really hold any significany because there is never a non biased " outside observer" second we my opponets value of morality fails because we can not determine the morality of an action until it has been complted therefore we have to look at the intended motives behind the action...

You can practicley cross apply my arguments stated in my case that clearly casue his criterion to fail...its " Original Positosn"

His first contention Is that ES stratify Social classes and he goes on to syathat only strong powerfull nations can impose ES this claim fails though because the res is not talking about a certain form o Es so we can see that he is clearly turning this to try to hold a postion..also he does not show why this econmic persuasian is bad so therfore we can see that infact it would be moral..

ALso to adress his second contention I asked him during CX do define a alternative that and he says miltary intervention you can cross apply my arguments that in my case that defeats this so there for he is disproving his own argument to say that military intervention would be more moral to use than sanctions when we can clearly see that there are going to be more lives lost if a counrty engages in this....
Nails

Pro

•"The reason this is the value for the round is economic sanctions can provide for societal welfare."

We should value societal welfare because sanctions lead to societal welfare.

Couldn't I also use this logic to justify:

We should value malnutrition because sanctions lead to malnutrition?[1]

How does the logic in the above quote differ from that at all?

•"it would be immoral for sovereign nations to let this 'state of nature' continually occur."

In America we don't give up all of our rights to the government. Why am I not living in a 'state of nature'?
Why is a 'state of nature' where there is no government to guarantee rights worse than a 'state of Thomas Hobbes' where there is a government that doesn't guarantee rights?
Does this philosopher have a father/son named Calvin?

•"Many believe that economic sanctions are imposed to hurt the people within the nation, when in fact it's contrary to this notion."

If this is true, why do sanctions do so much damage to innocent civilians?

•"[The example of Korea] shows that it is not the sanctions causing suffering but the corrupt governmental officials denying relief efforts for their citizens."

Why does one example prove this true? Would my offering a counter-example prove this false?
If the problem is that North Koreans haven't been able to get enough food, why is further stopping them from obtaining the needed resources a logical response?
Is irrational anger positively correlated to being short?
If not, how do you explain Kim Jong-il, Napolean, and Chihuahuas?

•"warfare is an option and this option should never be picked over sanctions because warfare inflicts more strife and casualties and collateral damage on the nations both participating in this war."

Says who? Where in the NC do you prove this?

•"therefore we must pick a tool that can do this and that tool is economic sanctions."

Why does 'war is bad' mean 'sanctions are necessary'?

•"we can not determine the morality of an action until it has been complted"

...yet we can determine future societal welfare before an action has been completed?
If so, why did we sanction Iraq, knowing it would end in failure?

•"therefore we have to look at the intended motives behind the action..."

If the intention of sanctions is to cut off resources to everyone (including innocent civilians) doesn't that mean we still intended to use people as means to an end?

•"you can cross apply my arguments that in my case that defeats this"

Could you please copy & paste as an answer the part of your case that proves sanctions don't use people as means to an end?

[1] http://web.nps.navy.mil...
Debate Round No. 3
lucastrujillo975

Con

lucastrujillo975 forfeited this round.
Nails

Pro

Economic sanctions are the sole cause of cancer.
Debate Round No. 4
lucastrujillo975

Con

lucastrujillo975 forfeited this round.
Nails

Pro

Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. Sanctions killed my father. Prepare to die.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I just wrote this up. I had such a case on my mind, but doubt I'll ever use it, or those sources for that matter.
Posted by lucastrujillo975 6 years ago
lucastrujillo975
thats my whole point im glad " nails" accepted my debate becuase I actually want to debate somebody that who is going to be a challenge...
Posted by lucastrujillo975 6 years ago
lucastrujillo975
I would say my case is pretty strong..
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Actually, Lucas, I've got a pretty strong bet that you'll be more than challenged by this guy.

Oh, also:

"Yea I'm tired of seeing piece of crap little junk cases so they can see good ones"

Aren't you presupposing that your case is actually any good? ;)
Posted by lucastrujillo975 6 years ago
lucastrujillo975
Thanks for accepting the debate this is hopefully going to be a good one...please dude if your on here just to mess around forfeit because I dent want to waste time debating with some 10 year old
Posted by lucastrujillo975 6 years ago
lucastrujillo975
Guys if you are jst trying to get a case out of this you better not accept my debate...I actually want to debate not goof around (because I'm a silly dilly goofball) like some of the other members of Debate.org whom I love and respect. I'm such a silly little boy. I would never use the comments section to post insults and profanities for risk the moderator might come in and edit my comments.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I guess I could just post a stupid AC and go for turns to the NC. No way to steal the case.
Posted by lucastrujillo975 6 years ago
lucastrujillo975
Yea I'm tired of seeing piece of crap little junk cases so they can see good ones its like get of the freaking Internet little kids and do it your self ! I here ya so either of you want to debate?
Posted by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
no finally more little kids wanting us to write cases for them
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
Finally, somebody who actually knows LD format.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
lucastrujillo975NailsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
lucastrujillo975NailsTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
lucastrujillo975NailsTied
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 TheCategorical 6 years ago
TheCategorical
lucastrujillo975NailsTied
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