The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,398 times Debate No: 10797
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)




I will negate the resolution. Please only accept if you use an LD format. Only use your real case at your own risk (I will not use mine). If you accept please start round one with your opening speech, do not go onto round two. I look forward to a good debate.


Affirmative Case
"Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."
-Thomas Henry Huxley
The irrationally held idea that these sanctions are for the common good is incorrect. I will show this in my speech. If were to reason that these are a mistake, less harm would be imposed on the implementing nation.
Economic sanctions should be beneficial for both parties, not only one. However they fail on this purpose. Economic sanctions harm innocent women and children, and furthermore, do not stop the wrong doing of the target government on their own. Other measures are used that make these sanctions seem effective.

Before I continue, I wish to offer the following definitions in order to clarify my case:
From Merriam Webster online:
Innocent: free from guilt
Ought: used to express obligation
Foreign policy: a set of goals outlining how a country will interact with other countries, from the world politics review
Economic sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country to another for a variety of reasons, from
Security: a state of being free from danger, from Merriam Webster online dictionary

My value for this round is common good. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines common as belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or all members of a group of or relating to a community at large. This is because economic sanctions harm the innocent, thus endangering the common good. My criterion for this round is Protection of the Innocent. This is because the innocent harmed by economic sanctions did nothing to deserve this.

We will examine this through the following
1st: Economic sanctions hurt the country that imposes them.
2nd: Punitive sanctions backfire.
3rd: Iraq demonstrates the danger of economic sanctions.

Now onto my first contention, that economic sanctions harm the country that imposes them. According to Reflections on the sanctions decade and beyond, by M. Doxey, in the 2009 International Journal, economic sanctions interrupt regular business activity. Even though these sanctions are intended to cause costs on the target, they often unlikely cost-free for the country imposing them. For example, Britain says that a possible decline in domestic employment is a reason that they oppose sanctions against Africa. In other words, the country imposing them could end up hurting themselves more than they hurt the target country.

Now to my second contention, that punitive sanctions backfire.
Subpoint A. Economic sanctions can lead to a cease in future policy changes on the part of the target country. According to Targeted sanctions: motivated policy change, by A Lowenberg and W Kaempfer, in the Fall 2009 Harvard International Review, Punitive sanctions are expected to impose a high amount of economic damage on the target country. These types of sanctions often carry the risk of foreclosing future policy changes of the target. This is because punishment tends to cease communication of both countries. With this lack of communication, compromise is unlikely In other words, these sanctions are ineffective.
Subpoint B. Economic sanctions have not been proven to work by themselves. According to Reflections on the sanctions decade and beyond, by M. Doxey, in the Fall 2009 International Journal, "success is key question to ask when looking at economic sanctions. If the target does modify or abandon the offensive policy, can that success be attributed only to economic sanctions, or were other important factors at play? And to what extant can a backlash discredit those imposing the sanctions?." In other words, these sanctions probably don't act by themselves.

Moving to our last point, Iraq demonstrates the danger of economic sanctions. According to Re-thinking humanitarian aid on the post-Gulf War era: the International Committee of the Red Cross takes the lead, by S. Denne, in the Fall 2007 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, "Initially the international community looked favorably on the sanctions imposed on Iraq because the sanctions were intended as a short-term policy strategy to pressure Iraq into withdrawing from Kuwait. Even after the U.S. invasion forced Iraq to withdraw, support remained to pressure Iraqi compliance with other U.N. resolutions at the time. Though these measures were intended to cause political pressure on Iraqi government, they caused harm on the most vulnerable in Iraqi society, the elderly, the sick, and the poor-those with little influence on policy and government." In other words, governments have ran away with the power these sanctions' power. Who is to say they won't do it again? No one. Besides this, they harm the innocent.

In conclusion, economic sanctions harm the peoples common good, backfire, and impose more harm than good, and for these reasons, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1


I forfeit the round. Sorry dude, but I'm in another debate and don't have the time to write a response and finish the round in a way I would deem fitting of your time.


No negative, so vote affirmative.
Debate Round No. 2


statusquo5 forfeited this round.


cjl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jayme 8 years ago
@ chsTG.

Yeah.. in my school, I'm about the only one that can/will write a good case.
So I usually end up having one or two idiots steal mine. It only bugs me because the kids I HAVE to give my case to are awful, and don't understand it.

Yeah, I love LD because it's got a lot more thought in it than PuFo or Policy.
Posted by cjl 8 years ago
I didn't think I was intimidating enough to make someone quit...much less at all.
Posted by 146190 8 years ago
Whoa, so basically you forfeited this debate because your debating with me?! Dude, I am getting suspicious since you have ample time for your arguments. Maybe you are trying to steal cases...
Posted by cjl 8 years ago
Statusquo5....sorry I answered so quickly. I just knew what I wanted to say. Good luck on your other debate.
Posted by cjl 8 years ago
The format I use is almost exactly the one I use in a real debate. And to be honest, i find it easier to write as if I was talking. That makes it all the more real.
Posted by chsTG 8 years ago
Jayme I'd like to agree with you on the last point. In some parts of the country and in college case sharing is required. Who cares if they have your case? Make it better. Learn how to debate it better. Your case shouldn't just be a bunch of arguments that are simple chosen like a buffet and thrown together. It should be a comprehensive argument building up and proving the resolution or its negation.

If you write an LD case properly then you are doing philosophy.
Posted by jayme 8 years ago
I can't say I'm too crazy on your case. It may just be the form: I like it when cases are written out clearly. Although your case sounds like something you'd say outloud, I find it hard to follow on paper.

Second, since you said this isn't your real case, I'm not too worried. Still, your case is expected. All of your arguments are basic- if I was debating you, I would already know where to point out the flaws in your case.

& For all you complaining about case stealers. I see no problem in using an idea from someone's case. This is the internet, and everything you post on here is "free". Granted, I think it's stupid to steal cases, because then you don't understand the arguments. But, if there is an idea that I like, sorry guys, but I'll probably use it. :) Just in my own words, and with my own research.
Posted by cjl 8 years ago
Thanks...I am the only JV LD debater on my team... so it feels good to know I am doing good!
Posted by twsurber 8 years ago
cjl; Even if that is your backup case, it's still a good case! I like it.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
You're so hilarious, wjm.......
No votes have been placed for this debate.