The Instigator
cjl
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
chsTG
Con (against)
Winning
25 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 4 votes the winner is...
chsTG
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,521 times Debate No: 10805
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

cjl

Pro

I wish to go affirmative. This is meant to be a L.D. debate. I would like the following format:
Affirmative Constructive 1
Negative Constructive 1/ Rebuttal 1
Affirmative Constructive 2 / Rebuttal 1
Negative Constructive 2 / Rebuttal 2
Affirmative Rebuttal 2
Use anything at your own discretion!
Thanks to who accepts and good luck!
__________________________________________________________________
"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 the innocents, 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 freetrade.org
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 innocents, thus endangering the common good. My criterion for this round is Protection of the Innocent. This is because the women and children 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. 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 conclusion, economic sanctions harm the peoples common good, backfire, and impose more harm than good, and, thus I must strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
chsTG

Con

I negate.

The afirmative burden is to prove the resolution true. This means he must demonstrate that the principle of economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives is wrong not that it has had negative effects or has no worked in specific instances. If I can find incidences of its appropriate use or theoretical explanations for why economic sanctions should be used then you ought to negate.

I value Morality defined as the principles of right and wrong which tell us what we ought to do. Since the resolution asks what we ought to do then morality is the most appropriate tool for weighing the resolution.

My criterion for morality is the fufillment of social contract obligations. The social contract is an agreement between the people and a legitimate government giving authority to rule as long as it meets its basic obligations. Before government men lived in a state of nature where rights were constantly threatened by each man and retribution could never be determined properly. In order to protect ourselves we consented to give up the right to punish to a central body whose sole purpose was to protect our natural rights. Government must uphold its agreement with people or it is immoral.
Therefore I submit that the purpose of foriegn policy is to encourage legitimate government among other Peoples of the World and to benefit the prosperity of all legitimate governments.

First I contend that economic sanctions are an invaluable tool in fufilling our own foriegn policy goals.

A. Protectionism is necessary to prevent runaway unemployment.
One for of economic santion is known as protectionism. In this strategy one nation will levy a tariff or tax on the imports of a certain good from a certain other nation. The effectively increases the price of the good before it reaches the market. This strategy is a sanction because it will always serve to decrease demand for the product and cost the exporting nation revenue. This is used to prevent a large shift in the labor market. For example if Chinese labor is 1/10 the cost of US labor and it costs the same to make steel in both nations the US must levy a tax on Chinese steel or hundreds of thousands of US workers will be out of a job. Therefore economic sanctions are necessary to prevent complete economic collapse in the labor force which would certainly thrust huge secotors of any nation into poverty.

B. Economic sanctions effectively assert moral outrage. Sanctions can be used for more than economic gain. As the voice and actor for the people the government has an obligation to speak out against atrocities which its people abhor. Because we, as citizens of the global community, have the moral obligation to express outrage at injustice so too does the government as the actor of our society. This makes economic sanctions an absolutely essential tool. For example, it makes no sense to say that we ought to do everything in our power to stop Hitler's Holocaust yet we ought not use economic santions against Germany. In fact, to not use sanctions in this case would be immoral since it would mean dollars from a moral society going to support a morally disgusting cause.

C. Commerce with hostile nations is nonsensical. If a nation poses a threat to a free people the government must fufill it's first and most important contractual obligation; to protect the lives of its citizens. Such an objective requires the full extent of the government's resources. This certainly includes economic sanctions. If our objective is to destroy a nation, protect from invasion by a nation, or any other relevant goal, then we must use out full ability. To encourage a hostile nation's commerce and thereby its success and whealth is a direct violation of the social contract by supporting a violation of the rights of the people the government is sworn to protect. Not using economic sanctions against foriegn enemies would be immoral.

Second, I contend that economic sanctions are invaluable to other free Peoples of the world.

A. Economic sanctions can defeat immoral governments from external pressure.'
If a coordinated effort is made by the prosperous free nations of the world to sanction a nation whose actions are imoral and unacceptable then that nation will find itself hard pressed to continue its ways. In a global economy where each country must find its niche in the market we are all interdependent and a nation which faces pressure can be forced to change its policies. While economic sanctions are often not enough alone they are often a key part of strategy. According to Joseph G. Gavin III of the CATO Institute, "The declared objective of the June 1982 pipeline sanctions was to induce the Soviets to lift military rule in Poland, but an apparent purpose was to impede construction of a gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe, which some U.S. officials believed would make Europe too dependent on the Soviet Union for energy supplies. By the fall of 1982 U.S. officials had, in effect, redefined the declared policy goal and President Reagan announced on November 13 that the sanctions were being lifted as a result of "substantial agreement" on East-West issues between the United States and its allies."
Sanctions are a necessary tool to cause change in immoral nations.

Now lets look at the affirmative case:

Start with his value of the Common Good. One, he gives no warrent why this should be the highest value or how it should guide action. Two, Common good is not always moral. For example, in the United States slavery was not just normal at one time but a vital part of life. Extremely cheap labor allowed the country to thrive and contributed to the common good. However, it violated rights and the government has an obligation to protect rights given through the social contract over the common good.

His criterion is protection of the innocent however as I pointed out above the innocent aren't always protected whren we pursue the common good. Second, he doesn't tell us what innocents we must protect or why or what this entails, this ultimately fails at the job of weighing the issues of the debate. Third, the obligations of our own citizens will always come first since the governments existence is predicated on the consent of the governed. Fourth, turn it, in order to protect the innocent it is necessary to take a stand against oppression in illegitimate nations such as Nazi Germany by enforcing economic sanctions.

His first contention says sanctions harm the nation which imposes them. However, one, even if they can have a harmful effect at times they should still be a tool open to use in appropriate situations. Refer to the burdens I establish in my case.
He gives the example of Britain and Africa however unemployment would only skyrocket because Africa has very little of its own production and it is a major importer of British goods. This is NOT a general situation. And furthermore he cannot extrapolate any impact form this example. Finally this point has no link whatsoever to protecting innocents or fufilling social contract obligations.

His second contention says sanctions can backfire. He says that sanctions make cooperation unlikely. However, one, this is untrue look at the example of Regan's progress with Russia under economic sanctions and two, sanctions are intented as a last resort when negotiations already failed. He says sanctions don't work by themselves however this is not relevant in any way to this topic and sanctions can and should be used along with other foriegn policy tools to be successful.

FInally he gives examples of sanctions in the first Gulf war hurting innocent people. One, our obligation to protect the US from foriegn threats outweighs the effect on innocents. Two, turn this. Effects of sanctions on real people can cause internal pressure to mount for a revolution. Third, this fails again to meet his burden of proof.

For these reasons you must negate.
Debate Round No. 1
cjl

Pro

I will first defend my case, then attack my opponent.
*"Start with his value of the Common Good. One, he gives no warrant why this should be the highest value or how it should guide action." I thought it would have been self-explanatory but, okay. My value is superior because I want what is good for everyone, not just one persons morality. While on that, each persons idea of morality varies, and we don't have time to look at that many people, so this can't be upheld.
**"Two, Common good is not always moral. For example, in the United States slavery was not just normal at one time but a vital part of life." I guess I am not understanding how trying to do what is right for the majority is immoral. Again, morality varies largely.
***"Extremely cheap labor allowed the country to thrive and contributed to the common good. However, it violated rights and the government has an obligation to protect rights given through the social contract over the common good." I am not worried about any single government, but all the nations involved. And as my case shows, protecting the innocent is for the common good.
****"His criterion is protection of the innocent however as I pointed out above the innocent aren't always protected when we pursue the common good." How is protecting the innocent bad? Should we let them die? No.
*****"Second, he doesn't tell us what innocents we must protect or why or what this entails, this ultimately fails at the job of weighing the issues of the debate." Okay, obviously the innocent are those common peoples who did nothing to deserve the punishment they get from sanctions.
******"Third, the obligations of our own citizens will always come first since the governments existence is predicated on the consent of the governed." Is it not in the citizens interests to be protected?
*******"Fourth, turn it, in order to protect the innocent it is necessary to take a stand against oppression in illegitimate nations such as Nazi Germany by enforcing economic sanctions." No, the threat of war would make nations change those objectionable policies.
********"His first contention says sanctions harm the nation which imposes them. However, one, even if they can have a harmful effect at times they should still be a tool open to use in appropriate situations. Refer to the burdens I establish in my case." I will address your case later to disprove this.
"********"He gives the example of Britain and Africa however unemployment would only skyrocket because Africa has very little of its own production and it is a major importer of British goods. This is NOT a general situation."es, that is true, but why does generality matter?
*********"And furthermore he cannot extrapolate any impact form this example. Finally this point has no link whatsoever to protecting innocents or fulfilling social contract obligations." I just proved the negative outcomes of this to show that these sanctions have failed before. Stopping their enforcement would prevent those possible outcomes from happening to others, thus protecting the innocent.
**********"His second contention says sanctions can backfire. He says that sanctions make cooperation unlikely. However, one, this is untrue look at the example of Regan's progress with Russia under economic sanctions." This is only one example. Why risk them not working?
***********"and two, sanctions are intended as a last resort when negotiations already failed." if sanctions are a last resort, why not skip to the threat of war?
************"He says sanctions don't work by themselves however this is not relevant in any way to this topic and sanctions can and should be used along with other foreign policy tools to be successful." It is because, if they cannot work by themselves why use them? The negative needs to answer this.
*************"FInally he gives examples of sanctions in the first Gulf war hurting innocent people. One, our obligation to protect the US from foreign threats outweighs the effect on innocents." Kill over save lives?
**************"Two, turn this. Effects of sanctions on real people can cause internal pressure to mount for a revolution." Evidence or examples?
***************"Third, this fails again to meet his burden of proof." If they hurt innocents, then we shouldn't use them.
____________________________________________________________
Now to my opponents case.
*"I value Morality defined as the principles of right and wrong which tell us what we ought to do. Since the resolution asks what we ought to do then morality is the most appropriate tool for weighing the resolution." Each individual person finds different things moral and immoral. We simply do not have the time to look at each individual.
**"My criterion for morality is the fulfillment of social contract obligations. The social contract is an agreement between the people and a legitimate government giving authority to rule as long as it meets its basic obligations. Before government men lived in a state of nature where rights were constantly threatened by each man and retribution could never be determined properly. In order to protect ourselves we consented to give up the right to punish to a central body whose sole purpose was to protect our natural rights. Government must uphold its agreement with people or it is immoral.
Therefore I submit that the purpose of foreign policy is to encourage legitimate government among other Peoples of the World and to benefit the prosperity of all legitimate governments." First, is it not in the social contracts interests to protect the innocent?
***Okay to 1A. This says that we will use this to prevent loss of jobs. How would we be losing jobs with these sanctions. My opponent is assuming we will attack the country as a whole. however this is not true. it wouldn't make sense to attack people owned countries. The war we would be starting, if at all, would be against government owned companies, and the government officials themselves. Given this, I don't understand how we would be harming the people, in regard to unemployment.
****"(1)B. Economic sanctions effectively assert moral outrage. Sanctions can be used for more than economic gain. As the voice and actor for the people the government has an obligation to speak out against atrocities which its people abhor. Because we, as citizens of the global community, have the moral obligation to express outrage at injustice so too does the government as the actor of our society. This makes economic sanctions an absolutely essential tool. For example, it makes no sense to say that we ought to do everything in our power to stop Hitler's Holocaust yet we ought not use economic sanctions against Germany. In fact, to not use sanctions in this case would be immoral since it would mean dollars from a moral society going to support a morally disgusting cause." Would war not send this message? Yes it would. Obviously people don't want war."rue but, as my case is upheld, which do you want, the threat posed by the target nations, or a war to minimize the threat? From what I know, people would want war to protect themselves, as we need to act against those policies. And I never said that people want war, that doesn't matter at this point, but that war poses a more direct and serious threat. Countries can survive a bad economy.
********1C. If "commerce with the target nation is nonessential", then why would we be talking about ECONOMIC SANCTIONS?
**********2A. Would war not change these nations? As for the people I know, war kills people and that is a good reason for them to change their policy.

Because I have upheld my case and shown the various faults in my opponents case, I must strongly urge a negative ballot.
chsTG

Con

Start with the value debate. He says that Morality varies from person to person however just because people disagree on what morality is doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a peice of truth. Philosophy is the attempt to prove what is difinitively moral. For example I think the Cubs will win the world series and you think the Sox will win. Just because we disagree doesn't mean there isn't a truth that exists. If I can difinitively give warrents for an interpretation of morality (on the governental or personal level) then it is a legitimate criterion for debate. Furthermore, he doesn't dispute that Morality is inherintly appropriate for the resolution so extend my value.

Additionally he misses the point against his value that the Common Good must be restrained by issues of Morality and rights. Just because slavery benefited the common good doesn't mean we should continue it. Clearly rights constrain actions for the good, which is why it is important to view government action through the lense of the Social Contract.

He makes a lame argument that protecting the innocent is good, which it is, however he doesn't demonstrate how to use this as a legitimate criterion. Remember that government action is defined by its social contract obligations to its own people first then to oppressed peoples of the world. This means that protecting the innocent is only valuable in the context of government action when we use the Social Contract to determine whose rights we should protect in a given situation. Extend my argument that the purpose of foreign policy is to encourage legitimate government among other Peoples of the World and to benefit the prosperity of all legitimate governments.

Now lets look at his case. As an overview on the entire case group all the times he makes reference to using war or the threat of war and turn them. Using military force will ALWAYS cause more harm than economic sanctions because there is DEATH involved. It involves risk for our troops and for the enemy troops as well as innocent casualties which have ALWAYS resulted from EVERY war. This is a complete violation of his criterion and not a viable alternative when protecting innocents. Furthermore, this also violates our social contract obligation to protect the lives of our own citizens first when possible. We ought to first try sanctions as a policy before the threat of war is even proposed. Using either criterion this argument leads you to negate. Also, his argument that the threat of war is enough is empiracally denied by the very example I give. The Nazis, Communists, etc all continued human rights abuses even in face of total war.

Extend my areguments against his 1st contention that he has to prove the resolution true and simply pointing out times when the use of sanctions would not be appropriate doesn't prove the resolution true. Insofar as it is at times an apprpriate tool economic sanctions ought to be used even if not in the instances he points out.

In his 2nd contention he says why risk sanctions not working. The point I made is that we can determine sanctions that WILL pressure nations to change their policies just like President Regan did in the situation with Russia. This evidence proves that the resolution is false under both criteria because sanctions protected the innocent from the casualties of war as well upheld out social contract obligations to protect our people from the expansion of the Communist regime. The point is he has no answer for the fact that sometimes sanctions are appropriate, which proves the resolution false. Period. You must negate.
He says that if sanctions don't work on their own then why use them. But he misses the entire point of my case. The fact is that sanctions are a good tool often used in conjunction with other policies. If they are effective at fufilling our social contract obligations (which I've shown they are) then we ought to use them.

He argues that we shouldn't hurt the innocent people of other nations however as I pointed out we have an obligation first to our own citizens rights. He says "kill over save lives" however this is a misnomer. Economic sanction do not kill. War does. He advocates war as an alternative... I advocate the peaceful solution.
I said that external pressure of sanctions can cause internal revolution. There may not be many historical examplmes off of the top of my head but the point is that it does cause pressure. For example the Green Revolution taking place in Iran is largely due to the citizens being fed up with their lack of standing in the international community because of the saber ratteling and destructive policies of their current illegitimate President. (I need to take this opportunity to say HAIL TO MOUSAVI! UNTIL THE DICTATOR IS DEAD!)
Extend once again that he fails to meet his burden of prooving the resolution true.

Now to my case:
My opponent completely mishandles my first contention. I argue that without economic sanctions other nations can use cheap labor to bid us out of our own markets. We use tarrifs (which I argue are a form of sanctions) to make our labor force competative and save American jobs which is a social contract obligation. This proves that sanctions are neccesary and should be used. This is another voting issue.
Against my 1B he again mishandles my argument. We MUST not contribute money to a morally bankrupt policy. War is a good option when it comes to some human rights abuses however the US cannot always effectively police every abuse in the world. And even if we could sanctions would be necessary to conduct war properly as I argue in 1C.
Against 1C he makes no sense. I'm saying that we need to sanction them so they we aren't doing business with the war machine. Why would we push money into an economy which we are militarily seeking to destroy. We must use economic sanctions in conjunction with military force in some cases.

Look at my second contention. Again he completely mishandles it. In 2A he just says GO TO WAR! However as I pointed out before this violates both of our criteria and puts innocents at greater risk for harm. I demonstrate a solution which doesn't put innocent lives in harms way and fufills our social contract obligations. He completely drops the crux of this argument and this will ultimately lose him the round.

In conclusion, this round is over. I have proven time and again that Economic Sanctions are necessary to fufill our social contract obligations. Furthermore, our obligations to our own citizens always preceed the good of protecting the innocent of other nations. Furthermore, his continued insistance that we should go to war instead betrays his own underlying principle and would put many more innocent people in much more way of harm. He completely mishandles my position and fails to ever address let alone fufill his burden to prove the resolution true as a general statement. Because economic sanctions fufill the obligations that government is fundamentally based upon they should be a tool to achieve foriegn policy goals. You must negate.
Debate Round No. 2
cjl

Pro

I know I lost this one...oh for a last argument...the war would be aimed at the governments...we are not that dumb. I know when I get in over my head, and this is a case of that. vote neg.
chsTG

Con

It's cool man. Extend everything.

Yeah the only problem is that war doesn't actually happen like that. Sanctions are much safer and in any case should always come a step before we go to war.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Constructive = new arguments allowed. Don't call it LD if you're going to do that.
Posted by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
Nails...that is MY format...and constructive can mean rebuilding where i am from.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Maybe OreEle.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
"Affirmative Constructive 1
Negative Constructive 1/ Rebuttal 1
Affirmative Constructive 2 / Rebuttal 1
Negative Constructive 2 / Rebuttal 2
Affirmative Rebuttal 2"

The second speech for aff and neg is NOT a constructive. There is one constructive each.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think he made that mistake as he was neg in his debate with me.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
It was epic, when pro said vote neg in rebuttal. Sorry not trying to be rude.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
You said in the comment sections of my debate, that you could offer me some pointers. I would appreciate that.
Posted by chsTG 6 years ago
chsTG
Hey I don't mean to sound rude and stuff I Just get worked up about debate, lol.

If you want suggestions about casing or about your real case or debate in general hit me up.
Posted by chsTG 6 years ago
chsTG
Come on kid it's not that complicated. I'm saying just because you can dispute something doesn't mean it doesn't have functional truth value.

LD takes a higher level of thinking than the mundane PF crap I'm seeing spewed as LD all over this site.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your argument for morality. How is the red sox winning or cubs winning, moral? Maybe I will just wait until your rebuttal for a clearer response.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by aoibhinn 6 years ago
aoibhinn
cjlchsTGTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by marvinlibra44 6 years ago
marvinlibra44
cjlchsTGTied
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 chsTG 6 years ago
chsTG
cjlchsTGTied
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 twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
cjlchsTGTied
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:16