The Instigator
lovedebate
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

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 3 votes the winner is...
lovedebate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,571 times Debate No: 10906
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

lovedebate

Pro

Affirmative case: by lovedebate
Good day, I affirm the resolved, that economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives. for the purpose of clarification i will now present several definitions that will be used through out my argument:
economic sanction- to cut off all imports and exports from one or more countries which sanctions are placed upon, to cut off all food, water, medication, mail, and trade.i ask my opponent to consider trade sanctions a part of economic sanctions.
forign policy objective- intent from one or more countries to other countries.
achieve- to reach a set goal.
crime-a violation of laws
murder-the crime of killing a person
warranted- to be deserving of
ought-should note:sources will be posted at the end of this argument.

my value premice is-justice
my criteria is that it is unjust to kill or take money from citizens for something so futile.
to quote Abraham Lincolin "those who deny freedom to others , deserve it not for them selves." and because i agree with MR,LINCOLIN i will now present my argument against economic sanctions.
contention 1 -costs of sanctions
so as to ensure that my opponent and audience do not misinterpet what i mean by costs i will explain the term and my reasoning.
by costs i donot simply mean costs in money although that is certainly an aspect to consider, what i am refering to is collateral damage and demolished rights.i will first explain costs in money and move on to collateral damage and demolished rights.---tax payers all ready give up so much money by duty to help support their government and it is unjust to take more of their money for something that they may or may not agree with. the costs to enforce sanctions would include but ot be limited to deployment of military forces , weapons for their protection, food and fresh water for their nourishment . I will now explian collateral damage: the death of any man, woman, or child, due to enforced sanctions will be the definition used for collateral damage.not only could there be deaths on the side of the sanctioned due to lack of food water and medication but also on the side of the enforcers.due to possible attacks targeting weakness in the enforcers block. if you remember i quoted abraham lincolin before stating my first contention. I used that particular quote to imply that we are taking their rights to life liberty and property, by enforcing sanctions , you go home and eat every day but this country being sanctioned will eventually run out of food to eat,think of those little childeren starving to death, they deserve the same freedom that you and i have every day, if you want to start something fine then what ever but target the government , the brunt of economic sanctions effect the people not the government. so to enforce sanctions would mean stealing and murder.talk about crime.
contention2-historically sanctions are largely ineffective.
the theory that sanctions are effective is just that , a theory, a theory is unproven and potentially wrong , so unless my opponent can prove or disprove said theory, this argument should stand.sanctions largely have been extremely ineffective in the past , why continue a practice that has so historically been furile?
contention3-building of hate.
in my contention 1 i stated that military forces would have to be deployed to enforce sanctions, even if persay sanctions did work, eventually there will be a weak spot in military guard. sanctions cannot be in place or enforced forever and when sanctions are removed or weakened , that leaves an open spot for attack on the country sanctioning. a country will not forget something so brutal so easily and will feel the need to fight back against the country that sanctioned them.
contention4-in oast non-violent methods have proven more effective.
a famous non-violent protester once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind " that man was MAHATMA GHANDI and this mans methods were effective because he fought without fighting at all, but by using boycotts and deplomacy. another example and more proof that this argument is correct was MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. who also fought using non-violent methods, finishing what GHANDI started. both of these men were murdered because of their beliefs, but does it really seem so wrong, not to fight, not to kill? for the reasons listed above i ask you all to vote an affirmative ballot and i now stand ready for cross examanation and a challenge.
thank you.
Nails

Con

"economic sanction- to cut off all imports and exports from one or more countries"

A sanction need not necessarily be a complete and total removal of trade. Take for example Iran, where Congress is currently considering sanctioning gasoline because Iran is so heavily reliant upon it.

".i ask my opponent to consider trade sanctions a part of economic sanctions."

What else could a trade sanction possibly be?

"my value premice is-justice"

There is no warrant for this.

"my criteria is that it is unjust to kill or take money from citizens for something so futile."

There is no warrant for this, either.

"to quote Abraham Lincolin "those who deny freedom to others , deserve it not for them selves." "

This has no link to the topic at hand.

"it is unjust to take more of their money for something that they may or may not agree with"

Why would we raise taxes to not trade with somebody?
If it were true, isn't stopping genocide/apartheid worth a small tax hike?
Why is the current level of taxes the appropriate amount and an increase in taxes unjust?

It's nice to know that my opponent can make up claims that support his case, but he needs to use real evidence to actually have an intelligent debate.

"if you remember i quoted abraham lincolin before stating my first contention. I used that particular quote to imply that we are taking their rights to life liberty and property, by enforcing sanctions "

I'm fairly certain Abraham Lincoln wasn't talking about economic sanctions in his quote. Quoting Abraham Lincoln on the issue of slavery in no way proves that economic sanctions kill people.

"the theory that sanctions are effective is just that , a theory, a theory is unproven and potentially wrong ,"

...just like every claim my opponent has made in his previous speech.

"unless my opponent can prove or disprove said theory, this argument should stand.sanctions largely have been extremely ineffective in the past , why continue a practice that has so historically been furile?"

If my opponent wants to make the argument that sanctions have been ineffective, then he'd darn-well better prove it himself, not make an unwarranted assertion and claim that it's true until I disprove it. This isn't helped by the fact that he is the Intsigator and PRO side of the resolution.

"military forces would have to be deployed to enforce sanctions"

When has this ever occured? It takes military troups to stop local companies from trading over seas?

"sanctions cannot be in place or enforced forever and when sanctions are removed or weakened , that leaves an open spot for attack on the country sanctioning"

What?

"a famous non-violent protester once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind " that man was MAHATMA GHANDI and this mans methods were effective because he fought without fighting at all, but by using boycotts"

My opponent just said that boycotts are the best alternative. Wait... how is a sanction any different from a boycott? It isn't.

"another example and more proof that this argument is correct was MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. who also fought using non-violent methods"

...such as boycotts.

===============================================================================

I value morality, because ought implies a moral duty.

The criterion by which we ought to determine morality is consequentialism.

First, because governments are created by society to maximize societal wellbeing and would not exist unless they benefited society, governments must ensure that their actions have positive consequences.

Second, only consequentialism affirms the idea that all humans have equal value. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons, so the worth of all humans must be weighed equally. Other approaches to morality, such as deontology, posit that we cannot sacrifice one to save many. Such a view of morality allows one person's life to be valued over the life of others.

Foreign policy objectives, as the resolution implies, are the desired consequences. Thus, because sanctions are effective in achieving foreign policy objectives[1] they are a moral policy.

[1] http://www.ima.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
lovedebate

Pro

affirmative first rebuttal and cross examination:
cross examination:
q1) please explain your value and criteria in short using a definition of morality and consequentialism.
first affirmative rebuttal- i will now rebuild my own case.
okay, so my opponent is great a quoting me and attacking however in most of her attacks there are holes .
okay to start with-
my opponent states that there is no warrant for justice or the fact that it is unjust to take money and kill people, however i donot fully understand what she means i am simply saying that you should not hurt society to do something that society may or may not agree with.
it does not matter that abraham lincolin was refering to the slaves i quoted him to say that using economic sanctions takes freedom away from innocent people and that if we have it then they should too.
my opponent says why would we raise taxes to impose sanctions, well how do you plan to pay for it?
she also says that the cost would be worth it to achieve desired objective however as i said in my first argument sanctions historically have not worked.
if military forces are not deployed then how would you enforce it . my opponent asks when this has been done but that highlights my point about how economic sanctions have not worked.
a boycott is refusing to buy said products , a sanction is to stop products from entering the country .
affirmative first rebuttal and cross examination:
cross examination:
q1) please explain your value and criteria in short using a definition of morality and consequentialism.
first affirmative rebuttal- i will now rebuild my own case.
okay, so my opponent is great a quoting me and attacking however in most of her attacks there are holes .
okay to start with-
my opponent states that there is no warrant for justice or the fact that it is unjust to take money and kill people, however i donot fully understand what she means i am simply saying that you should not hurt society to do something that society may or may not agree with.
it does not matter that abraham lincolin was refering to the slaves i quoted him to say that using economic sanctions takes freedom away from innocent people and that if we have it then they should too.
my opponent says why would we raise taxes to impose sanctions, well how do you plan to pay for it?
she also says that the cost would be worth it to achieve desired objective however as i said in my first argument sanctions historically have not worked.
if military forces are not deployed then how would you enforce it . my opponent asks when this has been done but that highlights my point about how economic sanctions have not worked.
a boycott is refusing to buy said products , a sanction is to stop products from entering the country .
my opponent discusses a bunch of stuff about morality and consequentialism however she does not back her argument , she says that governments are created by society , doesn't that mean that they should make it priority to protect society, instead of being a threat to it.
For the arguments above I ask you to vote an affirmative ballot , thank you
I now await negative rebuttal.
Nails

Con

"please explain your value and criteria in short using a definition of morality and consequentialism."

Morality: Acting in accordance with norms for right or good conduct.
Consequentialism: A philosophy that consequences are the sole means of evaluating an action.

Quite simply, an action is moral if it has positive consequences and immoral if it has negative consequences.

"my opponent states that there is no warrant for justice or the fact that it is unjust to take money and kill people, however i donot fully understand what she means i am simply saying that you should not hurt society to do something that society may or may not agree with."

I'll rephrase it: PRO gives no reason why justice matters whatsoever. Don't assume PRO's arguments to be true unless they are proved to be so. Any attempt to do so now is a new argument in the rebuttal.

"it does not matter that abraham lincolin was refering to the slaves i quoted him to say that using economic sanctions takes freedom away from innocent people and that if we have it then they should too."

How does quoting Abraham Lincoln about slavery prove that sanctions take away freedom? Pardon me if I don't see the connection.

"my opponent says why would we raise taxes to impose sanctions, well how do you plan to pay for it?"

Pay for what? My opponent has never shown that sanctions cost any significant amount of money.

"she also says that the cost would be worth it to achieve desired objective however as i said in my first argument sanctions historically have not worked."

This is just another claim that my opponent makes that has absolutely no empirical backing. I posted a source verifying the history of sanctions' success.

"if military forces are not deployed then how would you enforce it."

I can't think of a time where the government has EVER needed to use military force to stop US businesses from trading with particular countries. Simply asking: "Then how?" Isn't an argument. If PRO wants to make an argument about the military being used, then she needs to prove it herself.

" my opponent asks when this has been done but that highlights my point about how economic sanctions have not worked."

This makes no sense.
(1) Over 500 sanctions have been imposed since WWII. If PRO's argument were true, she could at least give one example, whether sanctions have worked or not.
(2) Her 'point' was never a point. It was just her making a claim that she has yet to prove.
(3) Again, see above. Certain sanctions have been remarkably effective. Does my opponent have statistics at all?

"a boycott is refusing to buy said products , a sanction is to stop products from entering the country ."

Um...no? My opponent doesn't even know the resolution that she is debating. A sanction is NOT a country stopping other countries from trading with their target. It is nothing more than a nation-wide boycott. PRO is conflating sanctions with blockades.

For example, we have continued sanctioning Cuba since the 1950s, but we haven't blocked off other countries from trading with Cuba since the huge debacle with Russia's missiles. We have also sanctioned Iraq for decades, yet we've allowed Iraq to trade with any other country.

======
Summary
======

My opponent stated a value and criterion, but never provided a single reason why either should be the value criterion.
She then failed to relate anything back to her criterion.

Her entire case (as well as her rebuttal) has been nothing but a string of assertions based on her opinions about sanctions. She has claimed that they require tons of funding and military support, that Abraham Lincoln condemned them, that they never work (yet we still use them?), that Gandhi and MLK were against sanctions, among other things. None of these were proved in any way.

The vote is rather simple, seeing as she has completely ignored my case:

The value is morality.
The criterion is consequentialism.
Sanctions are very effective at achieving desired consequences.

None of this went attacked. In LD, silence is consent. Thus, the resolution is undeniably negated.

P.S. I'm a 'he', not a 'she'.
Debate Round No. 2
lovedebate

Pro

last rebuttal

okay what i mean by the quote is that by enforcing sanctions you are taking away peoples freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
forget slavery that is not what we are discussing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the point that make no sence (i am sorry if i was vague) what i mean by that is when my opponent said that HE could not think of any instance when this had been done in the past i was simply saying that since this has not been done , that is why sanctions have not worked.
now to the point about costs: it cost money to deploy , feed, and provide water and protection for military forces.
of the some 500 sanctions how many of those have worked?
We have also sanctioned Iraq for decades, yet we've allowed Iraq to trade with any other country.
yes but you will notice that we are currently at war with iraq.
oh and when in my argument have i said that abraham lincolin condemed sanctions, my opponent is trying to make something out of nothing.

voter issues:
1) my opponent completely dropped an essential point, the one about how sanctions kill people and that it is not worth the costs NOT ONLY IN MONET, BUT IN LIVES.
2)my opponent really elaborates on the abraham lincolin point but never shows that non-violence is not as effective as sanctions or that sanctions would be better to use than non-violence.
as my opponent said: In LD, silence is consent
so i feel that i have proven that the costs of sanctions is not worth it and that non-violence in the past has been more effective , for the reasons listed above and the voter issues, i ask you to vote affirmative , thank you
ps-sorry,guess i could have checked your profile to figure that out.
Nails

Con

I understand that this was intended to be an LD debate round, meaning that the affirmative goes last, so I won't post an argument this round. I don't feel I need to, anyway. My opponent's case is nothing but a long list of unsubstantiated and marginally-related claims, and her rebuttals are no more than her restating these unproven claims and ignoring every argument I make. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovedebate 6 years ago
lovedebate
thank you all for reading my case and favoring me and great job to nails!!!
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
read speech and you'll see grammar is not perfect for Love. So i give to CON. I don't feel like reading it yet so other votes to come.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
I bet Nail has taken this over 9000 times.
Posted by alto2osu 6 years ago
alto2osu
1) CX is as much for clarification as it is for strategy.

2) War isn't good for the economy in the 21st century. That'd be a fail advocacy because we can't manufacture weapons and equipment the way we could in 1940.
Posted by ciphermind 6 years ago
ciphermind
Nails, CX is not for clarification. It's to make your opponent look stupid and to trap them.
Posted by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
even still the argument is not made in the format of an LD case.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
We couldn't possibly have cross-examination and still fit in all 5 speeches in a 3 round debate. If you want CX, make the debate 5 rounds long.

Cross-examination isn't vital online since if you missed a point, you can just scroll back up and reread it, and any confusing questions can be clarified in comments.
Posted by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
I seem to have missed something...

This is an LD debate, but Nails is not following the LD format.
Nails should have responded by asking questions as that was his Cross-Examination round.

I'll just stand by and see where this goes.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
I love aff has the burden of proof.... so we default neg :)
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
And Kfc is good.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
lovedebateNailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by ivyjo 6 years ago
ivyjo
lovedebateNailsTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
lovedebateNailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01