Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

*Opponent's Case* :: His second burden is explained to be accomplished by me (1) proving that they cause more harm than benefits of merely achieving FPO. He doesn't bother to even give a warrant to explain how Sanctions are superior than the alternatives. :: His first contention doesn't have no warrants whatsoever, thus he never thoroughly explains how Sanctions are justified by the thousands of deaths; even when 'borrowing' my cards in this LD debate. He also never tells how this effectively achieves those objectives. :: His second contention, again, never gives any warrants. He refuses, nor won't, say how they are helping to achieve FPOs. He is just merely contradicting my own cards against me, and thus shouldn't be used in a standard LD NC; rather, in the rebuttal against my case. Thus, you can ignore both of his cards to the point where is he is left without warrants, and cards, only with contentions. *My Case* :: To extend my criterion, I'd like to add that throughout my case I explained thoroughly how I am justifying, and increasing the quality of life. His side is only hurting it through the sanctions, thus, my argument directly links to the topic at hand. :: To extend his arguement - We have no obligation to protect a foreign country's citizens; however, we also have no right to directly hurt them in the means of death just because of need to sanctioned them. We are merely causing unneeded deaths, and an unnecessary drop in the population of the foreign country. :: To extend my first contention. In the point of view in the world of the "see-ers," those who actually pay attention to what really goes on: these things cannot possibly be labeled as "effective." Sure, the sanctions caused deaths, which CAN be the goal of Sanctions, but what if the goal ISN'T to cause deaths. You are causing un-needed harm, and drastic consequences to your own title. Besides, my cards show more than [2x] the deaths are caused by previous Sanctions of Iraq than the Persian Gulf War. :: To extend my second contention. Again, what if more harm is being caused. By shortening the resources, more health of the population is being weakened; more people die each year as a result. The countries cannot afford the materials needed to even buy Vaccinations for the population; thus, the right to life is being denied. This, as linked to my criterion, is lowering the quality of life to the foreign country. With such funds lost, they lose all ability to buy enough food, water, and materials needed. Thus, you cannot say such damages can justify the means of accomplishing the act of achieving FPO. :: Finally, I shall extend my criterion. Me and my opponent share the main value of justice ("to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable"). Does it sound reasonable to kill innocent lives over achieving basic FPOs? Does it seem just to hurt the population over a country over possible threats? Does it sound right to cause more deaths than a war? It doesn't seem like that. I'm obviously winning the value debate as I've given warrants to support all my contentions, given cards to support those warrants, warrants to support my cards, and connected it all into one value of preserving and increasing the quality of life. Thereby, in no way, is my opponent achieving justice. He is wrongly killing the innocent people of a foreign country who have nothing to do with any threats the leader, ruler, or government holds against the US or whoever enacted the Sanction. Thus, you can ignore my opponent's words on their contentions, cards, and their burdens as all they did was state them - no reasons given. * I now look open to opponent's voting issues, and closing comments; thus, I may then give my own.