economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

cross ex: would you say that if someone has done something wrong that there should be an consequence? clarify human rights neg constructive: Good day, I negate the resolved that "economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives", I will first build my own case and then attack my opponents. for the purpose of clarification i will now state and contradict definitions. economic sanction- restrictions on certain components causing harm by one or more nations upon another. my value premise is protection of society my criteria is responsibility and that it is the responsibility of nations to ensure protection of society. contention 1- punishment should fit the crime when a crime has been committed, it stands to reason that punishment or consequence should be imposed. there is a system of tools to use of increasing severity to right a wrong, when it comes to government policy. beginning with deplomacy, moving to non-economic sanctions to sanctions to military actions. a- obviaously one should begin with deplomacy however, when deplomacy fails, the next step is non-economic sanctions. examples: cancelation of summit meetings blocking membership to international organizations withholding forign aid denying loans b- when both deplomacy, and non-economic sanctions fail to achieve desired result, economic sanctions are the last recognized step before going to war. contention2- the nation being sanctioned determines what will be sanctioned (i. e. materials causing harm) for example: the gout of israel may impose sanctions on iran to deny them recieving centerfuge materials such as plutonium in an effort to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. this would be a reasonable and justified way to help ensure protection of society and their own citizens. contention 3- protection of society is everyones responsibility. to help ensure protection of the world and its people it is the responsibility of nations to keep others in check when it comes to matters such as stopping attacks and going to war. that is why sanctions are a good thing and are used to help keep people out of harms way. i will now attack my opponents case: i will first contradict my opponents observation : okay yes economic sanctions are used to influence change in forign policy, but that doesnot mean that all materials are to be cut off nor that the people of the sanctioned country have to suffer, only that components causing harm are to be cut off to reduce harm to society. to contradict my opponents value of human rights okay yeah people have a right to freedom , but which should come first, freedom or safty? and to attack my opponents criteria: how are sanctions imorral if no harm is comming to the people being sanctioned? it is infact moral to ensure protection before freedom. it to me seems that both my opponents value and criteria meet my argument better than they do his. my opponets sub point 1 is not even relevant to this argument. 2. as i said, i feel that his value and criteria fit my argument better than his. 3. as i also said sanctions do not mean restricting everything there for making sub point3 invalid. contention 1 : respect to forign citizens , okay really i could have used this for the negative and made it work. we are respecting forign citizens by protecting them and as i have stated at least twice we are not violating their rights when we are not taking away none but materials causing harm. their lives are not going to be miserable if we are not taking away food or water or medication. the same with his contention 2 we are not restricting everything, JUST THE COMPONETS CAUSING HARM! !! !! !! sanctions are put in place to help reduce harm and also to contradict both of his contentions if they have done something to deserve sanctions(see my cont.1) then they obviously do not respect other nations or their own because they know that there will be consequences. for the reasons that i have stated above i urge a negative ballot, thank you.