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

Im going res. analysis Neg Aff Okay thanks for accepting the debate. My opponent opposes the clarifying portion of my Sanction Definition with: Many economic sanctions are used strictly to stop a certain nation from gaining a resource, such as enriched uranium. However this is simply untrue. No country in the world sells weapons grade uranium to any country, therefore this is no more an economic sanction than the tendency of the US to not sell slaves. Uranium is sold in non-weapons grade form for the purpose of energy and medicine. Therefore his counterexample falls and you must accept my definition. My definition of morality is adequately vague which is why we have a criterion. Morality is something that we determine on a case by case basis i give an example stating that respecting human life is moral therefore clarifying it sufficiently. Perhaps my opponent should familiarize himself with the purpose of the value and criterion. Also my opponent presents an entirely unwarranted claim saying that ought is utilitarian concept in all of the literature ought implies a moral obligation (dictionary.com) Therefore my RA stands. I accept his observations. His value is not at all adequate. Nat. Security is not at all inherently valuable like life or morality. He does offer some weakly pieced together argument for the extrinsic value of Nat. Security but never explains why state of nature is not good let alone warranting why security is necessary for nations to exist therefore we must reject his value. his vc falls because his value falls. Also a cba is not reliable. It is impossible to determine with 100% accuracy the consequences of an action therefore we can't accurately decide on an actions morality. If we "believe" that the consequences of an action will be worth it but in the end an unforeseen consequence causes the cba to be skewed negatively will the action still be good. obviously not therefore we must use respecting human dignity through our own direct actions as a weighing mechanism because it is a definite criterion. C1a-) this falls because weapons grade uranium is not legally traded anywhere therefore this should not be counted as a sanction. C1b-) My opponent advocates crippling belligerent countries economies with sanctions but this once again runs counter to the criterion of respecting human life if we devalue human life then no matter how many lives we save it will mean nothing because any number of valueless things are worth nothing. Diplomacy and non economic sanctions are viable options. Also there is no such thing as a smart sanction. In Iraq chlorine was sanctioned because it could be used to make bombs but it was also needed for the purification of water this caused the death of thousands of innocents. C1+)I dismantled the first part of his refutation about smart sanctions in C1b-. also Just War theoryin no way accounts for this. sanctions should be viewed like a war much like a siege. And just War theory tells us that killing innocent noncombatants is not just. Also my opponents unwarranted qualifier only stands if he can prove war is worse than the sanctions and this is not true the economic sanctions that were placed on Iraq (and were remarkably unsuccessful) caused 15 times the deaths that the entire Iraq conflict caused to date. Therefore his explanation using Just War theory completely fails on all accounts and should be disregarded. C2a) My opponent once again brings up smart sanctions and aid however this does not work as I have already proven. C2b)My opponent secedes this argument Uv) I would like to point out that my underview is just that an underview and not part of any previous contention. It is an off-case off value argument. My opponent drops my underview extend it across the flow. My opponents case is wrought with logical inadequacies and nonexistent evidence therefore I must urge an affirmative ballot.