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

I will go in the same order. (NC) V/C He consedes in saying my value and criterion are great, only that i cant achieve them. Therfore i will prove not only how i can achieve them but HOW HE CANT ACHIEVE HIS. Basically if my case still stands then i win. Contention 1) A) My oppenent basically dumbs down the debate by trying to explain how arguments work. I am fully aware of how debate goes and argumentation in LD. It is not my fault that he didnt understand the warrent in my claim of that argument i will reitterate slowly. CLAIM - Having US/China/Russia(and other nuclear capable states) withholding, in unison, enriched uranium from Iraq....then WARRENT it would be impossible for Iraq to obtain nuclear weapons because they dont have the resources. Finally the IMPACT is - IF you vote AFF then places like Iraq or terrorists will be free to gain nuclear weapons from everyone and blow lots of people up. THIS IS IMMORAL and why my oppenents frameworks falls. He failed to answer my CX question....for whatever reason....so it is safe to assume he agrees with me that giving WMDs to terrorists regimes to immoral therefore his framework falls. Finally he says that my claim is bad b/c there isnt evidence, that is because there isn't....in the time we have to post our arguements we dont have enought time to search the world or the internet for Extremly RARE evidence. People just dont write about ES and mutilateral ones on Iraq for enriched uranium. Lastly my analytical arguments are winning this debate alone. Dont let him try and weasal out and win by saying i dont have evidence. He hasnt explained why my warrents ought to be rebuttled or proved how Nation Security would not be achieved if we were to prevent WMDs from terrorist. Secondly, he says because ES control the behaviors of other countries that they are immoral. Is it also immoral to prevent your child from playing with fire or drugs, or for your co-worker to steal money? There are behaviors that Ought to be stopped. in this resoultion the answer is nuclear weapons. Like i said, he failed to answer the CX question. If anything this argument should flow my way is proving how controlling a Evil regime's behavior by not selling them WMDs would be not only benefitial(my criterion) in achieving National Security(my value) and thus being moral(his value). Not only does voting neg achieve the framework of the neg but also of the AFF. The Aff doesnt even get to achieve his value becuase in the aff world everyone gets to do whatever they want, lets say obtain WMDs, and blow people up..but thats moral right? cause they got to choice their actions. Subpoint B) he makes a bunch of "in my opinion" and "I personally, dont see how this would work" but Ironical doesnt have evidence to back this up. He says that Iraqis dont have reason to deserve these, but by pressuring citizens economically, not by violence or any deaths, the regimes and terrorists will be forced to give up their persuit of WMDs to save themselve. My entire case still stands, he hasnt attacked anything but the claims with weak arguments about argumentation and the fact that there is little evidence. My entire case still achieves my framework, unlike his, and all the warrents still occur and solve. My impacts of nuclear war also O/W his. So im winning my case. (AC)The holocaust thing wasnt an argument..i was pointing out how ignorant people are and how it has no link to this debate. You proved it. Group His observation Arguments------------ The abuse is simple. He didn't define GENERAL not sanctions. How do i know which sanctions are GENERAL or not. The reolution does not say IN GENERAL simply Economic Sanctions. Therefor it is only fair to me to be able to debate over any sanctions i choose so, and debate against the sanctions my oppenent brings up. This abuse argument should flow my way. His value - nothing you said in the rebuttal had anything to do with what i said in my attacks. 1) you didnt define MORAL, you defined OUGHT. there is a huge difference(extend my example which he conseded) 2)morals are subjectives, what my oppenent, and the people judgeing the round might have different morals..who is to say whose morals ought to be achieved and whose morals ought to be disregarded. this is a contradiction to his argument made against my second subpoint. so this should flow my way 3) Giving WMDs and Weapons to terrorists is IMMORAL. in the aff world there are deaths by the millions and terrorists get weapons b/c my oppenent thinks they should do whatever they want. 4) MY framework Solves the entire AFF case. Not giving weapons to terrorists and saving millions of lives is moral, thus achieving his Framework. Finally his Case---- C1) didnt respond to any arguments. Should immediately flow all his contentions my way. All he says is "no evidence so i win" But 1) there doesnt need to be evidence, analyticals prove. If we dont sell Enriched URanium to Iraq, WHO WILL DIE? no one. there is your evidence. 2) he didnt respond to the warrent in my attack so he consedes how smart sanctions not only harm no ONE look up^ but also save millions by not giving weapons to terrorists. thus being moral and perserving the national security of all nations. C2) No link - smart sanctions on Enriched Uranium would not Encourage terrorism but PREVENT it thus solving his case, and being moral. his evidence is non specific to my case and just proves how you dont need evidence to make claims against arguments. C3) Again he still consedes everything by only saying i dont have a card, but like i said the entire round. The best argument are explained analyticals with good warrents. which a gave therfore he conseded his contention and proves that i win his case since my case solves his framework. VOTERS (please take into consideration) 1) MY entire case stills stands, he didnt read any evidence against it (right cause he has too?). 2) All the warrents still stand. Stop selling enriched uranium, save lives, no one is hurt. your moral and achieve security. 3) My impacts Outweigh his. If anyone were to die from Smart sanctions or sanctions in general (ill give him that) then the deaths of that do not come close to the Millions if not Billions in nuclear war. 4) I achieve my framework. Simple. No weapons in terrorist hands=security (and moral flow my way:) ) 5) His case falls b/c he didnt respond to the arguments and would say one sentance as in "no evidence still stands" but didnt respond to the warrents. so he consedes they fall and he doesnt have a case. 6) you arent moral if YOU GIVE WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS. its simply. he conseded this by not answering the CX questions. and i actually achieve his value by saving lives and harming no one. My case stands, I acheive my Framework. He case went conseded, cant achieve value. (Dont let him make anymore evidence arguments...its an unwarrented stupid argument that wasnt impact, default neg)