economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

"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'.