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

I'll defend my case, then move on to my opponents, and then to voting issues. Definition debate: My opponent says his definition of ought should be accepted rather than mine because my definition doesn't state what obligation and because of this it doesn't link to morality or justice. First of all ought in the context of the resolution doesn't mean moral righteousness, it just means whether sanctions should be used or not. My opponent has dropped my argument concerning that morals are subjective from person to person. So what he thinks is right, may not be right in my view. My definition of ought is more concrete than his value of moral righteousness and justice. Value debate: My opponent supports his value of justified action by stating that sanctions promote the greatest good and then he says that sanctions come closer to giving each his or her due. How are sanctioning innocent people for the action of their government giving each his or her due? My opponent in his case never links how sanctions give each his/her due nor does he show how sanctions will come closer to giving each his or her due than democracy. My opponent contends that I don't show why democracy is the only way to achieve fairness and that I say democracy is a prerequisite to his value. He says "In countries where the government is not a democracy does it mean that justice cannot exist?" No, justice cannot exist in government and societies that are not democratic, because people do not have an equal say and thus equal rights. This clearly doesn't give each his or her due. In my case all I was saying is that by promoting democracy, we achieve my opponent's value of justice. Once again, my opponent hasn't shown how sanctions will do this. Thus, his value should be dropped in favor of mine. Criterion debate: Once again my opponent has failed to link his criterion of using the most effective means (economic sanctions) to his value. Besides, he never warrants how sanctions are the most effective means to achieve any foreign policy objectives. He contends that I have not warranted how free trade promotes democracy, and thus equal rights. However, this argument by opponent should be dropped, since I clearly gave the example of Mexico (see my C2). The reason why my opponent's criterion shouldn't be used is because he has failed to link his criterion to his value. I clearly showed why his criterion shouldn't be used in my last speech, and my opponent hasn't addressed any of those arguments. So those arguments should be allowed to extend. For these reasons, his criterion should be dropped in favor of mine. My opponent drops my observation that we need to debate sanctions as a general principle to achieve any foreign policy objective(s). This clearly goes against his case, since all he talks about is the objective of stopping nuclear war/arms race. My observation should be allowed to extend as well since my opponent has not contended it and this shows he must agree with me. Against my first contention, basically my opponent has conceded my whole argument and thus agrees with me. He states that sanctions can prevent a nuclear war, thus he outweighs me in magnitude. However, if you look back to my observation, the foreign policy objective is not always stopping nuclear war/arms race. Besides, my opponent hasn't warranted how sanctions will stop a nuclear war/arms race anyway. Sanctions are created with the goal of causing the people to rebel against their government in order to cause a policy change. However, my opponent conceded that sanctions fail in doing that. So what would be Iran's incentive in stopping its nuclear program when its people wholeheartedly support it? I have already argued these points in my last speech, which my opponent hasn't refuted in his last speech. Therefore, all these arguments should extend. Against my second contention, once again my opponent hasn't refuted any of points so these should be allowed to extend. My opponent basically says that I failed to show how free trade will lead to democracy, and therefore giving each his or her due. Once again, if you look back to my example of Mexico, I have shown that free trade does lead to democracy. My opponent contends that I have never shown why democracy is the only way to achieve democracy. This argument doesn't make sense because of course if you used democracy then it would result in democracy. He states that I haven't shown that justice only exists in a democracy. If you see above in the value debate, I already addressed this point. Now moving on to my opponent's side of the flow He has not refuted my argument, that there is no link between his criterion and value, so these should extend. Subpoint A: My opponent has just said that Iran is currently developing a nuclear weapon. Once again, he hasn't proven this. He says that the fact that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons right now is due to sanctions. However, this is false since sanctions haven't done anything to stop Iran's nuclear program. His Millhollin card just states that a nuclear armed Iran is not in are best interests, but his card fails to show how sanctions will stop these nuclear weapons. Moreover, my opponent hasn't addressed any of my arguments that sanctions haven't worked in the past against Iran, so why now? So these arguments should be allowed to extend. Also he hasn't linked this point to his value and criterion. Subpoint B: Once again my opponent doesn't show how sanctions will stop an arms race? My opponent also contends that since I stated Iran currently doesn't have any nuclear weapons, this means that their nuclear weapons program has failed. It doesn't mean that their nuclear program has failed, but rather it's developing towards a nuclear weapon. Once again all his cards do is show why we can't allow a nuclear armed Iran, but he never warrants how sanctions if they have failed before, will work now against Iran. In other words all these impacts such as a nuclear arms race will still happen even with sanctions. My opponent contends that sanctions are the most effective means available, however clearly they wouldn't be as he hasn't shown why sanctions will be effective against Iran. So in that case we would have to look to other options, in order to stop a nuclear arms race. Once again, he hasn't linked this point to his value and criterion. My opponent also drops the argument that his points aren't supporting his value of justified action, but instead are supporting a value of national security. This argument should extend as well. Voting Issues: 1. My opponent hasn't linked his value and criterion. 2. My opponent hasn't shown the connection between his case and his value. 3. My opponent hasn't shown how why sanctions will deter Iran now, if it hasn't in the past. Thus he isn't preventing any of the impacts such as nuclear arms race which he talks about in his case. These are the reasons why I urge an affirmative ba