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

In his previous speech, my opponent states that additional negative arguments should be disregarded because there are no additional negative arguments in a Lincoln-Douglas debate. While he is correct, given that he has provided new arguments in his last rebuttal, I ask that these arguments be discarded as well, or that my responses be given weight. One of the alternatives my opponent provides is "non-violent trade boycotts". Such an action would be an economic sanction. While he states a number of requirements for a true economic sanction, this list makes no sense when the definition of an economic sanction is examined, "Economic sanctions are domestic penalties applied by one country (or group of countries) on another for a variety of reasons" from . http://en.wikipedia.org..., or "international agreements to restrict trade with any nation that all agree are acting in an unacceptable manner" from . http://www.edukits.ca.... This alternative is therefore not an alternative at all. The other alternative, diplomacy, has two problems. First, an economic sanction is a diplomatic action, not a military one, and second, my opponent provides no evidence with of the efficacy of diplomatic action, nor does he explain how it is better than economic sanctions. ---------------------------------- Counter While I agree some damage will be done to the sanctioning country, such damage is minimal. How much damage has the North Korean sanctions actually done to the United States, for example? Practically none, but they have had a devastating effect on North Korea. ------------------------------------ C-1: My opponent has responded to neither of my arguments against contention one. His arguments in this contention were that economic sanctions are ineffective, and may be imposed for hidden reasons. As I pointed out, neither of this indicates damage to human rights, and sanctions have been shown to be effective. His response perhaps belongs better under contention 2. C-2: Again, my opponent assumes that forcing others to trade with you is a human right. Regardless of whether or not others have food and I do not, I have no right to take their food from them, and I have no right to force them to trade their food to me. Given that such a right does not exist, I fail to see how it can be violated. C-3: Yes resentment can last for generations. I have never denied this. I have denied that such resentment is a humans rights violation, and I pointed out that this occurs with any international issue. You have not refuted these statements. --------------------------------------- Value: While I agree that the view of the legitimacy of a government can change from person to person, that change results from how those people view how well the government has fulfilled its obligations, which simply proves my point that a government which does not fulfill its obligations is illegitimate. Value Criterion: My opponent has not provided a reason why protecting citizens is a bad standard for obligations, but has simply stated that I do not fulfill it, a claim which I disprove on the contentional level. Therefore, this round should be evaluated by which side is best able to protect the citizens of the sanctioning nation. ---------------------------------------- In my own case, I provide 5 clear examples of sanctions being used effectively, in some cases ending wars, or preventing future ones. These examples have never been disputed, and serve as clear evidence of the use of sanctioning. In my opponents case, I have disproved claim of human rights violations he put forth, and shown that sanctions are effective measures. Because my opponent supports the total removal of these useful tools, and I have demonstrated them to be effective in protecting a nations citizenry, and therefore upholding governmental legitimacy, and proving that there is no obligation to ban sanctions, I urge a Con ballot.