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

The order is NC, AC. I negate: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I value justified action. Justice is the main evaluator of what ought or ought not be used. Justice is defined by Aristotle as "giving each their due" and ought is defined by dictionary. com as justice, moral righteousness, or the like. To achieve justice, the value criterion will be using the most effective means. Contention one: Economic sanctions circumvent nuclear war. Subpoint A: Sanctions are the only effective tool against Iran. Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control states "There are only three options at this point. The best is strong sanctions applied by a coalition of like-minded countries, led by the United States. The other two are living with a nuclear-capable or nuclear-armed Iran, or bombing those nuclear and military sites in Iran that we know about. Given Iran's belligerence toward the United States and Israel, its support of terrorism, and its bloody repression of domestic opposition, allowing Iran to get the bomb is simply too dangerous. Attacking Iran's nuclear sites would start another war in the Middle East that is hard to see the end of, and the chance that a bombing campaign would destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites is slim. This leaves sanctions, which, to have any chance of causing Iran to give up its nuclear work, will have to be put into place. " Thus, unless the aff. can justify bombing nuclear sites and starting a war as effective means to achieve foreign policy objectives, this argument stands. The impact would be that economic sanctions are the onnly viable method to achieve foreign policy objectives. Subpoint B: In the case of Iran should Iran get nuclear weapons, a nuclear arms race would occur. Brent Scowcroft writes: "If Iran is allowed to go forward, in self-defense or for a variety of reasons we could have half-a-dozen countries in the region and 20 or 30 more around the world, doing the same thing. " and Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, states "failure to enforce Iranian compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, could lead to a race for nuclear weapons. " "Think of Egypt or Turkey or Saudi Arabia," he said. "They can hardly afford not being nuclear if Iran turns . . . nuclear. " Since Iran getting nuclear arms would generate a nuclear arms race and then possibly a war, this will outweigh anything aff. offers on magnitude. Unless the aff. can justify a nuclear arms race, this argument stands. Thus I urge you to vote negative because stopping a nuclear arms race and preventing nuclear war outweighs anything the aff. can offer. On to the AC I agree with all the def. other than ought which is defined by dictionary. com as justice, moral righteousness or the like. Observation: I disagree with my opponent's observation, achieve foreign policy objectives is quoted in the resolution. Since objectives is plural the resolution asks about foreign policy objectives in general and whether sanctions ought be used. Value/Value criterion debate- You look to my V and VC because my opponent doesn't warrant or show democracy is the only way for fairness and just. Justified action is the better value for this round as justice is defined as giving each their due. You will use the neg. VC because free trade cannot be looked upon. This is because if a country threatens our well being do we still trade with them? Also, since the resolution asks whether we ought do something, it is a question of justice. Thus, using the most effective mean is the best way to attain justice because it gives a higher than that everyone will attain his/her own due. Opp. C1: Although sanctions may allow regimes to blame outside forces for their misfortune, one has to ask, is the Iranian president blaming woes on the U. S. worse or is an entire nuclear arms race with constant tension and war threatening to erupt worse? Thus the neg. outweighs. Opp. C2: Not only is this irrelevant, but as I have proven, do you really trade with someone who's threatening your well being? My opponent's contention is illogical, not to mention once more outweighed by the possibility of a nuclear arms race. Once again you must ask, would having good trade relations be better than not having a nuclear arms race? The neg. once again outweighs. Without sanctions a nuclear arms race occurs, so I negate. Since the neg. clearly outweighs the aff. I strongly urge you to negate as well.