Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

--"His second burden is explained to be accomplished by me (1) proving that they cause more harm than benefits of merely achieving FPO." 1. The argument is that we're not using sanctions for unimportant things. For example, we're not sanctioning Nepal because we don't like their weird looking flag: http://www.mapsofworld.com.... We're sanctioning countries that have threats of genocide and nuclear proliferation (these are PRO's own examples.) We always take the risks of sanctions into account, so there is no reason to assume that we would ever use sanctions in a situation where the harms would outweigh the benefits. 2. Like PRO said, our citizens come first. It's always superior to do more harm to them and less harm to ourselves. That's the reason we go to war to defend ourselves instead of letting countries just run us over. It might cause more harm to them, but the goal is to protect our citizens. --"He doesn't bother to even give a warrant to explain how Sanctions are superior than the alternatives." It's PRO's job to prove there are good alternatives to sanctions. Until he does so, I see no reason why we would assume such is true. --- --"His second contention, again, never gives any warrants. He refuses, nor won't, say how they are helping to achieve FPOs." Coercion It's not a great leap in logic here: We are killing tons of their people and depleting all their resources, but promise to stop if our demands are met. There's a pretty good chance that our demands get met. --"He is just merely contradicting my own cards against me, and thus shouldn't be used in a standard LD NC; rather, in the rebuttal against my case." What? I'm using evidence to support my case that sanctions effectively achieve foreign policy objectives. It's not my fault PRO used these counter-intuitive cards in his own case. "Thus, you can ignore both of his cards to the point where is he is left without warrants, and cards, only with contentions." I'm not understanding the logic here? Because PRO posted the evidence first, it's impossible for it to support my case? Why would these warrants be invalidated for me, and only me? --- --"To extend my criterion, I'd like to add that throughout my case I explained thoroughly how I am justifying, and increasing the quality of life. His side is only hurting it through the sanctions, thus, my argument directly links to the topic at hand." Proving that affirming meets your standard is not the same thing as proving that your standard should be used. Suppose my criterion was 'greediness.' I could very easily throughout my case prove that hoarding our resources via sanctions better upholds greediness. This is exactly the same logic PRO is using. Do you see the loophole? There is never a justification why my criterion of greediness (nor his criterion) is actually a good thing, just that my side of the case better upholds it. --"To extend his arguement - We have no obligation to protect a foreign country's citizens;" This is directly contradictory to his own (unwarranted) criterion. --"we also have no right to directly hurt them in the means of death just because of need to sanctioned them" We're directly hurting them? By not trading with them, we are directly causing them harm? PRO has not traded with me whatsoever, this clearly means that he has directly caused me harm by his logic. That's just asinine! THEY have no right to force us to trade with them. We are in no way directly harming anyone. Sanctions just exercise the right to property that the other country has no right to demand us to relinquish for their sake. --"Sure, the sanctions caused deaths, which CAN be the goal of Sanctions, but what if the goal ISN'T to cause deaths." Then we wouldn't sanction them... --"You are causing un-needed harm, and drastic consequences to your own title" This is another contradiction to his own C-X testimony. These sanctions are needed to stop genocide/nuclear proliferation. They are not 'un-needed harm.' They are quite necessary, which is why we have historically used them. --- --"To extend my second contention. Again, what if more harm is being caused." He's extending a question? Pardon me for saying that I don't quite follow. --"By shortening the resources, more health of the population is being weakened; more people die each year as a result." That's exactly the point of sanctions... --"The countries cannot afford the materials needed to even buy Vaccinations for the population; thus, the right to life is being denied." Again, isn't this exactly what we use sanctions to achieve? Isn't a good thing that they are effective? --"as linked to my criterion, is lowering the quality of life to the foreign country." The key word here being 'FOREIGN.' Like PRO says in CX. We don't care about them, we're saving our own hides with sanctions. --"With such funds lost, they lose all ability to buy enough food, water, and materials needed." Isn't this just the definition of sanctions? We are doing this to them on purpose. It's not some unintended consequence. --"Thus, you cannot say such damages can justify the means of accomplishing the act of achieving FPO." Why? --- --"Finally, I shall extend my criterion." Didn't he already do this? --"Does it sound reasonable to kill innocent lives over achieving basic FPOs? Does it seem just to hurt the population over a country over possible threats? Does it sound right to cause more deaths than a war?" A lovely emotional appeal, but: 1. The logical answer is YES, because the benefits outweigh the harms. 2. This is a new argument for his criterion that wasn't provided in his original speech. --"I'm obviously winning the value debate" We agreed on the value... How is this possible? --"I've given cards to support those warrants, warrants to support those cards" Isn't this circular logic? --"Thus, you can ignore my opponent's words on their contentions, cards, and their burdens as all they did was state them - no reasons given." This seems very hypocritical, seeing how this is also just a statement with no reasons given... ======== =Summary= ======== My opponent has absolutely no clue what the word 'extend' means. This is the most important thing in the round because the way he is using it is really annoying me, but if you don't buy that, just refer to the above arguments where he has: 1. Made no arguments against my criterion 2. Not linked to my criterion; thus, 3. Not fulfilled his burden of proof.