Sanction is not an effective tool for resolving international conflicts.

My opponent, to be blunt, fails. He also makes factual errors. #1 - Being slow does not mean its ineffective. The proverbial tortoise and the hare applies here. It is a process of ratcheting up pressure slowly to produce an effect - in deliberation over issues in which there are two sides. The decision about how much pressure to apply is a political decision. It should be noted that the imposition of full sanctions, an outright embargo, is considered at act of war precisely because it has such a devastating effect on a country and its people. It effective enough that it produces noticeable effects, and can be some immediately damaging that its considered an act of war. Any case that these do not actually work has simply not been presented at all. #2 - Exclusion most certainly does have devastating effects. The Embargo of Cuba, for example, has left them driving cars made in the 1950's. The attendant monetary restrictions and fiscal realities have left the entire Island impoverished. Iran - Iran and the US have points of cooperation and friction. We have collaborated over issues like Afghanistan, and are on the SAME side in Iraq - both with a desire to stabilize the fledgling Iraqi government against ISIS. Placing diplomacy into a zero sum area in which our adversary must be demonized and painted as terrorists would be the unhelpful aspect here. It largely prevents the very reality of diplomacy that leads to solutions rather than another generation of indemnity and animosity. Sanctions have brought the Iranians to the table - demonizing them does not make it different. Nigeria - Nigeria not punished is because the consensus needed to generate and establish the sanctions was lacking. That sanctions are not a panacea does not mean they are not effective, or that they could not be if applying correctly. Sanctions can be little more than a sop to the situation, in which politicians are seen to do 'something' for a domestic audience while acknowledging the complexities of a situation and allow trade as usual. In that, they also serve a purpose, 'something' rather than nothing. Simply put, the numerous examples of successful sanctions have simply been ignored by Con. Declaring that the effectiveness has not been proved is an appeal to emotion and little more. #3 - Con states that sanctions have failed, while deliberately ignoring that they have worked - simply declaring them failures in 'all ramifications'. If something achieves desired effects, its successful. 'All ramifications', with no specificity, is simply avoiding success. #4 "Over killing" - has been addressed many times. Sanctions can be everything from political theater to a full scale embargo and the initiation of hostilities. Several nations, notably China, use them with great aplomb and targeting of issues to great effect while doing no damage to the overall economic framework. 'Overkill' is not even an issue. The reality is that political systems rest upon a basis of power. Sanctions allow pressure to brought against that basis of power which can rise from a little to a lot. The idea that 'sanctions' are just a blunt instrument that ONLY targets the people is a fundamental misunderstanding of sanctions. #5 - The burden of proof goes to both sides, and Con completely failed to demonstrate, at any point, why sanctions in general fail. B simply shifting the burden of proof at the end to an adversary, he has committed a logical fallacy. Because you cannot prove sanction work every time, they never work. As we can clearly see in the evidence, they do work, and they often work far better than the alternative: war. The embrace of fallacious reasoning and the avoidance of alternative policy and their obvious 'overkill' dooms Con's case. #6 - My opponent fundamentally fails to understand how the UN works, and indeed sanctions in general. a. A court case: Consensus between member Nations precisely because investigations and intelligence are conveyed to member states the detail what is happening. Evidence drives the process. A desire to sanction must pass the 15 member, not 5 member (five are permanent members with VETO power not sole power) Security Council, and then it goes to the General Assembly for a vote. Any Nation can vote no. The reality is that the consensus needed to pass the Security Council likely also exists in the General Assembly. If not? Then the sanctions fail. My opponent is asking for something that is already in place. b. The UN is not the only body that sanctions. There are other organizations like NATO, etc that do as well. Individual Nations can also unilaterally impose sanctions, and these are particularly effective is the Nation doing so has a monopoly on the sanctioned items or services. Sanctions are instruments of state policy, and when consensus is needed for a broad range, then the UN is one forum to do so.Simply put, sanctions work. The provide a level of power that its alternative does not. Sanctions can be light to heavy, and can be ratcheted up and down with some effect on the resolution process. The alternative? Full scale war cannot be ratcheted down. Once joined, it is bloody, reckless, expensive, and rather than solve the political issue that it was meant to solve, all manner of unintended consequences arise - many of which may be worse than the original issues. As a country with a massive economy, to not use the subtle aspects of sanctions because we have declared them 'ineffective' in defiance of odds is reckless. The only thing such an action does is turn every problem into a nail than can only be solved by a hammer. We have alternatives, and should not be goaded into violence rather than clear headed use of influence and power to achieve equitable solutions rather than demonizing and smashing our enemies indefinitely. Simply put, Sanctions work more often than not, and they usually work quite a bit better than alternatives.