Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy OBJ>

i will begin by attacking my opponents case and then move on to rebuild my own. my opponents value was common good. He defined this in general as belonging or shared by to or more individuals. my opponent went on to discuss how economic sanctions harm innocents and therefore harm the common good. my value should remain under supremecy, and rule the round because my opponent value lacks self evidence. also, he says innocent. if we are imposing a sanction to protect ourselves, from this oposing country, then we are protecting our common good. and also, if we have warrant to use a sanction against this country, they are not innocent because they have deliberately put us in danger in one way or another, so therefore my opponents value is inconstistant and my value should be upheld. my opponent had no value-criterion, nor did he state that his value was upheld as both, therefore he has no clear disagreement with my value-criterion. by saying this, please flow that my criterion will remain the supreme criterion throughout the round, becuase my opponent cannot give another explaination after this moment. government legitimacy shall remain the standard. my my opponents first contention was that ECONOMIC SANTIONS HARM INNOCENTS. in this he says that common good is endangered by economic sanctions. i would like top cross apply my attack on his value, that there is no valid claim to whether or not the opposing country is innocent or taht they are not also violating our rights to protect ourselves by any means possible. therefore his first contention falls. my opponents second cont.was taht ECONOMIC SANTIONS HURT THE COUNTRY THAT IMPOSES THEM. is this he states that it interupts business activity. i will attack by saying this: in the end, the end results justify all means. we must protect ourselves. if our economy is set off track because we cannot trade with this one country, the end result is much greater than a bit of money loss. illegal drug trafficking, missiles, nuclear weapons, torchure.. all of these things are much more dangerour than losing money. it is life our death, and if we do not stop the larger aount of harm.. it could easily cost us our lives. also, i would like to take this time to point out that my opponent did not disagree with my warrant that stated: there is no other alternative than war. by exposing this, i show you that my opponent agrees, it is either a sanction, or war! and we want the absolute minimum harm possible. therefore his second contention clearly falls. my opponents third contention(PUNIATIVE SANCTIONS BACKFIRE) has two subpoints. A: according to targeted sanctions: in this he says it hurts their economy. this is true. and i agree with this for this one reason. THAT IS THE GOAL. it is the ONLY nonviolent way we can protect ourselves, and as i have previously stated, my opponent agrees, therefore his subpoint A must fall. B: not been proven to work. i attack this by saying his claim is incorrent. i have, in my case tht i have already provided, specific results calculated that show economic decreases and losses in the opposing countries and they have ceased to misbehave in the ways he had origionally targeted. therefore his second subpoint falls. i clarify that my opponent did not disagree with my coutner definitions nor did he attack my case in any way. knowing that my opponent fully agrees, i must win the flow and i urge a NEGIATIVE ballot. thank you.