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

First CX to my opponent. Explain to me clearly about the meaning of your contention 2 about Semantics. Roadmap: Attack NC, then, Defend AC. First, my opponent start with a presumption that Negative has only a burden to prove any one sanction that had worked perfectly. This argument, does not meet the true definition of this debate. We are debating about the whole economic sanctions that has been imposed in this world. Furthermore, it gives an unfair burden for an affirmative to prove, and his argument does not meet the status quo of normal economic sanctions that has been imposed. Thus, my opponent is only partially debating about this resolution. Then, most importantly, he does not provide a specific example that actually did not harm any civilians. He does not specify or provide any of an example of it. If his examples were the sanctions that only banned single items, or prevented from creating a nuclear weapons, I will argue about these contentions as I move along. Then, he clearly stated in definition that word 'ought' is to have a 'moral obligation.' Then, if the negative is arguing about only few of the sanctions that has been worked properlly, (34% only) he does not follow a moral obligation to argue about whole issues on this economic sanction. Then, my opponent has ignored all the 66% of the economic sanctions that has resulted to violation of moral obligation. My opponent value was a 'Security.' First, he does not give a defintion of a security. Thus, we do not exactly know what kind of security are we talking about. For example, is it mental security, physical security, or etc. Thus, he does not have a warrant to back his value. Then second, how can we know we have achieved security throught economic sanction. U.S has imposed a sanction against all the terrorist group, yet throught Christmas-Day bombing, we still know that we are not fully secure. Then, third, he does not specify whose security we are discussing, then if we are discussing the security of nations that are expiriencing sanctions, I provided a warrant that they are not secure from crime, HIV, and illegal opium. Fourth, I have defined my value of 'human dignity' as having all human needs. Security is just one of the human needs. Thus, my value encompasses my opponent's value. Moving on, my opponent criterion was a 'preservation of rights & security.' Once again, he does not provide a defintion for it thus he does not have a warrant to back up his criterion. Then, since he does not provide definition of it, we don't know what kinds of rights, and whose right we are discussing. Then if it was the right of person in nation which sanctions are imposed, they lost their human right due to lacking food, education, and housing availability. Third, to preserve a human right, it is essential to have an order in society. Thus, my criterion of promoting a social welfare comes before my opponent's criterion. Therefore, my criterion encompasses my opponent's. Then, in his contention 1, he said, 'Economic sanctions are the last resort before going to war when all others have proven unsuccessful.' First, he does not provide any of the examples where non-econmic sanctions have proven unsuccessful. Then, even though my opponent provided, why can't we have an another peaceful talk, or diplomacy to solve an issue? Then, if it is an emergency, such as if one nation is threatening others to bomb a nuclear weapon, economic sanction is too slow or mild way to treat that nation. Thus, war is needed in this case. My opponent also argued that when economic sanctions are imposed, only one items are denied. He, once again, does not provide a warrant or examples of this kinds of sanction. Then, furthermore, even if only one item is sanctioned, if that item is a food, or basic necessity, it will cause a chaos within that nation. Oil sanction on Japan caused War, food sanction on Cuba, caused starvation within Cuba, and food sanction on Burma also caused Chaos. Then, he provided an example that Economic Sanction can successfully prevent nations from having nuclear weapon. However, that example was just theoratical. It did not have a warrant in real world. Then, to counter attack his argument, although economic sanctions were imposed on North Korea, Iran, and Pakisthan, they all have the nuclear weapon to terrorize the other nations. Thus, his contention falls. Thus, all his argument about 'Smart Sanctions' does not exist in this real world. C2 - see CX Defend AC The true meaning meaning of 'Dignity can't be quantified' means that Human dignity is immense. Then he argued that social welfare cannot measure Human Dignity. However, I have clearly showed a link between these criterion and my value. (Look all the impacts in my contentions and Criterion). Thus, there are no argument about measuring human dignity. Then, he did not clearly argue about my contention of Geneva Protocol. Geneva Protocol is an international Treaty that all U.N nations have signed. Thus, all the nations in the world has an obligation to follow it. Then, also, my opponent does not clearly provide an example of not violating these issues. He never showed real world example. So, since we have moral obligation, and opponent actually never argued against it, you can extend my argument. Moving on, my opponent once again said, Cuban sanction was not 'Smart'. However, this sanction also banned only one section of items, food, thus according to my opponent's definition, it must be the smart sanction. However, it still caused the chaos. Then, furthermore, my opponent never respond to my argument that Sanctions caused U.S to receive international blames and alienated its allies. Thus, you can extend my argument of receiving an international blames. Also, my opponent never argued about educational, housing, industrial, and etc detrimental effect on Cuba. So, voters can extend that. Second, about my contention on Pearl Harbor, my opponent just said it is just 'unrealistic.' However, he did not provide reason behind it. Thus, his assertion can be just ignored. However, my argument of economic sanctino on Oil export to Japan catalyzed World War II still stands because he never argued about it. Also, this sanction also banned only one item, oil. Thus, this also was 'smart sanction' according to my opponent definition. Therefore, you can extend my whole second contention. Third, for my contention of sanctions on Burma, opponent just said he will stipulate that economic sanction against Burma was ultimately unsuccessful. However, he does not provide reason, and explanation of his assertion. Thus, you can ignore his argument against my third contention. Then even though my opponent has provided reason, he did not argue against my evidence that shows direct link between increasing crime, HIV, and illegal opium rate. Thus, you can extend all of my third argument. Furthermore, my opponent never argued about U.S alienating its allies. Thus you can extend that argument. In summary, from the beginning, my opponent's case was built on illogical belief that he has a burden to prove only one kind of sanctions does work. Then as I have proved, if he is debating on these issues, he is only partially agreeing with this resolution. Then, as I have proved, his value and criterion is encompassed my value and criterion, and all of his contentions as I have aruged falls. Then, looking at my case, I have successfully proved that my value and criterion stands firm, and my contentions then, I have successfully defended all of my contentions. Furthermore, voters can extend all of my argument about cuban detrimental effect on food, educational, and other availability, Sanctions on Japan catalyzed World War II, increasing HIV, crime, and illegal opium rate in Burma, and finally U.S allienating its allies. Thus, I urge voters to vote Affirmative.