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

I will follow the same order as my opponent and add voters at the bottom. My opponent defends his definition by saying that my "counter example falls and you must accept my definition." His reasoning is that "no country in the world sells weapons grade uranium to any country." However, this is incorrect. Syria has a "proposal for gradual exchange between low-enriched uranium and nuke fuel enriched at level of 20 percent" with Iran [http://sns.sy...]. Also, countries, like Russia, sells large amounts of low-enriched uranium [http://www.reuters.com...] which can be converted to high-enriched uranium, or weapons-usable uranium. "Proliferation experts say 1,000-1,700 kg of low-enriched uranium, if converted into high-enriched uranium, would be enough to make a bomb" [http://www.reuters.com...]. Therefore, it still stands that economic sanctions are used to limited resources to countries, as well as cause economic harm. My opponent next defends his value of morality. He says morality is "determine[d] on a case by case basis". However, he misunderstands my argument against morality. You cannot clarify morality through a specific example and create a moral law. For example, my opponent argues that morality is respecting human worth. But this is not a universal statement. Some people would say morality is simply in "accordance with standards and good and right conduct." [American Heritage dictionary]. Again, too vague. Some people believe that doing drugs is immoral, while others don't. In regard to respecting human worth, people can disagree that people have inherent worth that commands respect. Obviously, Hitler (I apologize for the clichï¿½ example) did not think that humans had universal worth to respect. Unless my opponent can prove, which he hasn't, that respecting human worth is a universal moral statement, he cannot use morality as his value. My opponent also argues that ought must be a moral obligation because Dictionary.com defines ought as such. From Dictionary.com, ought is ALSO defined as "(used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers" [http://dictionary.reference.com...]. Clearly, ought is defined differently depending on the agent of action. As I stated last round, a point (O1) that was not refuted by my opponent, the agent of action is a government. Governments are NOT moral agents. Governments may adhere to some morals sometimes, but the ultimate goal of government is not upholding morality. Governments have the purpose of protecting the people within. Therefore, the government "ought" to do an action if it is beneficial to the people. Onto my value. My opponent says that national security is not inherently valuable. Without national security, the country becomes open to invasion and destruction. If the country is destroyed, it becomes unable to protect the citizens and they are forced back into the state of nature. The state of nature is undesirable because no rights are protected and everyone's safety is in jeopardy. For this reason, people from the beginning of time have banded together to form societies. Since we want to protect our rights and safety, we avoid the state of nature. We form governments. Governments need security. Therefore, national security is inherently valued. Also, morality is not inherently valuable. Besides the fact that morality is fully subjective, I can act immorally and little harm be done. I may consider lying to be immoral. I may lie to my nephew that there is no more cake for him to eat. He doesn't eat cake after dinner. Very little harm, if any, is caused by my "immoral" action. We cannot know the outcomes of our actions before we act. I will use my opponents own arguments against his VC. How do we know our actions will respect human worth? I may have that goal, but my actions to respect human worth may ultimately degrade it. Is your VC now invalid? The CBA Is a valid criterion because we have the ability to learn from past actions and predict future outcomes. For example, we can predict that launching a nuclear missile at China is probably not a good idea because the benefits definitely do not outweigh the costs. We use a CBA everyday as individuals. I eat healthy because I predict that the benefits outweigh any costs. Also, I would like to extend the dropped argument I made against my opponents VC. I said "there is no clear line on what respects human life and what doesn't. Would killing an enemy combatant with the goal of protecting the lives of your family disrespect human life? What if you let an enemy combatant live and he kills your family, is that disrespecting human life?" This attack was dropped and we can accept that his VC of respecting human life is not a sufficient criterion. C1a-) I provided evidence in the RA that shows how enriched uranium is traded and can be converted for weapons use. Also, my opponent disregards the basis behind my argument. Enriched uranium is not the only tradable object that can be used as a weapon. Any chemicals that can be used for weapons, and even weapons trading themselves, could provide the reason to impose a sanction. C1b-) My opponent's criterion of respecting human worth has been invalidated so his impact fails to link. A government can always use diplomacy first, and only economic sanctions after all other options have been exhausted. My opponent accepted my observations, and O2 said that my opponent has the burden to prove that all economic sanctions are bad. Therefore, he cannot use conditional circumstances, like what other options could or could not have been tried, to prove why economic sanctions always "ought not" be used. My opponent then says that smart sanctions do not exist. The source I provided in the previous round would disagree. C1+) My opponent has two arguments on this contention. He says 1) just war theorists believe killing citizens is unjust and 2) the sanctions on Iraq caused more deaths than the war itself. Starting with 1), just war theory says citizen causalities should be avoided, but they are permissible if unavoidable. My argument was that some people may believe that civilian causalities are morally permissible; therefore, moral consequences are not weighable. 2) the sanction on Iraq is just example. Extend my O2 that my opponent accepted. It says that my opponent must prove that all sanctions are inherently unwanted. One example does not prove that sanctions will always cause more civilian causalities. Also, my opponent has not provided causality between the sanctions and civilian deaths. C2a) My opponent has NOT proved that smart sanctions are not possible, and he has not refuted at all that aid cannot be given through sanctions. C2b) My opponent shows a complete misunderstanding the observations he accepted with this argument. He argued that Cuban sanctions (or any other political sanctions) are wrong. My O2 said that he must prove that all sanctions ought not be used. He only proved that political sanctions ought not be used. I still have proved that smart sanctions (which my opponent has failed to prove how they don't exist) ought to be used. Yes, I dropped the underview, it fails to link to my criterion in any way. Reasons to vote neg: 1. The value of national security is more concrete and valuable than morality. 2. My opponent dropped my attack on his VC, proving that respecting human worth is impossible to determine, thus we auto. default CBA. 3. My opponent has not proved why sanctions on weapons are bad. Such sanctions will protect national security. They are extremely beneficial with little harms. 4. Smart sanctions can be effective and useful. My O2 allows me to prove that sanctions CAN work, not that all of them will. Smart sanctions have the capacity to be beneficial with little harms. For these reasons I urge a negat