economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

Affirmative case: by lovedebate Good day, I affirm the resolved, that economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives. for the purpose of clarification i will now present several definitions that will be used through out my argument: economic sanction- to cut off all imports and exports from one or more countries which sanctions are placed upon, to cut off all food, water, medication, mail, and trade.i ask my opponent to consider trade sanctions a part of economic sanctions. forign policy objective- intent from one or more countries to other countries. achieve- to reach a set goal. crime-a violation of laws murder-the crime of killing a person warranted- to be deserving of ought-should note:sources will be posted at the end of this argument. my value premice is-justice my criteria is that it is unjust to kill or take money from citizens for something so futile. to quote Abraham Lincolin "those who deny freedom to others , deserve it not for them selves." and because i agree with MR,LINCOLIN i will now present my argument against economic sanctions. contention 1 -costs of sanctions so as to ensure that my opponent and audience do not misinterpet what i mean by costs i will explain the term and my reasoning. by costs i donot simply mean costs in money although that is certainly an aspect to consider, what i am refering to is collateral damage and demolished rights.i will first explain costs in money and move on to collateral damage and demolished rights.---tax payers all ready give up so much money by duty to help support their government and it is unjust to take more of their money for something that they may or may not agree with. the costs to enforce sanctions would include but ot be limited to deployment of military forces , weapons for their protection, food and fresh water for their nourishment . I will now explian collateral damage: the death of any man, woman, or child, due to enforced sanctions will be the definition used for collateral damage.not only could there be deaths on the side of the sanctioned due to lack of food water and medication but also on the side of the enforcers.due to possible attacks targeting weakness in the enforcers block. if you remember i quoted abraham lincolin before stating my first contention. I used that particular quote to imply that we are taking their rights to life liberty and property, by enforcing sanctions , you go home and eat every day but this country being sanctioned will eventually run out of food to eat,think of those little childeren starving to death, they deserve the same freedom that you and i have every day, if you want to start something fine then what ever but target the government , the brunt of economic sanctions effect the people not the government. so to enforce sanctions would mean stealing and murder.talk about crime. contention2-historically sanctions are largely ineffective. the theory that sanctions are effective is just that , a theory, a theory is unproven and potentially wrong , so unless my opponent can prove or disprove said theory, this argument should stand.sanctions largely have been extremely ineffective in the past , why continue a practice that has so historically been furile? contention3-building of hate. in my contention 1 i stated that military forces would have to be deployed to enforce sanctions, even if persay sanctions did work, eventually there will be a weak spot in military guard. sanctions cannot be in place or enforced forever and when sanctions are removed or weakened , that leaves an open spot for attack on the country sanctioning. a country will not forget something so brutal so easily and will feel the need to fight back against the country that sanctioned them. contention4-in oast non-violent methods have proven more effective. a famous non-violent protester once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind " that man was MAHATMA GHANDI and this mans methods were effective because he fought without fighting at all, but by using boycotts and deplomacy. another example and more proof that this argument is correct was MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. who also fought using non-violent methods, finishing what GHANDI started. both of these men were murdered because of their beliefs, but does it really seem so wrong, not to fight, not to kill? for the reasons listed above i ask you all to vote an affirmative ballot and i now stand ready for cross examanation and a challenge. thank you.