should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

===Extend my arguments as my opponent did not refute them. === ===Extend my refutations as my opponent did not refute them. === ===Burden of Proof=== My opponent did not challenge the fact he assumes the burden of proof. Thus, he assumes the burden of proof, which has not been met ===I will now respond to everything that my opponent stated. === >He says that my contention is a vague statement. I will attempt to explain it in more detail. 1. ) The United States imposes sanction against 2. ) Iran feels negative effects of sanction, namely, their economy is harmed 3. ) The United States has the power to lift sanction if they please. Thus, it is in Iran's best interests to cooperate diplomatically, because the United States has the power to improve Iran's economy 4. ) Because sanctions are damaging to the economy of Iran, the mere threat of a sanction also gives the United States power. - I referred to this power as "diplomatic leverage". Hopefully this clarifies my position. He also says that one contention cannot fully explain my thoughts about the issue. Yet, he also only provided one contention so I do not think this is relevant. >>He claims that I have only provided one source. However, I have provided four 1. ) asfsc. org - definition of sanction 2. ) Levitt, Matthew, and Peter Crail. "Can Sanctions Be Effective in Halting Iran's Nuclear Program? " Council on Foriegn Relations, 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 22 Dec. 2010. - Matthew Levitt and Peter Crail's information 3. ) . http://www.iiss.org... - Andrew Parasiliti's writing 4. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org... - general information about sanctions against Iran. Normally, I would not bring up sources in a round. However, since my opponent has attacked my sources I would like to mention that neither of his sources mention sanctioning specifically, thus, they are not warranted to the resolution. >>> He claims that I attempted to increase the size of my speech by refuting his points in round one. However, he did not specify that round 1 was only constructive. In Lincoln Douglas debate, the second debater speaking is expected to provide constructive arguments and refutation in his/her second round. If my opponent only wanted constructive arguments in round 1 he should have specified this. He also makes the ad hominem attack regarding my organization. There is no one way to correctly organize a speech. Also, even if I had poor organization, why does this mean that I have no clue on the topic? Ad hominem attacks should not be looked to in any case. ===Summary of Debate=== My opponent assumes the burden of proof My opponent has relied on ad hominem attacks and has not refuted any points in my contention. Thus, it still stands. My opponent did not respond to my refutations. Thus, his points do not stand. My opponents points have no warrants to the resolution. In his entire contention he does not mention sanctioning. His case is essentially Contention- Government must prioritize (no warrant) A) Government must prioritize (again, no warrant) B) New Conflicts - BAD (again no warrant) My opponent's case deals entirely with prioritizing conflicts and not starting new ones. In order for his case to stand he must prove that Iran's nuclear program is not a priority (because he assumes the burden of proof) and that Iran's nuclear program is a new problem (which, clearly, it is not. Sanctions have been going on since the 1970's). Because my opponent has not linked his arguments to the topic none of them can be looked to Thus, you must vote affirmative. Thank you.