economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

affirmative first rebuttal and cross examination: cross examination: q1) please explain your value and criteria in short using a definition of morality and consequentialism. first affirmative rebuttal- i will now rebuild my own case. okay, so my opponent is great a quoting me and attacking however in most of her attacks there are holes . okay to start with- my opponent states that there is no warrant for justice or the fact that it is unjust to take money and kill people, however i donot fully understand what she means i am simply saying that you should not hurt society to do something that society may or may not agree with. it does not matter that abraham lincolin was refering to the slaves i quoted him to say that using economic sanctions takes freedom away from innocent people and that if we have it then they should too. my opponent says why would we raise taxes to impose sanctions, well how do you plan to pay for it? she also says that the cost would be worth it to achieve desired objective however as i said in my first argument sanctions historically have not worked. if military forces are not deployed then how would you enforce it . my opponent asks when this has been done but that highlights my point about how economic sanctions have not worked. a boycott is refusing to buy said products , a sanction is to stop products from entering the country . affirmative first rebuttal and cross examination: cross examination: q1) please explain your value and criteria in short using a definition of morality and consequentialism. first affirmative rebuttal- i will now rebuild my own case. okay, so my opponent is great a quoting me and attacking however in most of her attacks there are holes . okay to start with- my opponent states that there is no warrant for justice or the fact that it is unjust to take money and kill people, however i donot fully understand what she means i am simply saying that you should not hurt society to do something that society may or may not agree with. it does not matter that abraham lincolin was refering to the slaves i quoted him to say that using economic sanctions takes freedom away from innocent people and that if we have it then they should too. my opponent says why would we raise taxes to impose sanctions, well how do you plan to pay for it? she also says that the cost would be worth it to achieve desired objective however as i said in my first argument sanctions historically have not worked. if military forces are not deployed then how would you enforce it . my opponent asks when this has been done but that highlights my point about how economic sanctions have not worked. a boycott is refusing to buy said products , a sanction is to stop products from entering the country . my opponent discusses a bunch of stuff about morality and consequentialism however she does not back her argument , she says that governments are created by society , doesn't that mean that they should make it priority to protect society, instead of being a threat to it. For the arguments above I ask you to vote an affirmative ballot , thank you I now await negative rebuttal.