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

I negate the resolution Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. My value for this debate will be Societal Welfare, which is defined according to businessdictionary. com the total well being of an entire society. Societal Welfare is the paramount value in this debate because economic sanctions increase the total well being of an entire society by stopping human rights abuses, effecting regime changes etc. My criterion for this debate will be Pragmatism, which is defined according to dictionary. com- a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. Economic sanctions are practical way of achieving foreign policy objectives because they are the middle ground between diplomacy and warfare. As the resolution does not state what the foreign policy objective is, we need to be practical and keep all options open. I'd like to counter define some terms so as to clarify this debate: Economic sanctions according to businessdictionary. com- Economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or UN's or WTO's demands. My opponent's rationale for his definition of economic sanctions was that since in the resolution the phrase "economic sanctions" was capitalized it must refer to an article. This is silly, thus my definition should be accepted. My opponents definition of ought according to dictionary. com was- used to express duty or moral obligation. I'd like to point out dictionary. com also has the following definition- used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc. Moreover, what is moral is subjective from person to person. What my opponent views as moral may not be viewed moral by me or vice-versa. Therefore, we should look at ought in accordance to the agent of action within this resolution which is a government. Foreign policy from Merriam-Webster- the policy of a sovereign state in its interactions with other sovereign states Objectives from thefreedictionary. com- an aim or purpose C1: Targeted Sanctions have shown to be effective According to George A. Lopez and Theodore M. Hesburgh, "Effective Sanctions," some of the most notable successes in this area have been in interdicting "blood diamonds" and related financial networks in seven African internal wars. They have also been used to effectively capture financial assets and lock down fake passport and travel networks belonging to individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in the first six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. With these four considerations integrated into their framework, smart sanctions continue to be used as effective tools for bringing about necessary changes of behavior in delinquent countries ( Sanctions were shown to be effective in South Africa stopping racial discrimination, human rights abuses, and the apartheid. Smart sanctions target specific areas in a target country's economy while still allowing humanitarian supplies and aid such as medical and food supplies to enter the country. Targeted sanctions have upholded my value of social welfare because they increase the total well being of an entire society by stopping human rights abuses committed by the target country's government. C2: Economic sanctions are necessary because they are a middle ground Economic sanctions serve as middle ground between diplomacy and war. A nation first tries diplomacy when trying to achieve a foreign policy objective. However, in many cases diplomacy fails because the target nation is unwilling to listen to diplomatic talks. For example, North Korea was testing nuclear weapons even though the United States had asked them to stop. War is the other extreme, which often results in more casualties and suffering than economic sanctions would. As no particular foreign policy objective is defined in the resolution, we don't know which of the three methods is most appropriate (diplomacy, economic sanctions, and war). Therefore, it doesn't make sense we get rid of sanctions. We must keep all the tools in the toolbox. We must keep every option open. Now going over my opponent's side of the flow: My opponent hasn't offered a value and criterion so as such I don't know what he is trying to uphold in this debate nor how he will achieve it. My opponent says quote on quote "Besides, my opponent is negating a negative statement. As Instigator, it is my opponent's responsibility to provide argumentation. The affirmative awaits an original and joyous argument from the opposing side". According to Lincoln-Douglas rules, there needs to be a clash in a debate so both sides need to support their sides not just attack their opponents. As my opponent as already used up his AC, we must now look towards is 1AR. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.