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

Roadmap speech will be NC and then AC. Please denote arguments as important if they have an "EXTEND" at the end. NC: A. Framework/Standards OB2) My opponent's observation Value/Criterion: I respect my opponent's choice of his value and criterion. However, I will later go on to say why he cannot use his criterion to achieve the value. This will be done by taking out his contention level arguments. Contention 1: Sanctions should be used to stop weapons trading and proliferations. A) Direct Sanctions/Nuclear War Materials My opponent claims that if countries wanted to obtain nuclear weapons, the most appropriate course to take would be to impale a multilateral sanction on enriched uranium. While I do respect my opponent's attempt at the argument, there are two major flaws with this. First of all, where is the warrant, or piece of evidence, that justifies the claim? In LD Debate, in order for any argument to count, you must have a claim, warrant, and impact. While he as a claim and an impact, he lacks a warrant to prove why this situation would be true. In other words, how do we know through real-world applications that Enriched Uranium would actually fuel national proponents to sanction the country that is holding that particular Uranium. Also, how do we know that this sanction would not harm a single person, as my opponent claims. This argument is entirely redundant now in the round and henceforth, is discarded. (EXTEND) Secondly, I can fulfill the burden he placed in the last sentence of the sub-point. The reason why his course of action is completely immoral is because by sanctioning a country, you are effectively controlling their behavior and thus, expressing a behavioral quality of dictatorship. To justify this, first refer back to my definition of sanctions. My opponent dropped this definition so you can assume that he agrees with the definition. My definition states that a government will make a country change a certain policy or political situation via sanctions. By him placing a sanction on Uranium, you are acting like a dictator to that regime by making them change their policy. (EXTEND) B) Indirect Sanctions of Weapons Ends War The claim here that he makes is that a certain nation can use sanctions to blockade resources in another country's economy to discourage the procurement of weapons. He then warrants this by giving an example from Newsweek on how the Iranian leaders would see the cost of their behavior. First of all, what did these Iranian leaders do that made them deserve such economic aggression. My opponent is essentially forcing the Iranians to be given punishment when he has not even said what they did to actually inherit this unjust treatment. Secondly, my opponent believes that specifically smart sanctions would force the Iranian government to suffer the right amount but throughout the AC part of this speech, I will show why smart sanctions are bad. At the end, he says that using a monopoly on resources would save millions of lives. However, he has failed to point out what Iran's people are suffering from. Why are they receiving the sanctions in the first place? If there is no reason that he can provide, then you must affirm by default. (EXT) As you can see, because I have successfully proven why his contentions are fundamentally flawed, his criterion can not operate in a manner such that it will achieve national security. AC: A. Framework/Standards He makes this argument against my Holocaust quote that the Holocaust was not like economic sanctions. The justification comes here where he says that sanctions are not intentionally supposed to murder people. My opponent completely misunderstands this because I am actually not making an argument. What I am saying is that economic sanctions are very similar to the death tolls that occurred during the Holocaust, not that they were intentional. I agree that sanctions are not intended to harm people, but those are the results. And since my criterion wants to achieve a utilitarian type environment, then sanctions are bad because they harm many people. (EXTEND) Observation 1: He says that I cannot prove why economic sanctions are bad in general. 1) He says that I am placing limits on the types of sanctions that we are discussing. This is entirely a false statement. What I am saying is that I am proving that a certain quality or characteristic exists in every sanction, in general, that actually make them an "ought not" action, as he stated himself. I am not limiting the resolution to a certain type of sanction so there is no reason he will have to run theory debate. 2) Literature Abuse: He claims that I have not provided economic sanctions in general. This claim is entirely false again. If you look at the AC near the beginning, you will see that I have clearly defined what sanctions are. Now in the end, he claims that we should debate about specific sanctions, like Smart Sanctions. Now, he actually creates the abuse he was trying to go against. He is limiting the resolution to only one type of sanction, a smart sanction, which is very unjust. (EXTEN) V: Morality My opponent believes I have not defined morality, but once again, look up at the top. It says that it tells us what our obligations are depending on the word "ought." Then he says that there is no single entity that can tell us what our morals are. Well there are many examples that can tell us about morals such as the U.S. Constitution, Bible, or any other scripture that contains lessons. In the end though, people will believe what they want to believe, but governments ultimately will be the "agent of action" as my opponent states in his observation. (EXTEND) C: Net Benefits We have more or less the same criterion but he says that mine will achieve his. However, I have already shown why his criterion, which means my criterion as well, cannot achieve the value. (EXTEND) He makes a small claim that if sanctions were not imposed, terrorism would occur and that would outweigh the Mueller cards. However, throughout this round, he has not provided any evidence to justify this position and therefore, this argument must fall. (EXTEND) C1: He claims again that smart sanctions on enriched uranium would do the 2 things he said (see last speech). However, he does not provide evidence to successfully prove that smart sanctions would not cause anyone to die or that it would save millions. (EXTEND) C2: He claims this card will encourage terrorism with a vote for the Affirmative. However, he made the false claim that it was non specific and the fact the U.S. is helping makes sanctions worse. (EXTEND) C3: Again, no evidence for smart sanctions to say that they actually have helped in the real-world and therefore, he cannot make such speculations. (EXTEND) He has not made any extensions to score points on arguments, so please vote Affirmative. Thank you