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

I'll defend my case and then I shall move on to my opponent's case. My opponent states that ought from dictionary.com is defined as justice, moral righteousness or the like. He never explains why is counter-definition is preferable to my definition of ought. Besides morals are subjective to individuals which basically means that what I consider moral may not be considered moral by my opponent, or vice-versa. Therefore, my definition of ought still stands. My opponent states that since the word objectives is plural in the resolution, that implies foreign policy objectives in general and whether sanctions ought to be used. Once again my opponent hasn't explained how the pluralization of the word objectives implies foreign policy objectives in general. Maybe my opponent didn't clearly understand my observation. Basically what my observation is saying is that since the FPO(s) in the resolution are not stated, we have to debate about whether economic sanctions should be used as a general principle to achieve any foreign policy objective. Note the word "any", because in my opponent's case he focuses on the objective of stopping a nuclear war. Therefore, my observation still stands. My opponent states that democracy shouldn't be the value of this round because I don't warrant it as the only way for fairness and just. You need a society to have equal rights by being fair and just, before you can give each his or her due. Economic sanctions are a barrier to international commerce and allow governments to deny political and civil liberties (see my C1). So democracy is not upholded, therefore there aren't equal rights and privileges in the target country. As you can see economic sanctions go against my opponent's own value of giving each his or her due. My opponent says that free trade shouldn't be the criterion of this round because if a country still threatens our well being do we still trade with them? Neither side has to prove or disprove sanctions that sanctions are justified in call cases. If you look back to my observation, economic sanctions are not always implemented for the purpose of security. I've shown that economic sanctions violate free trade, thus not achieving equal rights for all, thus not achieving democracy, and thus not upholding justice. C1: My opponent says "Although sanctions may allow regimes to blame outside forces for their misfortune, one has to ask, is the Iranian president blaming woes on the U.S. worse or is an entire nuclear arms race with constant tension and war threatening to erupt worse? Thus the neg. outweighs." What you have to look at here, is that economic sanctions goal is to cause the target country's citizens to rebel against the government or hurt the citizens so the government changes its policies. My opponent conceded the point that economic sanctions fail in doing that. If, they fail how are economic sanctions going to put pressure on Iran, in this example, to stop its nuclear program? What would be the incentive for Iran to stop if the public supports the Iranian government? C2: My opponent says my second contention is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant since it shows that free trade achieves democracy, thus attaining equal rights and fairness, and thus attaining justice. Justice is defined by my opponent as giving each his or her due. Economic sanctions clearly do not do that, since oppressive regimes keep on oppressing (see my C1). So my case not only supports my value, but it upholds my opponent's value better than his own case. On to my opponent's side of the flow His value was justice with the criterion of the most effective means. All my opponent has done is defined them, he never offers reasoning has to why they should be the value/criterion pair of the round. Moreover, he never offers a link between his value and criterion. How do the most effective means (I am assuming economic sanctions) give each his or her due? C1: Economic sanctions circumvent nuclear war. Subpoint A: Once again how will economic sanctions give each his or her due? Second, my opponent hasn't offered evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Simply because a country has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon is not grounds enough for sanctioning them. Imagine for example, someone owned a handgun and they were arrested because they had the capability to murder someone. Third, economic sanctions haven't deterred Iran from its nuclear program before, so why should they do now? Subpoint B: Once again how will economic sanctions deter Iran from its nuclear program, and thus stop a nuclear arms race when it hasn't before? My opponent's case doesn't uphold justice as much as it does national security, which I think is the value my opponent should have used.