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

The order will be NC, AC. First to definition debate. My opponenet states that I don't say why my definition is preferable to his, but his definition states that ought is "used to indicate obligation or duty." However the def. does not state what kind of obligation it is, therefore he has no link in his definition to morality, justice, etc. In my definiton, justice and morality are both acceptable paving the way for my value of justified action. On my definiton of justice , sanctions promote the greatest good. It is impossible to give literally everyone their due and sanctions will come closer to giving each their due than my opponent. Value/Value criterion debate: You are using my value of justice because my opponent again fails to state why democracy is the only way to achieve fairness merely saying his is a prerequisite to mine. However, he fails to state why this is true, why we need a democracy to have justice. In countries where the government is not a democracy does it mean that justice cannot exist? Thus you cannot look to my opponent's value. Criterion debate: My value criterion of using the most effective means is better because his VC of free trade doesn't link to democracy. Sure, he gave the concept of trade promoting human rights, but did not warrant on why this is true. He also did not state why my value criterion is bad or cannot be used so you can extend my VC. NC C1: My opponent's only response was that I have no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon. However, it is currently in development and the fact that it does not have nuclear weaps is proof that the sanctions are working. Since my opponent gave no other reason for Iran's non proliferation, sanctions will be the main factor. Extend my subpoint A and the Millhollin card: This is the most important argument in the round because it shows that sanctions are the most effective option we have available. My opponent failed to provide a counterplan and failed to refute this so it remains true for the duration of the round. My opponent says the capability for a country to develop a nuclear weapon is not reason enough to sanction them, but the Millhollin card clearly states that a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to our well being and because my opponent did not refute that, the Millhollin card is true for the round. Extend subpoint B and the Scowcroft and Barak cards: This card shows that if Iran got the bomb other countries would rush to do the same. This would lead to a nuclear arms race and my opponent only states how sanctions deter will stop the nuclear arms race when it hasn't before. However, since he says himself Iran currently has no nuclear weapons, it means that means Iran's nuclear program hasn't succeeded yet. As well, my cards clearly show that a nuclear arms race will occur should Iran get the bomb, something my opponent did not respond to with warrants of his own. Thus Scowcroft and Barak remain true for the round as well. On to the AC C1: My opponent continually states that sanctions cause government regimes to gain more support. I have already conceded this and oughtweighed him with the nuclear arms race and nuclear war. In my NC I state "Since Iran getting nuclear arms would generate a nuclear arms race and then possibly a war, this will outweigh anything aff. offers on magnitude. Unless the aff. can justify a nuclear arms race, this argument stands." My opponent did not refute my outweighing on magnitude or justify a nuclear arms race, so I still outweigh. C2: His second contention is still irrelevant because he fails to show how democracy will attain justice. "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. " He fails to show why free trade will give each his or her due or how free trade will even attain democracy. In addition, he never stated why democracy is the only way to achieve democracy? Does justice only exist in a democracy? Since the neg. outweighs in magnitude and would not cause a nuclear arms race or war (things my opponent all conceded to), I stongly urge a negative ballot.