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

My opponent gave several examples of the trade of low enriched fuel uranium, while I stated that no countries sell munitions high enriched uranium so his counter example is mute. The process of enriching fuel uranium to weapons grade uranium is a long and arduous one, also by restricting another countries access to nuclear fuel we are hurting their innocent citizens by denying the energy that is needed to survive therefore this example still violates my criterion. Next my opponent defines morality in his rebuttal, this is too late and should be disregarded but I will answer it. His definition is in "accordance with standards and good and right conduct." and I say that morality necessitates the value of life because if Life had no value than the decisions we made in life would not matter and therefore morality would not exist. he uses the counterexample of Hitler, however Hitler rejected morality he was a Nietzschean ï¿½bermensch therefore he is irrelevant and the counterexample falls. Next my opponent On his value my opponent explains why nat. security is extrinsically valuable but not intrinsically valuable a Value must be intrinsically valuable to be adequate that is the definition of a value so it falls. Finally my opponent uses the example of a boy with cake however the morality of an action is determined by the action itself not its consequences so this is irrelevant. On his criterion my opponent uses my argument against me however once again the deontological morality of an act is determine by the act itself and not it's consequences. and his example of the enemy combatant is mute as well because of what I have repeated over and over again we can not look at the consequences so his criterion falls. He says that we can use previous experience to predict future outcomes but still this is uncertain so it falls. C1a-) his uranium example already fell and he uses the examples of chemicals that can be used in weapons however he drops my chlorine example. This is true for many different goods that have been sanctioned in the past. C1b-)my opponent says I can't use examples of other options however I argue that Economic Sanctions are never appropriate and diplomacy, non-economic Sanctions can be used for better ends. Also when these fail military action is preferable to sanctions because fewer deaths are incurred and a vast majority of fatalities are military personnel who understand the risk they are incurring when they join the military, also Sanctions work less than a third of the time so it makes no sense to use such a option when there are superior alternatives. I do not say smart sanctions don't exist i say they don't work. C1+) My opponent fails to explain why killing innocents is unavoidable especially when I have proven that the alternatives are so superior. and no one believes the senseless killing of innocents is morally permissible, also economic sanctions are inherently more dangerous than war because war can be targeted while sanctions hurt all people and cause disease, and malnutrition. Sanctions are also very ineffective so they tend to go on for very long stretches of time. C2a) I already proved that smart sanctions don't work so this falls. C2b)I have already proven why all sanctions ought not be used. I individually prove why each type of sanction my opponent proposes ought not be used and my opponent show a complete incompetency in arguing against them other than providing inadequate examples and asking rhetorical questions. The rhetorical style of Glenn Beck should not be emulated and you should vote down on this. UV once again my opponent lacks any understanding of what an underview is. It is an of case attack so it would not link to his criterion. voting issues 1. We can't determine the consequences of an action therefore it is impossible to accurately determine a cba 2. National security is not inherently valuable while morality is therefore you have to use my value. 3. The superiority of alternatives. Diplomacy and war are always more effective and moral No argument made by opponent in the next round should be taken into account.