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

NR interpreted, pun intended. Wow, two words for the Affirmative, "Spell Check" that was incredibly painful to read! I did not state that only one sanction had to work perfectly, I stated that I had to prove that a circumstance existed where economic sanctions ought to be used. The Affirmative has to prove that there is never a circumstance in which economic sanctions ought to be used. Therefore I am not arguing part of the resolution, I am arguing all of the resolution. I do not have a responsibility to show that an economic resolution has to be successful, nor do I have to show that it can be done without harming civilians. I only have to demonstrate that a circumstance exists where economic sanctions ought to be used. I have not ignored the 66% that were unsuccessful, in fact I provided the information. Further, 100% of the nations which imposed economic sanctions, felt that they were necessary, or that they "ought" to be used. Thus the resolution is negated. Without attempting to drop the Affirmative's arguments, I extend the former. I conceded the lack of success of the three economic sanctions my opponent cited. However, they would not have imposed said sanctions if previous less restrictive measures had been successful. Since they were not successful, the next logical step before going to war was the placement of economic sanctions in hopes of achieving their intended foreign policy. The Affirmative seems to prefer war over economic sanctions yet his value is human dignity with a criterion of social welfare. We will achieve our foreign policy by killing the people we disagree with and putting our own people in harm's way? I can not accept this as an acceptable policy, especially when the Affirmative wishes to encompass my VP/VC in with his, the Affirmative further implies that his VP/VC is morally sound than mine. I disagree. I assume that there is no food to eat in Cuba because of the overwhelming success of the economic sanction imposed by the United States? Shocking, I could have sworn I saw some MLB baseball players, fully grown, with Cuba as their home of record. Wow! If a nation has not signed the Geneva Accord, then they are not bound to obey it. Extended, a member nation may choose to disobey it even though they have signed it and accept a consequence. Contention 2 merely plays semantics to win the debate from a different angle. There is a time and place for everything. Economic sanctions are something, therefore there is a time when they ought to be used. My case has been defined and proven, my opponent has not shown us that economic sanctions ought not be used, he has shown us that they are largely unsuccessful, chaos can result from them, and that innocent people can get hurt or killed as a result of using them. Ironically, he endorses the jump straight to war where innocent people do get hurt and killed, and chaos results. A country would not impose a sanction unless they felt it was warranted, therefore, there is a time and situation in which economic sanctions ought to be used. For these reasons I respectfully request a Negative ballot. Thank you!