Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

** Cross Examination ** 1.) What about Government Legitimacy? - What about Natural Rights? -- What are you "actually" trying to achieve? 2.) As regards to your first contention, could there possibly be something more effective? 3.) As regards to your second contention... Sanctions used in conjunction with what? - What have they been using in conjunction with Sanctions? ** End of Cross Examination ** Rebuttal: ** My Case ** 1.) To extend my Values - "Justice," yes, does include those rights. In Modern Society, my opponent would be breaking justice, by taking away the natural right to Life. By taking away the right to life, they don't receive 'said' liberty, and property, either. Of course, discussing things may not ALWAYS work, but it is better than simply killing the innocent. By doing so, the real monster isn't the foreign country - it's the person/country who initiated the sanction. We may act on our own behalf, and at least try the non-harmful means of achieving them. Like my opponent said, try to talk it over. To get over the arguments, I will sum up my Values. I achieve my two values all throughout my case. First, my Value of Justice is clearly achieved by how I explained that I'm increasing the Quality of Life, and ESPECIALLY preserving the natural rights. With that, I hope to increase my criterion: Quality of Life. 2.) To extend my contentions - My opponent asks: "would it be preferable to allow the continuation of the violation of natural rights by failing to act--in essence, complicity--or would it be morally justified to take action to rectify the issue, although doing so might result in harm?" I simply respond: "Yes, it would." If we commit acts of harm, there can worse consequences than the harm the country expected. We cannot just assume the Sanctions will work, and kill people so the Foreign Policy Objectives can be attained. I ask my opponent: "would you be alright if you were in their place - you were an innocent live that was taken because of the need for a foreign country to achieve their objectives on your country? Would you?" And to get off my opponent's arguments, I shall further extend my arguments. My opponent asks for proof? I gave my opponent clear evidence on how even more deaths are being caused than those of war. My second contention clearly has proof for the Iraq Sanctions as well; inflation rose by 5000%, and income was an equivalent to that in the poorest nations. ** My Opponent's Case ** 1.) To attack my opponent's values: my opponent never tells what they hope to achieve with these to values (Government Legitimacy & Natural Rights). You can remove their Criterion, due to, as I recently explained, am protecting it more than they are. 2.) Contention 1: I'd like to start off by clearing up the statement: "less costly," where money has no means in LD debate. But, I shall attack it with haste- When it comes down to it, the only thing that matters is if the Foreign Policy Objective is achieved. So... my opponent's talk about "money," can be disclosed from the discussion. To continue, my opponent briefly talks about war, and diplomatic talks. My opponent DOES infact refer to diplomatic talks, but never to war in his cards. Thus, we cannot know if war would have been more successful, as detach the money issue from the debate. 3.) Contention 2: My opponent discusses team-work to achieve Foreign Policy Objectives. Doing such actions may make it worse for the Foreign Country in wanting to achieve the objective. Seeing as my opponent only has one piece of example of how it actually worked, we cannot thoroughly believe that it will work. With my opponent's results, why haven't most sanctioned foreign country's' used it? I look open to any clarification/cross-ex, and my opponent's voting issues.