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

I will first defend my case, then attack my opponent. *"Start with his value of the Common Good. One, he gives no warrant why this should be the highest value or how it should guide action." I thought it would have been self-explanatory but, okay. My value is superior because I want what is good for everyone, not just one persons morality. While on that, each persons idea of morality varies, and we don't have time to look at that many people, so this can't be upheld. **"Two, Common good is not always moral. For example, in the United States slavery was not just normal at one time but a vital part of life." I guess I am not understanding how trying to do what is right for the majority is immoral. Again, morality varies largely. ***"Extremely cheap labor allowed the country to thrive and contributed to the common good. However, it violated rights and the government has an obligation to protect rights given through the social contract over the common good." I am not worried about any single government, but all the nations involved. And as my case shows, protecting the innocent is for the common good. ****"His criterion is protection of the innocent however as I pointed out above the innocent aren't always protected when we pursue the common good." How is protecting the innocent bad? Should we let them die? No. *****"Second, he doesn't tell us what innocents we must protect or why or what this entails, this ultimately fails at the job of weighing the issues of the debate." Okay, obviously the innocent are those common peoples who did nothing to deserve the punishment they get from sanctions. ******"Third, the obligations of our own citizens will always come first since the governments existence is predicated on the consent of the governed." Is it not in the citizens interests to be protected? *******"Fourth, turn it, in order to protect the innocent it is necessary to take a stand against oppression in illegitimate nations such as Nazi Germany by enforcing economic sanctions." No, the threat of war would make nations change those objectionable policies. ********"His first contention says sanctions harm the nation which imposes them. However, one, even if they can have a harmful effect at times they should still be a tool open to use in appropriate situations. Refer to the burdens I establish in my case." I will address your case later to disprove this. "********"He gives the example of Britain and Africa however unemployment would only skyrocket because Africa has very little of its own production and it is a major importer of British goods. This is NOT a general situation."es, that is true, but why does generality matter? *********"And furthermore he cannot extrapolate any impact form this example. Finally this point has no link whatsoever to protecting innocents or fulfilling social contract obligations." I just proved the negative outcomes of this to show that these sanctions have failed before. Stopping their enforcement would prevent those possible outcomes from happening to others, thus protecting the innocent. **********"His second contention says sanctions can backfire. He says that sanctions make cooperation unlikely. However, one, this is untrue look at the example of Regan's progress with Russia under economic sanctions." This is only one example. Why risk them not working? ***********"and two, sanctions are intended as a last resort when negotiations already failed." if sanctions are a last resort, why not skip to the threat of war? ************"He says sanctions don't work by themselves however this is not relevant in any way to this topic and sanctions can and should be used along with other foreign policy tools to be successful." It is because, if they cannot work by themselves why use them? The negative needs to answer this. *************"FInally he gives examples of sanctions in the first Gulf war hurting innocent people. One, our obligation to protect the US from foreign threats outweighs the effect on innocents." Kill over save lives? **************"Two, turn this. Effects of sanctions on real people can cause internal pressure to mount for a revolution." Evidence or examples? ***************"Third, this fails again to meet his burden of proof." If they hurt innocents, then we shouldn't use them. ____________________________________________________________ Now to my opponents case. *"I value Morality defined as the principles of right and wrong which tell us what we ought to do. Since the resolution asks what we ought to do then morality is the most appropriate tool for weighing the resolution." Each individual person finds different things moral and immoral. We simply do not have the time to look at each individual. **"My criterion for morality is the fulfillment of social contract obligations. The social contract is an agreement between the people and a legitimate government giving authority to rule as long as it meets its basic obligations. Before government men lived in a state of nature where rights were constantly threatened by each man and retribution could never be determined properly. In order to protect ourselves we consented to give up the right to punish to a central body whose sole purpose was to protect our natural rights. Government must uphold its agreement with people or it is immoral. Therefore I submit that the purpose of foreign policy is to encourage legitimate government among other Peoples of the World and to benefit the prosperity of all legitimate governments." First, is it not in the social contracts interests to protect the innocent? ***Okay to 1A. This says that we will use this to prevent loss of jobs. How would we be losing jobs with these sanctions. My opponent is assuming we will attack the country as a whole. however this is not true. it wouldn't make sense to attack people owned countries. The war we would be starting, if at all, would be against government owned companies, and the government officials themselves. Given this, I don't understand how we would be harming the people, in regard to unemployment. ****"(1)B. Economic sanctions effectively assert moral outrage. Sanctions can be used for more than economic gain. As the voice and actor for the people the government has an obligation to speak out against atrocities which its people abhor. Because we, as citizens of the global community, have the moral obligation to express outrage at injustice so too does the government as the actor of our society. This makes economic sanctions an absolutely essential tool. For example, it makes no sense to say that we ought to do everything in our power to stop Hitler's Holocaust yet we ought not use economic sanctions against Germany. In fact, to not use sanctions in this case would be immoral since it would mean dollars from a moral society going to support a morally disgusting cause." Would war not send this message? Yes it would. Obviously people don't want war."rue but, as my case is upheld, which do you want, the threat posed by the target nations, or a war to minimize the threat? From what I know, people would want war to protect themselves, as we need to act against those policies. And I never said that people want war, that doesn't matter at this point, but that war poses a more direct and serious threat. Countries can survive a bad economy. ********1C. If "commerce with the target nation is nonessential", then why would we be talking about ECONOMIC SANCTIONS? **********2A. Would war not change these nations? As for the people I know, war kills people and that is a good reason for them to change their policy. Because I have upheld my case and shown the various faults in my opponents case, I must strongly urge a negative ballot.