economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve forign policy objectives

I still stand in firm affirmation of the Resolution: economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. I will first go through my opponent's case then with remaining time (characters) I will strengthen my own. My opponent's definition has no source and is narrowed to a specific type of Sanction, mine however has a source and is broad. Therefore, my definition stands and hers falls. The Value "protection of society" is not fitting with my opponent's position as economic sanctions do not protect society but harm it. Contention 1- punishment should fit the crime I would agree that the punishment should fit the crime. The problem with this is that deciding what punishment fits a crime is difficult and irregular. Our issue we are trying to solve is what is the morally correct way to go about placing these punishments. Kant's Categorical Imperative is what I am advocating to determine the morality of a situation. I provided three reasons why Kant's Categorical Imperative is fitting with regards to my Value of Human Rights. I cannot tell if my opponent tried to attack these or not, but as she simply dismissed them without explanation, she did so without providing another test to determine morality. Therefore my meter by which to determine morality stands as the way we will determine the morality of any situation in this debate. By Kant's Categorical Imperative, it is evident that Economic Sanctions are an unfitting crime. Those in power committed a crime and it is the lower class that feels the brunt of it. The citizens who are being used as a means to an end, thus failing to pass Kant's Categorical Imperative. Contention 2- the nation being sanctioned determines what will be sanctioned This is a ridiculous claim, the sanctioning country chooses what is sanctioned every time. An example was brought up about murder. It was stated that if someone murdered a person that they will therefore get the death penalty. But it isn't so black and white as that. The claim was that by killing the person chose the death penalty for themselves, however the law states that a Jury of 12 must unanimously decide on the death penalty, therefore it is the Jury's choice not the murderer's. contention 3- protection of society is every ones responsibility. And by placing a sanction we are indirectly harming society, thus failing our responsibility. To sum up, yes we should start with diplomacy and non-economic sanctions. But we should, every time, skip the economic sanction step and go into a justified war. By meeting the Just War Theory we will be providing a fair and direct effort to prevent whatever problems we are focused on. In Just War Theory it is only those in Uniform, not civilians, who are fighting. Any Civilian loss must be proportional to the militaristic advantage gained. Plus by enacting a war we can effectively go straight at the "materials causing harm" rather than going through the civilians. By doing this we can protect the human rights on both sides, by supporting domestic affairs such as business and by not instigating intentional harm upon foreign citizens. For these reasons I urge a ballot in affirmation.