Lincoln - Douglas Debate :: essays research papers

Affirmative Case Introduction- "We must ingestion every tool ofdiplomacy and law we have available, while maintaining both(prenominal) the capacity and the resolve to defend freedom. Wemust have the vision to seek new avenues when familiarones seem closed. And we must go forward with a provide asgreat as our goal to build a pr take onical peace that willendure through the remaining old age of this century and farinto the next. Because I believe so strongly in the words ofU.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when shespoke at the Stimson Center Event, June 10, 1998, that I shoot you to support todays resolution, Resolved The use ofeconomic sanctions to fall upon U.S. Foreign Policy goals ismoral. Before I go on, I ascertain it necessary to define somekey phrases in this resolution ? economical sanctions- thedeliberate, government inspired withdrawal, or threat ofwithdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations."Customary" does not mean "contractual " it simply substancelevels of trade and financial activity that would probablyhave occurred in the absence seizure of sanctions. ? To action- tofulfill ? U.S. Foreign Policy goals- to encompass counterchangesexpressly sought by the sender state in the politicalbehavior of the target state. ? Moral- undecided of right andwrong action or of being governed by a sense of rightsubject to the law of duty. I ask you to affirm this resolutionin order to achieve my all-important value usher in of social welfare. To make my position clear, I will definesocietal welfare as the United States governments duty toact in the nations best interest. This also refers to what themajor(ip)ity of the citizens want. To achieve societal welfare, Ishall utilize the criterion of national security. I will definenational security as the governments indebtedness to protectits citizens. It is in this way that the United Statesgovernment must conk out to achieve its greatest goal ofsocietal welfare by drill the security of our nation.Now on to the core of the affirmative case My low gearcontention in this debate is that sanctions aim to modifybehavior, not punish. Sanctions do not exist to ostracize orpunish, but rather they foster a change of policy thatleads to compliance with standards of international law.One of our goals is to change or destabilize the targetsgovernment, which means to change its policies that holdhuman rights, terrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation.Others are to disrupt a relatively small military adventureand to change the policies of the target in a major way,such as, to surrender a territory. Our goals are NOT to go