| Welcome to Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you are registering with a Yahoo e-mail address, or if you are having trouble receiving your validation e-mail, please refer to this topic for assistance. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives; My new debate topic | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 30 2009, 01:53 PM (358 Views) | |
| Askio | Dec 30 2009, 01:53 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Beginning and End
![]()
|
Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives More or less speaks for itself. Are economic sanctions good, do they work, why or why not. Here are a few ideas that I will lay out for aff and neg, and tell me your own ideas Affirmative (or for the topic) -Economic sanctions do not affect the intended targets of the economic sanctions. Aka, the corrupt or demeaning leaders or governments that lead to abuse, and therefore the reason for the sanctions. Typically, when sanctions are imposed only a few possible roads open for the victims of the sanctions, and the leaders. 1) Leaders extort more from the people, therefore causing them to suffer. 2) Leaders find alternatives for money and resources around a blockade. These can be other countries or foreign organizations ranging from businesses to terrorist organizations. Negative (against topic0 Without sancions, what is left? Either countries use individuals as political pawns to achieve foreign goals. Ex. The US boycot of the USSR olympics harmed the athelets, not Russia. The only true alternatives to economic sanctions would either be 1) Political talks, but by the reasoning of the resolution, economic sanctions would only be used typically if talks have failed. And talk solves no problems with countries that would be the target of the sanctions. Ex: Remaining US citizens and UN forces pleads in Rwanda for the stop of the genocide were ineffective. 800,000 died. 2) War. Obviously the cost in terms of money, manpower, life, and time are far more at risk in war then with sanctions. These are just a single idea on each side to give a basic idea of the topic. What do you all think of the topic and the any argument ideas. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Reaver | Dec 30 2009, 08:16 PM Post #2 |
|
Troll
![]()
|
tl;dr, Cuba v. OPAC. I would use both parties as an example for their respective cases. I would consider the pragmatic nature of the resolution for the negative. Money matters. You can hold talks, you can go through the United Nations, you can use the threat of violence, but ultimately every nation needs money. If you want to enact change quickly, effectively, and with as little bloodshed as possible, fucking with a nation's finances seems to be the most direct route. The Affirmative should also mention bullying. Nations with more economic clout can outlast nations that aren't as wealthy, thus foreign policy will always favor the wealthy should economic standoffs occur. Players such as China and the United States will be more likely to get their way when compared to minor-league nations who don't generate nearly the same GDP as these two giants. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:35 AM Jul 11
|








3:35 AM Jul 11