Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 You're a random

About óñg

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/24/93

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. this seems to be really an unpopular topic :/
  2. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    leliana is such a terrible rogue tho, archer is pretty decent tbh great against dragons. Shapeshift is so gay, i really wish i could get out of that specialization. Too bad wynne left my party otherside i would have a arcane warrior Spirit healer
  3. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    Im lvl 16 atm and im afraid i blew off 131 gold on a shitty weapon. The veshialle so far doesnt seem like that good enuff of a weapon for so much money. compared to AODH its only a bit better tbh. Purchasing the weapon was kind of a disappointment. Party: Main Warrior axe n shield tank lvl 16 Sten Double Hander, :/ champion lvl 14 Leliana Archer Bard lvl 15 Morrigon: lvl 15 shapeshifter/spirithealer
  4. Since no one here is negating I guess I will, Ok there are several points wrong with above's statement 1: This situation is entirely theoretical and the outcome is not going to occur 100% of the time. Compared to the 100% chance of the dehumanizing effects of the sanctions. When weighing the probability here the Neg always wins, I will then explain to you why life is not a value at all. 2: Life has no inherent value or meaning itself. Rather its the quality of life that entails some if any type of purpose. If you are confined to a coma state or even more recently a paralyzed state where all that keeps you alive is a machine is life really worth living? Hence it would be the quality of life that gives life itself purpose, which then begs the question what gives people the quality of life? Other natural rights such as liberty etc, give the right to life its foundation. In a sense you much have these conditions to make life "worth it." Therefore if we look to natural rights you will consider the conditions that affects one's liberty or pursuit of happiness in conjunction with the life itself. 3: Even if you look to the calculus above weighing this on a body count I win again because the Sanctions are ineffective. Sanctions are ineffective because they don't limit one's trade at all. This is because of the Black Market. Black Market Trade had been around since the early stages of civilization and has ceased to end no matter what the measures taken. The Black Market trade has the biggest impact because they can always look to that to fill in the trade void that the actor has clearly placed upon. I will elaborate more on this matter further below. The consequences for Economic Sanctions are endless. I will then prove exactly why these sanctions are counter productive. Economic Sanctions have dire consequences on residents and assume government/leaders will change policy. Economic Sanctions use the residents of another country as a means to foreign policy goals. The basic logic of sanctions is to impose hardships on the residents of a country to create change in that country's leadership. Rarick explains :(Rarick, Charles A. (Professor of Management, Barry University), and Martine Duchatelet. 2008. Economic A_airs. \An Ethical Assessment of the Use of Economic Sanctions as a Tool of Foreign Policy." Pgs. 48-52.) The theory operating behind sanctions is to cause as much pain as possible to the people of a receiving country in order for pressure to be brought on the government. The citizens of the sanctioned country are used as a means to achieve the foreign policy objectives of the sanctioning country. Sanctions in Iraq caused the price of basic food products to greatly increase, resulted in inadequate nutrition, caused a decline of health care, and led to the collapse of the national currency. Estimates conclude that resulted deaths range around 500,000 children under the age of five between 1991 and 1998. Economic sanctions themselves can be called instruments of mass destruction. Dursun Peksen argues: (is assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University. His research interests focus on foreign policy, international political economy, and, in particular, economic sanctions. “Why Sanctions Wont Work” March, 2009.) http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/200...tions_wont_work Economic sanctions not only typically fail to induce authoritarian regimes to change their policies, but they are also counterproductive tools that deteriorate human rights conditions in the sanctioned countries. The recent history of sanctions against Iran-as well as against countries such as Cuba, North Korea, Burma, and Zimbabwe-shows that rather than putting pressure on leaders to capitulate to U.S. demands, economic sanctions typically consolidate the coercive authority of authoritarian governments. To mitigate any possible domestic costs caused by concessions to external economic pressure, authoritarian leaders have greater incentive to be less conciliatory to coercive threats and put greater pressure on opposition groups to demonstrate their resolve. Impact One: Sanctions in Iraq have created havoc in the social and economic environments of the targeted country for their residents and constitute instruments of mass destruction. The punishment that the residents have to endure can be described as dehumanizing and a violation of human rights since people die due to the sanctioning. Impact Two: Sanctions solely affect the residents and can have no effect on the leaders of the targeted country and often promote tension between the major leaders/organizations/countries. Impact Three: Placing these sanctions also harm the actor. The actor limits his/her trade options for doing so limiting trade to the opposing country but countries bound from aliances with the country etc. Not only do these sanctions cause harm significantly to the residents and do not achieve foreign policy objectives but they also harm the global community. Economic Sanctions promote Terrorist Organizations/Organized Crime Organizations. The deadly combination of Organized Crime and Terrorism is an imminent threat. Ron Chepesiuk - 9/11/2007 Last October, Italian investigators confirmed a disturbing trend in the War on Terrorism: the growing link between terrorism and organized crime. The investigators revealed that al Quaeda was using the Naples-based Camorra mafia, with its extensive network and expertise in forging documents, to move its operatives through Europe to safe houses in such cities as Paris, London, Berlin and Madrid. According to DIGOS, Italy's political crime unit, the number of al Quaeda operatives passing through Naples may have exceeded a thousand. Il Mattino, Naple's major daily newspaper described the arrangement: Should any trouble arise at any time, the Camorra's alliances will send them (al Quaeda operatives) off on one of the many trains leaving the city's main station, or via speed-boat - the same vessels the Camorra uses to traffic cigarettes, drugs and other contraband." The Comorra-al Quaeda alliance is another example of a growing global security challenge that is both disturbing and complex. The once distinct line between organized crime and terrorism is blurring rapidly, and this development is creating new challenges for the U.S. and its allies in the War on Terrorism. It may seem like a marriage of strange bed fellows. After all, the business of organized crime is business, and the style of the mafia is to keep a low a profile as possible as they build their illicit business. Terrorists, on the other hand, seek a high profile so they can instill fear and insecurity in pursuit of their objectives. Impact One: Economic Sanctions only provoke these threats since other means of obtaining these items are terminated. Impact Two: Economic Sanctions promote the activity of these major threats and increase probability of harm ending on the entire Global Community. With the widespread pre-setup organized crime organizations, Terrorists have a chance of manipulating them or working together with them to achieve similar goals. This would causes a slightly larger hand of control the Terrorists would acquire which is bad for the Global Community. B._Economic Sanctions promote use of Black Market through Countries and Terrorist/Organized Crime threats. Charles Recknagel Prague, 26 February 2004 (RFE/RL) -- The international investigations into the nuclear programs of Iran and Libya are casting new light on the global black market in nuclear technology. The IAEA describes the activities of Khan and the sophisticated network of black marketers associated with him as "the most serious case of nuclear proliferation in recent times." Corey Hinderstein, a nuclear nonproliferation analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C., says the investigation into the black market has revealed a well-organized network selling nuclear secrets at high profits. The level of coordination and cooperation between these people really is an organization, as opposed to random criminals. I specifically refer to actual nuclear weapons designs. I think many people have for years suspected A.Q. Khan in Pakistan of possibly selling off his centrifuge knowledge. But the idea that he is actually selling whole scale weapons designs, some of which have a level of detail that are precise enough for manufacture, is quite scary." The unexpected scope of the black market in nuclear technology is raising concerns that international terrorist groups could have greater access to such materials than previously thought. Khan has confessed that he and associates traded nuclear secrets from 1987 to the mid-1990s. He also sold nuclear weapons blueprints and designs. We are aware of at least two of the customers. We are very concerned that there were other customers, and we are talking about both countries as well as terrorist groups," Whether you do look to the criterion of preserving human life or not Neg always wins this debate for the 100% chance impacts vs the unknown probability of Sanctions stopping activity with nuclear weapons etc. See there are going to be always ground for both ways in the debate. Post moar.
  5. Bleach Manga

  6. "The point is that we are morally obligated to ensure that only "better" circumstances ever hit the lives of ourselves and others, to prevent those travesties from ever occuring again. A larger body count is a crime in one sense, but a smaller crime in every sense than the alternative, which is to sully the few good circumstances we have." There is no real impact to why larger body count is bad while smaller is good. Since we have established that as the framework of the debate. Besides it is obvious that morally we have to look to preserve the larger group which is the world since nuclear holocaust would virtually destroy everything. If we dont use these sanctions the people will die sure but they will die anyway along with millions of other innocents in the process by nuclear proliferation. Of course all man is different but they all have equal rights (reference to natural rights) which means that I have not destroyed the correction system. All man should not set prisoners free since they have ussually violated natural rights of others or harmed society etc by their own choice. The better circumstances have to stand for a world that actually exists which will not happen if you negate since you are allowing nuclear proliferation to be pursued no matter how dehumanizing it is.
  7. It is all the person's choice whether they value human life or not. For someone to put a value on another's life is what the neg is presuming. We weigh life on ammount spectrum at this point. One side might value their life more than the other but It be "non-unique" making it applicable to the other side also, there is no way to confirm this at all. Which is why we ought to weigh it on ammount. In addition there is no reason to think some human life is superior than others. (Hitler/Nazis)
  8. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    If you make wynne Blood mage wouldn't it like make her leave your party since shes all against all stuff immoral like the blood magic shit etc.
  9. Great responses! The debate mainly stands on whether life should be valued above anything else and whether it should be used as a weighing mechanism for the round. Many have said other natural rights such as liberty etc. give life meaning/purpose which i do agree with. However, the problem with getting all those natural rights is that you must be alive, or be able to attain the natural right to life first in order to give it purpose. Addressing the problem at one point then another in order is neccessary. As I said before life is the prerequisite to any other natural right. An example of this is John Locke's social contract I give in some of my rights such as autonomy etc in order to recieve certain benefits such as protection of life. Life should always take presidence over any other worth since in order to obtain that worth you must obtain life. "If it is just to off someone in some case, then that person's life is societally worthless; and thus there is no amount of those lives that can compare to the lives of even 1 person who hasn't dragged themselves down that low. To merit that societal death, you must make yourself not just a non-person, but a non-person who if left alone would have an existence that is a travesty to all of existence, including itself and what else it could have become had someone - anyone - in their life been a bit more fucking responsible." I am not deeming one's life societally worthless by affirming, I am imposing a hypothetical situation in which we are harming more life if these sanctions are not used. This arguement is also considered nonunique which means it can be used on the affirmative side also, since if we value a person as a non-person if we compare than it could be the same through the side which more lives at stake. There is no real impact that can't happen on the affirmative side that happens on the neg. Besides I am valueing all lives here equal and when weighing more lives against less it is evident for the survival of the human race that we stop this proliferation. Here is another warrant specifically addressing the dangers of proliferation of arms. Allowing the proliferation of arms is a direct threat to the acting state. Henry Sokolski, esecultive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, June-July 2005, “Defusing Iran’s Bomb”, Policy Review, http://hoover.org /publications/policyreview/2932336 There are three threats that are likely to increase following Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear option, even more nuclear proliferation. Iran’s continued insistence that it acquired it nuclear capabilities would encourage its neighbors to develop nuclear options such would undermine non proliferation of arm restraints internationally and strain American Relations with friends in the Middle East. A nuclear ready Iran could be emboldened to manipulate oil prices upward, either by threatening the freedom of the seas or by using terrorist proxies to threaten the destruction to Saudi and other Gulf state oil facilities and pipelines. With a nuclear weapon option acting as a deterrent to US and allied action against it, Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Europe, and the US. The objective would be to reduce American support for the US involvement in the Middle East for Israel and for actions against Iran and to elevate Iran as an equal to the US. An additional aim of Iran’s support for terrorism would be to keep other nations from backing US policy including military presence in the Middle East. They would undermine U.S and allied efforts to foster moderate rule in the Middle East set into a play of international competitions that could ultimately result in major wars. When I weigh the consequences I don't ignore the worth of the lives. I consider each life equal and weigh the life from there on ammount of life saved. I do not see any real benefit of saving less life at the same worth, and since I prove that life itself should govern the calculus of the critic Aff always wins on the body count. If you negate you are saying its okay to kill the majority of mankind through the nuclear holocaust situation. And that itself in a moral stand point is really counter productive to the overall goal of the neg to prove otherwise. Cool. Im kind of tired taking sides on the Aff, after a few more posts I might join the neg side since I am more comfortable on that side tbh. Gogogo
  10. I affirm the resolution: Economic Sanctions ought to be used to achieve Foriegn Policy Objectives. Economic Sanctions protect human rights, reverse armed aggression and prevent weapons proliferation. Smart/Multilateral Sanctions have proven themselves useful for the US and global community time after time. Yes, in Iran also. But don't worry I won't provide that claim unwarranted. Con Coughline, Staffwriter, 12-10-2008, “Sanctions strain Iran’s Ecnomy, Officials say”, Telegraph (UK) Iran’s banks are on the brink of collapse and its manufacturing industries facing severe shortages as sanctions bite, a confidential report submitted to the shortages as sanctions bite, a confidential report submitted to the Iranian parliament said that continued economic isolation was having dire consequences. The country’s banking industry is suffering from a boycott by European, Japanese and American Banks. The biggest banks will not conduct any transaction with any Iranian clients meaning the businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to find hard currency. “There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is now paying the price in economic terms of its defiance of the international community,” The sanctions have a deeply negative effect on the Iranian economy and there is the prospect of more to come. The main impact to this turn on the claim of Iran's sanction ineffectiveness is that it prevents the nuclear proliferation. If the we allow nuclear arms to be proliferated unstable states could act in hostility and it could eventually lead to nuclear holocaust. The value we have to uphold before anything should be human life. We are actually morally obligated to prevent this nuclear holocaust and by doing so upholding the largest ammount of lives saved as a result of the economic sanction. I only need to provide one example of how this is just and moral since the biggest net outcome of this would result in dire consequences. But just to back up the above warrant I provide another example in history of it's immediate success. M. Shane Smith is a graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium. “Sanctions: Diplomatic Tool or Warfare by other Means?” April 2004. From BeyondIntractability.org. On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 disintegrated in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, after a bomb ripped a hole in its fuselage. The Qaddafi regime of Libya was accused of the attack and of harboring two suspects, Amin Fhimah and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Led by the United States, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions that threatened international sanctions including military embargoes and prohibiting the sale of industrial equipment to Libya unless it handed over the suspects. Qaddafi resisted for years, but in 1999 succumbed to global pressures. The trial found al-Megrahi guilty of the murders, while his colleague was acquitted. Other examples of the effective use of sanctions include South Africa where it is thought that international sanctions isolated the government and helped bring its policies of apartheid to an overdue end. Similarly, global sanctions placed on Serbia, after Slobodan Milosevic's cruel campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, helped bring about Milosevic's downfall and subsequent extradition to face an international war crimes tribunal. You always have to weigh the consequences in the end and go to who saves the most life since life is the prerequisite to any other natural right. This is a body count debate and the Affirmative always preserves more life this way even if it means killing a few innocent people in the process. It is more moral to save more life rather than less. In the Affirmative world you will always be saving more life than neg therefore Aff will always win the debate. Thnx for some of the responses guys, lets keep this going.
  11. No, as in double negative when you negate the resolution as in: I negate, Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Instead of making it a double negative as put above I simplified it to avoid misconception. Definitions: Economic Sanctions: Restrictions upon international trade and finance that oe country imposes on another for political reasons Ought: to be bound in duty or moral obligation Foreign Policy: A policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. The topic says it all definitions are also provided now for those who do not understand some of the key terms used.
  12. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    no you can get both alistair and sten you can ditch alistair to get loghain.
  13. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    eh sten is useless for me, alistair is my main tank hes wayy useful and you can choose between gaining loghain or losing Alistair i think I havent played it recently and am like half way through i think, lvl 12 ish im a reaver/champion warrior human, wynne also confronts me when i go to camp and leaves no matter what my dialogue choice so I just never went to camp lolol and continued to quest till my pplz are lvl 14 including morrigon so i can heal with her cuz healer imo is really crucial fo the survival of the game ( I wanted to ask if there was any way to prevent this besides redoing the urn quest. I wanted to make wynne an arcane warrior tank/heal Now i have to make morrigon a healer which suxx. Im currently on the quest with the elf ppls and killing werewolves etc. I also wanted to get juggernaut armor, so far team is leliana archer/bard, alister shield/sword templar tank, me champion/reaver warrior damage dealer/tank and wynne healer.
  14. The original line was "Economic Sanctions ought not to be used to achieve foreign policy objectives" But I hate double negatives it just gets confusing, so I switched it. For LD its ussually put in terms of philosophical debate. I would also like to request the use of warrants/evidence(from where ever) when submitting a claim if possible. I've already rounded up a series of arguements on both sides Neg/Aff but wanted to see some unique stuff, dont go too far out of the loop with it though. go.
  15. Dragon Age: Origins is out next week.

    I got this game yesterday, its pretty good.