The Instigator
ThinkBig
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MrVindication
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

DDO Olympic Team Debate: ThinkBig/Fire_Wings vs. MrVindication/Midnight1131

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MrVindication
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 94949
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

ThinkBig

Pro

This debate is for the DDO Olympics Team Debate.

Team Pro:
-ThinkBig
-Fire_Wings

Team Con:
-MrVindication
-Midnight1131

Full Resolution

The United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of one or more of these: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Terms

The International Court of Justice: "the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN). Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the court settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

International Criminal Court: "an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Permanent Court of Arbitration: "an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court "in the traditional sense", but provides services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes between member states, international organizations, or private parties arising out of international agreements."

Inter-American Court of Human Rights: "an autonomous judicial institution based in the city of San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human rights protection system of the Organization of American States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas."
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Debate Rules

DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.

DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the character limit of the debate (in this case, the charcter count is 8,000). No links or sources are permitted in comments. If necessary, a URL shortener such as bit.ly or TinyURL is permitted (and also recommended).

DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.

DR 4. No new arguments shall be made after the initial round for opening statements.

DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.

DR 6. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time

DR 7. Since this is a team debate, fire_wings and Midnight1131 are strictly prohibited from voting on this debate.

Structure

1. Rules from Pro/ Acceptance from Con
2. Arguments from Pro/ Arguments from Con
3. Rebuttals from Pro/ Rebuttals from Con
4. Defense from Pro/ Defense from Con

Voting Standards

This debate will be using the community opt-in standards.
(https://docs.google.com...)
MrVindication

Con

Just a reminder, K's and Semantics are allowed per the rules, I would advise against taking off points for conduct in the event they are used.

I accept this debate, and the character limit is 10k, as agreed upon by both teams.
Debate Round No. 1
ThinkBig

Pro

We thank our opponents MrVindication and Midnight for accepting the debate, and thank Bsh1 for hosting the DDOlympics.

Observations

The resolution to this debate is “The United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of one or more of these: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” Therefore, we do not have to prove the U.S. should submit to all of these, but just at least one. In this debate, we will be contending that the United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

So, to rephrase the resolution, “The United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC.”

Framework

Our framework will be centered around the need for a court to establish and enforce International Law. We also believe that the United States has an obligation to to support the ICC. Now we will go onto our arguments in this debate.

Contention 1: The ICC is Necessary

Our First argument is that the ICC is Necessary. ICC is an abbreviation of the International Criminal Court. First of all, to anyone who doesn’t know the ICC, there is a PDF to it [1]. Let’s just quote something from it. “On 17 July 1998, 120 States adopted a statute in Rome - known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“the Rome Statute”) - establishing the International Criminal Court. For the first time in the history of humankind, States decided to accept the jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their territories or by their nationals after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002 [1].”

Okay, now we know that the ICC is an permanent international criminal court. Now let’s go onto a definition of what’s it about.

“The International Criminal Court (“the ICC” or “the Court”) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression [1].”

Okay, as we said, it is a permanent international court for committing of the most serious crimes in concern to the international community. Some examples are such as genocides, and crimes, war crimes, and aggression crimes.

So we need to show that the US should make ICC get to make the legal judgements etc.

So now we will go onto our actual argument. We showed that the ICC is a permanent international court, the “states” use it, and it is a permanent international court of serious crimes. So that shows that the ICC is very important criminal court.

So, we should that the ICC is important, also The ICC is necessary because far too often, the most grievous of crimes goes unpunished. As Philippe Kirsch notes:

“National courts often did not investigate the crimes adequately, or at all. The absence of a permanent international court to investigate and try those responsible meant that the exceptions to this pattern of impunity were rare and notable: the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals established at the end of the Second World War; and the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY") and Rwanda ("ICTR"), which were set up in the 1990s to address the crimes committee [2].”

We showed that the ICC is necessary.

Contention 2: The United States has an obligation to join the Roman Statue

By refusing to ratify the Roman Statute, scholars believe that it has damaged the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the International Community. Sydney McKenney states in his paper:

“Despite its repeatedly proclaimed dedication to human rights, the U.S. has not only failed to ratify the treaty, but has, at times, actively worked against the Court. While international commitments should be taken carefully, the United States’ resistance towards the Court demonstrates not a dedication to state sovereignty, but a case of extreme American exceptionalism [3]”

Also, from that same source:

The ICC plays an important and distinctive role in international law; it can be seen symbolically as a definite step of progress in the worldwide framework for human rights. The United States’ disappointing role in the Court is clearly of high importance, but it begs an even broader question: what is the role that the United States is playing in international law as a whole? It seems like a lesson learned by children: it’s not what you say, it’s what you do. And the United States can give (and has given) as many long-winded speeches as it desires about its dedication to international human rights, but all of its red, white and blue rhetoric means nothing without decisive action. The United States continues to act like a bully instead of the protector of human rights it claims to be.”

By refusing to ratify the Roman Statute, the United States is being two-faced. On one hand, we are claiming to be committed to preserving human rights throughout the world. On the other hand, we are refusing to recognize the court that will help to prevent and prosecute atrocities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United States should become part of the Roman Statute of the ICC. We showed that the ICC is important, it is necessary because the most grievous of crimes go unpunished without it, so we showed that the ICC is necessary. The resolution is affirmed, vote for PRO.

_______

MrVindication

Con



Framework




Our arguments will focus on the aspect of liberty and autonomy. We believe it is in the best interests of the US to maintain its independence and sovereignty, which would be forfeited if the US submits to the authority of an international court. Liberty guaranteed by the government and upheld by our founding document would be, in a sense, voided by the submission to a worldwide jurisdiction. The sense of freedom and the safety of our rights would be stripped away once the United States submitted to any “higher power”, any institution seeking to establish a sort of international order. Therefore our arguments will be based upon the ideas of liberty: rights of the people, and autonomy: the inherent right of the United States government to govern their own constituency.




Contention 1: Liberty and Autonomy




The international criminal court is the first court in the world that claims jurisdiction over every human being in the world, and the laws that govern every nation in the world that will ratify the Rome Statute. A big issue with submitting to an international court is the deprivation of America’s autonomy. Submitting to the ICC would mean that the actions of the US would essentially be dictated and judged by outsiders, instead of American citizens. American citizens could be subject to searches and seizure of property by an ICC prosecutor, who will be given free reign to conduct investigations anywhere in the country. Ratifying the Rome Statute would also mean the USFG would be obligated to surrender any accused Americans to the ICC. The voice of the people would take backseat to the judgement of an international court. The USFG has a responsibility to its people first and foremost, and ratifying the Rome Statute would undermine this responsibility.




If they submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, the US would essentially be forfeiting the fundamental right of every American citizen, which is to be tried in an American court with full constitutional rights. The ICC is a foreign court that is not bound by the constitution, convenes in a foreign land, and is made up of largely foreign judges.



Contention 2: The Constitution




6th Amendment




Submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICC would not be advisable if the US is to uphold its constitution and the values therein. The 6th amendment of the constitution of the United States states...




In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...



The incompatibility here is obvious, as the ICC does not hold trial by jury. Furthermore, the constitution also guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, a right to reasonable bail, and a right to a public trial. These 4 fundamental rights are not present in Article 67 of the Rome Statute[1], which outlines the rights of the accused. Another big violation of the 6th amendment is the complete absence of any prohibition or limitations on hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a statement made outside the court, that is introduced as evidence. The constitution of the US guarantees Americans the right to confront their accusers. This right is not present in the Rome Statute.


4th Amendment



The 4th amendment guarantees American citizens that seizures and searches may only be conducted by American authorities, not an international body.



Contention 3: Issues within Rome Statute




Article 48: Accountability



Article 48 of the Rome Statute addresses the immunity and privileges of ICC judges, prosecutors, and other personnel. It guarantees immunity to these parties equaling that of heads of diplomatic missions. They are exempt from any sort of accountability during their term, and granted lifetime immunity after they leave office for any actions done “in official capacity.” This is completely antithetical to the sort of scrutiny placed on the actions American presidents and officials, who can be held accountable for their actions both during and after their terms.


Article 5-8: Broad Crimes



These sections of the Rome Statute outlines the crimes the ICC claims jurisdiction over. However, the definitions of these crimes are so broad that it is difficult to discern what constitutes these crimes. Furthermore, in article 5 it claims jurisdiction over “the crime of aggression,” which is not defined. Infact, the UN itself has failed to reach a consensus as to what constitutes a “crime of aggression.”



Article 21: Enforcement of Internationally Recognized Human Rights



The ICC will not only be enforcing laws that are mentioned in the Rome Statute, it will also enforce “internationally recognized human rights.” These are human rights according to the United Nations. While the charter of the UN states that it may only make policy recommendations and not intervene in matters of domestic judgement, this would enable the ICC to intervene and force these definitions of human rights upon countries. The UN has, in recent years, redefined human needs [food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc] as human rights [2],and demands that government provide them. The ICC will most likely be used as a medium with which to impose upon nations the UN’s view of what should and shouldn’t be provided by the government, and in doing so it would impose its authority over matters which are, and should remain, within the domestic jurisdiction of the countries involved.


A good example of how ridiculous it would be to try to enforce the UN’s standard of “rights,” we simply have to look at the Special Rapporteur report [4] from May, 2011. Which declared that everyone had the right to internet, and it was the responsibility of the government to maintain this at all times. It is obvious that the government does not manage the distribution or maintenance of internet service, that is handled in the private sector. If the US was to be forced to abide by the UN standards of rights, the government would have to intervene and ensure that every single citizen has access to the internet, or face the risk of being prosecuted by the ICC. The issue with this is that it shouldn’t be a constant game of jumping through hoops to appease an international court that is trying to put our country under their jurisdiction.



Contention 4: Equal Distribution




The idea that the United States should submit to an international jurisdiction is logically fallacious, as we cannot assume that each and every nation in the world will submit as well to build up a complete international order. Just recently, China completely ignored a ruling from an international tribunal in The Hague [5] that ruled on their recent signs of aggression in the South China Sea. If a world power such as China acts completely oblivious to the fact that they are the subject of a ruling from an international tribunal, how do we expect the other 192 members of the UN to opt-in to such an international order? It seems to be that this is a huge flaw in the idea behind international courts, and it does not bode well for equal distribution of jurisdiction around the world. Therefore we would argue that the the United States should not submit to the jurisdiction of any international court on the grounds that we cannot ensure worldwide cooperation and an equal distribution of justice.






Conclusion




To conclude, it is evident that to recognize and submit to an international court would undermine the rights guaranteed to American citizens in our founding documents, erode the power and legitimacy of our own courts over their jurisdictions, and attenuate the autonomy of the USA. Liberty and autonomy takes precedence over a perceived international order that would encroach upon our sovereignty, and therefore we negate this resolution.




Sources








      1. https://www.icc-cpi.int...






      1. http://www.ohchr.org...






      1. https://www.wired.com...






      1. http://www2.ohchr.org...



http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ThinkBig

Pro

Round is waived. Both fire and I are too busy to post in this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ThinkBig

Pro

Our team forfeits. Neither of us have the time to complete the arguments.
MrVindication

Con

Forfeiture by the other team. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrVindication 1 year ago
MrVindication
Sources are numbered in order, formatting went bad.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Was the argument good?
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
Fabulous :)
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
We will post our arguments in time!!!
Posted by MrVindication 1 year ago
MrVindication
No, I regularly push 10k as do most debaters on this site.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Isn't 10K to long?
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
@Think, Just saying
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Affirmed. The limit is 10K
Posted by MrVindication 1 year ago
MrVindication
The limit is actually 10k everyone, take note.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Who cares
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
ThinkBigMrVindicationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro. Good job to all debaters on their opening cases though.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
ThinkBigMrVindicationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this would've been a compelling debate and a good one also, but unfortunately forfeiture by Pro merits arguments and conduct for Con.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
ThinkBigMrVindicationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro.