The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Nobody
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,434 times Debate No: 6570
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Metz

Pro

The Actual resolution is too long to fit into the comment box so here it is:

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

All I ask of my opponent is that he/she is familiar with the Lincoln Douglas style of debate and will debate accordingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans has one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commits us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights." Because I agree with Senator John Kerry I Must Affirm the Resolution, Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

My Value for this debate is peace. Peace is not only the greatest goal of every nation but is the goal of the International community as a whole. It is also the best Value to fit the resolution, as peace should be the goal of every foreign policy decision. Peace is not simply the absence of War but is better defined as harmonious relations between people and countries. While this does include absence of war this alone does not create peace. Because peace is so paramount we must weigh the round on who better achieves peace.

My Criterion is Harmonic Cosmopolitanism, Harmonic Cosmopolitanism is the view that one's primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings and political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation. However Harmonic Cosmopolitanism does not mean the elimination of sovereignty. In the same manner as world government is not harmonious neither is absolute sovereignty harmonious. A world Government does not respect the social contract and pure sovereignty has no respect for humanity. It is here when we must find a middle ground, a harmony so the two may work side by side. It is here we find this proposed concept of Harmonic Cosmopolitanism. "Crimes against humanity," by definition, are so heinous as to threaten the moral order of all humankind, not just individuals within any given nation. Thus, their existence requires a cosmopolitan outlook. Without this Universal Moral Duty the International community would condone such events as the holocaust, if it did not directly affect their national borders. We would not intervene is Humanitarian Crisis such as the Rwanda Genocide, and Humanity would lose much of its worth. As Immanuel Kant Notes "a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all places. Violations of cosmopolitan right would make more difficult the trust and cooperation necessary for perpetual peace among states." It is a supplement to the unwritten code of the civil and international law, indispensable for the maintenance of the public human rights and hence also of perpetual peace. One cannot flatter oneself into believing one can approach this peace except under the condition outlined here. "
Thus Cosmopolitanism is the surest way to international peace and is the best criteria to achieve peace in the round.

Definitions:
Ought: Used to Express advisability (Merriam Webster)
Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster)
Jurisdiction: the territory or sphere over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends.

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.

1st contention International court will deter future crimes against humanity.
In late 2004, tensions flared in The African Nation of Cote d'Ivoire, fueled by radio broadcasts of hate speech and violent groups in the streets these acts were strikingly reminiscent of the hate speech that preceded the Rwanda genocide. In response, Juan Mendez, a UN advisor on genocide, wrote the Security Council a widely-publicized note that reminded them that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts, such as hate speech, that lead to crimes against humanity. The message was received in Cote d'Ivoire: the hate speech and the immediate threat of violence subsided. Without an International Court the hate speech would have continued, and the World could be faced with another Rwanda. The Circumstances of both were the same, however there was no International Court at the time of Rwanda. Had their been, it is safe to say based upon the events in the Cote d'Ivoire, the Genocide would have been prevented.

2nd contention The U.S joining the ICC would further legitimize it.
The U.S stands as the world's foremost power, we hold massive Political "soft Power" If we were to join an international court not only would others follow suit but we would add further legitimacy to it. Scott Turner, Professor at University of Montevallo Writes "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990s. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction." The Fact that the U.S holds such a large amount of influence makes us almost the deciding factor in the Influence of an international court. A court without the U.S will be weaker and will perform less effectively than one that has U.S membership. The influence of the U.S would increase that of the court allowing the court to work towards its ultimate end, Peace.

3rd Contention
A.We can see examples of this in Cases such as the Rwanda Genocide. On Thursday, December 18, 2008, A former Rwandan army colonel, Theoneste Bagosora, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity for masterminding the killings of more than half a million people, was convicted by A U.N war Crimes Tribunal. Without an International court Bagosora would have remained unpunished, clearly international courts are Beneficial to member states. An Article done for the International Studies Association further found that "states with a recent history of violence, in the 1990-2005 period ratify the ICC Statute more often that not if they emerge from civil conflicts. This result validates ad hoc observation that in a number of states, transitional regimes charged with ending a cycle of recent internal conflict have found it prudent to join the ICC, precisely because it offers an International bulwark against a return to routine political violence."
B.There is a simple fact that nobody expects violence in the nature, in the Immortal Words of Monty Pythons, John Cleese "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Who could have predicted the holocaust? or Rwanda? The simple fact is these cannot be predicted. Saying that we should not join due to present circumstances is ignorant. The fact is we must look not only towards the present but towards the Future. It is wise for the United States to have this "international Bulwark." Furthermore if we accept them to be helpful why should we exclude ourselves? This would be Hypocritical and would actively work to destroy both Cosmopolitanism and any notion of peace.

I am going to Run this case next weekend and want to tie up loose ends, as well as have a fu
Nobody

Con

>I thank Metz for starting this debate. NC then AC.

>I negate the resolution:

Negated: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

>I have no definitions to offer at this time. I accept those given by my opponent.

>Additionally, I would like to offer the following observations:

--Observation--

1. The affirmative burden is to prove that the US ought to submit. The negative burden is to prove that the US ought not to submit.

2. The only currently existent international court designed as the resolution specifies is the International Criminal Court, better known as the ICC. I refer to this court in accordance of the following:

i) The ICC fits the given description in the resolution.

ii) Reference to the ICC promotes stable advocacy rather than a hypothetical court made up by either side.

iii) The resolution presumes that the US exists. We therefore can presume the court it refers to also exists.

iv) My opponent himself refers to the ICC.

--Value and Value Criterion--

>The negative values justice, or "giving each their due."�‚�� Due to the wording of the resolution, justice is the inherent value for this round and any argument that does not also uphold justice does not truly affirm or negate this resolution. The primary stipulation of this resolution is essentially justice as it refers specifically to a court system. Justice is best attained by maintaining uniqueness amongst other nations. The negative thus chooses the criterion maintaining judicial autonomy, or "to remain independently inclined to make judgments."�‚�� Judicial autonomy allows differentiation in the criminal justice system. Differentiation is obviously needed given that not one law is universal.

:: Contention 1 - Submission of the US to the ICC Abuses Utilitarianism ::

>If the US submits to the ICC, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited; as would utilitarian results. Intrinsicality should be promoted by the US, but submission to the ICC poses the chance of citizens being prosecuted for defending their country. To cite an example, former pilot Paul Tibbets would have been prosecuted for bombing Hiroshima in WWII. WWII expert Richard Frank projects this saved an estimated 2.44 million lives in contrast to the 150 thousand that were killed. Citizens of ICC nations are at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. While Japan and other ICC countries would clearly accuse the Tibbets of committing a crime against humanity, he actually saved millions of lives.

A. Use of Human Shields

>Dr. Austin, ambassador to the Human Rights Council explains "Policymakers fear a frequent and more devastating asymmetric tactic: creating fraudulent claims of U.S. violations out of whole cloth. Adversaries of the United States could perpetrate this fraud on the ICC in two ways: (1) placing innocent civilians at high-priority targets to create heavy civilian casualties from U.S. attacks, and (2) committing war crimes while disguised as using troops in order to frame the United States, or both... For instance, Libya threatened to surround the reported site of an underground chemical plant with millions of Muslims in order to ward off attacks. Since modern terrorists have no regard for innocent human life, they would not hesitate to use this same tactic if an asymmetric gain could be achieved." Submission to the ICC's jurisdiction would give other nations the ability to create human-shields and blame the US for crimes against humanity (whether or not the US is to blame).

:: Contention 2 - US Submission to the ICC Hinders Due Process of Law ::

>The principle supporting a government's respect of the rights guaranteed to its citizens is known as due process of law. In 1920, US Supreme Court case Missouri v. Holland held that the federal government may only enter a treaty that "does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution." This is adverse to the United States submission to the ICC. Nicholas Rostow, General Counsel, U.S. Mission to the United Nations explains that "the Rome Statute does not satisfactorily answer due process concerns. These include issues of multiple jeopardy, definitions of crimes, and problems of evidence and testimony."�‚�� Amendment 5 of the US Constitution states "[not] any person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy," a direct contradiction of the Rome Statute. This directly violates justice in the due process of law, leading to an unsteady global society.

>I will now move on to my opponent's case.

--Value and Value Criterion--

>My opponent's values peace. While this is sentimental, this is not necessarily the goal of every nation. The goal, in fact, of most nations is to prosper. If my opponent truly wants to uphold the value of peace, he must first look to the legal aspects of this resolution. This resolution refers to a court, not to any assumed harmony achieved after the point of submitting to a court. Justice is the superior value of this round because it encompasses the meaning of the resolution; peace does not. His criterion is harmonic cosmopolitanism. While I respect this principle, I must question how my opponent is attempting to achieve it. Why does submitting to the ICC spread moral obligations? Doesn't it really spread legal obligations instead? Additionally, does submitting to the ICC even have a plausible chance of accomplishing this? Morals are different in every part of the world. Here in Virginia, I might think it is moral to abort a fetus while in Texas that belief is scowled upon. Does it even make sense to universalize said set of morals? No, it doesn't. Culture is never the exactly same in two unique places.

:: Contention 1 - ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity ::

>My opponent's first contention is essentially an account of an instance in which, granted, the ICC could be as a deterrent. I have various responses. Firstly, how do we know that the ICC will always be affective as a deterrent? Many terrorist organizations would not at all be frightened by the existence of the ICC and would still act. Secondly, my opponent makes the assumption that the events of genocide in Rwanda would have been prevented by the ICC. This is untrue; these events would rather have been PROSECUTED by the ICC, but only after first occurring. The ICC ITSELF holds no military power. Additionally, the ICC does not possess the means to prosecute all of the criminals from Rwanda. The ICC can easily deal with a single case, but would be totally overloaded by entire militant wings and huge groups of rebels. Lastly, even if we assume that the ICC could, in fact, deter crimes against humanity, why would this mean that the US should submit to it? My opponent never explains any relation to the US, though it is the target of the resolution.

:: Contention 2 - US Joining the ICC Would Further Legitimize It ::

>Before I can properly respond to my opponent's second contention (not a drop), I must know what exactly he is talking about. He refers to legitimacy, but he does not express what specific type of legitimacy. Military legitimacy? Legal legitimacy? He never clearly expresses this.

:: Contention 3 - ::

A.

>My opponent finally starts to notice the legal aspects of courts in his third contention. I am not sure what he is trying to show, but I gather some implication being given what is due? If this is what he is going for, we must look back to my second contention. Sure, the ICC offers some makeshift form of justice, but it does not provide justice sufficient enough to be universalized; its due process is poor.

B.

>This sub-point refers to the use of the ICC as a safety mechanism. Apparently my opponent does not understand that the ICC can prosecute, but not offer physical protection.

>For these reasons you can negate.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

NEG/ AFF

Obsvervations:
1. this is obvious, so I accept this

2. There are other courts in existence besides the ICC, Such as the IACHR(inter-American court of human rights), while the ICC may be used as as a guideline the court does not have to be the ICC

Value: I have 2 attacks on this value
The Value of Justice is merely an instrument to create peace, peace is the ultimate end, Justice is only one of the possible means to that end
2. Justice is better upheld by Cosmopolitanism, Because Justice is defined as giving each their due then Cosmopolitanism, which works towards this on a global scale better uphold justice.

Criterion: Three attacks
Link: the link given from judicial autonomy to justice is faulty. How is justice better obtained by maintaining uniqueness? how do we give each their due through Judicial Autonomy? There is no warrant .

Attack: If making independent Judicial judgments creates Justice than an International Court would also maintain Justice. This Judicial Autonomy would be Upheld in an International court, as well as offer checks to national courts.

Attack2: Judicial Autonomy is not necessarily the best thing, the Purpose of an International court would be to provide oversight of national courts not only to prevent abuse but to make sure criminals do not go unpunished.

Contention 1:
The fact is that use of atomic bombs SHOULD be prosecuted, also Tibbets would not have been prosecuted because he was not a ranking officer and was following his orders. Also the attacks would not have fallen under the ICC definition of CAH

A. If people did disguise themselves as U.S troops then they would be prosecuted, not the U.S Military. Also referrals may be made to the court but they do not prosecute all of the referrals they will receive, eliminating the threat to the U.S. Also the act of using human shields would constitute a war crimes on the part of the terrorist organization, not the U.S. Also the U.S would not be prosecuted because any casualties would be purely accidental, which is not prosecutable by the ICC. Saying that the U.S would be faced with prosecution is ridiculous, first terrorist groups have not used human shields in the past and second the ICC would not take jurisdiction unless the U.S did not launch an investigation, which is part of U.S government policy.

2nd
The fact is the ICC has one of the most extensive set of due process rights in any court. Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh explains:" The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome" The ICC statute also says a case is inadmissible when "The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the
complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;" The ICC fully protects due process rights respecting all of the rights in the U.S constitution, except a jury trail, which even American Negotiators agreed was not practical.

AFF

Value: If the goal of nations is to prosper than peace is infact the highest goal of every society, as peace guarantees an international harmony. The fact is ,although the question may be legal, peace should still be the goal of every legal decision as well as a moral decision. My opponent never explained how justice encompasses the meaning of the resolution as I did with peace. peace is the goal of every foreign policy decision that is not based purely in economics. Peace, not justice should be used to weigh the round.

Criterion: Just consider the attacks on this to be a strawman Fallacy. As I explained in my AC, we have a Moral duty to humanity and our political decisions should reflect this(this is a simplified version but the same basic concept). Submitting to the ICC, as I explained would uphold this moral duty to humanity, because it works to protect universal human rights and create peace. The moral relativist argument by opponent uses does not actually attack this concept at all, cosmopolitanism is not saying that all morals are universal, but rather we have a moral duty to all of humanity, these concepts are different thus my opponent does not refute and this stands.

Contention 1
I will address each attack my opponent makes...
1. We may not know that it will deter crimes 100% of the time, but sometimes is better than none, if we can stop a genocide that is a very good reason to join an international court. Also under the U.S the deterrent power would only grow due to U.S influence, both soft and hard.
2. This attack does not refute either, What my point was as I states was, had there been an International court before Rwanda the genocide would have been prevented. The fact that the ICC hold no military power is irrelevant as my opponent gives no link to this argument. The ICC would not need to prosecute all the criminals at Rwanda had it been stopped as in the Cote d'Ivoire.
3. I very clearly gave a link to this contention. The U.S should join an international court because it is our cosmopolitan duty to try to stop human rights offenses for all nations. The fact is that not only the U.S should join but everyone, thus because the U.S is part of "all nations" it should join an International court.

Contention 2
The Legitimacy of the ICC is pretty straight forward, it would make the ICC a more legitimate organization. Seeing as a court does not have a military power it would further legitimize and strengthen the courts actions. The U.S would Legitimize it internationally, giving it more authority and it would increase the deterrence effect as well as the legal processes of the court.

Contention 3.
A. What I showed here is that These court are beneficial even after the crimes begin. They ensure punishment for the Perpetrators and therefore stop any future offenses. I have already shown how the ICC has the Most extensive system of due process rights, so this attack falls. It has proven beneficial in the past, and it would be beneficial if anything should arise thus every nation should protect its people by ratifying.

B. It may not offer physical protection, which I understand, however a court has more uses that prosecution, such as deterrence. It offers this International Bulwark which every wise nation should Join in order to protect its own people.

Source for Due process Arguments
http://untreaty.un.org...

For these Reasons the resolution should be affirmed
Nobody

Con

>NC then AC

--Observation--

1. Was conceded. Carry throughout.

2. I recognize that other courts exist, but my opponent refers SPECIFICALLY to the ICC in multiple occasions. For example, his first contention was: "ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity"

--Value and Value Criterion--

>Justice is not, as my opponent suggests, an instrument of creating peace. Justice is basically a means of accomplishing giving what is due. This has nothing to do with peace, my opponent just equivocates as he pleases. Justice is, also as neglected by my opponent, not the same everywhere. Cosmopolitanism would globalize this, but do we really want this? What we should want is autonomy, because laws are not universal. For example, let's say society A is America and society B is cannibalistic. Should would make cannibalism illegal in America? Sure. Should we make it illegal in society B, where it is the norm? No, that would be illogical. The ICC tries to standardize what is interpreted differently around the world, a perfect example of why we should have autonomy. This also covers my link, so I move on to the other criterion attacks. His first attack will be turned. Let's see what he says. He says that if judicial autonomy promotes justice, submitting to the ICC does as well. That is false, autonomy means being independent, not being with 108 other countries. Additionally (the turn here), he says that this will offer checks. It will, but the US already has checks set up. The turn here is that the US WOULD NOT have reverse checks back on the ICC's jurisdiction, thus no autonomy. His last attack was that judicial autonomy was negative. I rebut back with my contention 1's sub-point A, when the ICC oversees everything, then POLITICAL PERSECUTIONS AND HUMAN-SHIELDS CAN BE MADE.

:: Contention 1 - Submission of the US to the ICC Abuses Utilitarianism ::

>My opponent COMPLETELY NEGLECTS the essence of this contention. While I used Hiroshima as an example, it is not the only such abuse of utilitarianism. The atomic bomb, as my (conceded by opponent) statistics indicate, this SAVED LIVES. He offers no reason as to why this is at all negative. This fits under the jurisdiction, it could be considered either a war crime or a CAH. Lastly, whether or not Tibbets was prosecuted, someone who made the right decision would be.

A. Use of Human Shields

>My rebuttal is simple: the point of the human shields is that the ICC DOES NOT KNOW. It would clearly be secretive, not easy to find out about.

:: Contention 2 - US Submission to the ICC Hinders Due Process of Law ::

>My opponent, in his rebuttal, provides an article of the Rome Statue in which double jeopardy is mentioned. However, the question is not whether or not it is mentioned, but whether or not it is adequate. According to the Rome Statute, a crime can be tried multiple times IF it is tried under a different type, though it can be the exact same act. For example, war crime v. a crime against humanity.

>To his arguments:

--Value and Value Criterion--

>My opponent makes one fatal conjecture; peace guarantees prosperity. This is false as countries can be at war and prospering at the same time. The US has done this on multiple occasions. Next, my opponent CONCEDES MY VALUE. He explains "the fact is, although the question may be legal," thus conceding justice as a weighing mechanism. Carry it through the round. Peace cannot way the round until my opponent shows that peace is indeed what the resolution's stipulation is, which he and I both agree that JUSTICE IS. Ironically, my opponent's description of my rebuttal as a strawman is actually a strawman in and of itself. My opponent says that harmonic cosmopolitanism "protect[s] universal human rights and create[s] peace." My questions of whether or not spreading these morals universally is possible is a legitimate question which MY OPPONENT HAS YET TO ANSWER. I offered a legit example and my opponent has no response. I extend.

:: Contention 1 - ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity ::

>My opponent neglects that the ICC cannot act as a deterrent any more than the US. If the ICC cannot do more than the US, there is not reason to submit. If the ICC DOES do more than the US, it can abuse the US (see my case)... I'll accept my opponent's link, but this is no reason to submit unless we can guarantee that IN THE FUTURE the ICC willbe a deterrent. The ICC does not deter, terrorists will not stop just because a system is in place. This is a faulty reason to submit to anything.

:: Contention 2 - US Joining the ICC Would Further Legitimize It ::

>Ok, I now understand this contention. What I don't understand is why this matters. Let's say this legitimizes the ICC. So what? Why does that matter? Aren't we out for a different value then legitimacy? If my opponent has not given proper grounds for submission in and of itself, so this is irrelevant.

:: Contention 3 - ::

A.

>My opponent's response is somewhat contingent on due process, which he has not adequately defeated. The ICC is not the most extensive system, the Rome Statute is essentially in and of itself a loophole. Courts stop crimes, but the ICC is not better than any US court.

B.

>My opponent concedes the ICC is no physical mechanism. We aren't discussing anything else when we talk about peace, so this is essentially dropped.

>For these reasons you can negate.
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

NC/AC
-Observations-
1. Carry
2. Just because I mention the ICC does not mean it is the only court, While the ICC may be a good groundwork there are other courts as well, the IACHR for one.

Value:
1. If Justice is giving each his due then doesn't that acknowledge the existence of universal norms? But my opponent contradicts this, saying "justice... is not the same everywhere" so then what are people due? They are due their Humanity first and foremost, the idea Promoted by cosmopolitanism, not Judicial Autonomy. This Cosmopolitanism better fits my opponents value and should be the Primary Criterion for this round.
2. My opponents Value does not focus on a realist perspective but rather a global justice. This Also fits better with my criterion, of cosmopolitanism than Judicial Autonomy.

Criterion:
1. Look Autonomy is essentially freedom of action, the ICC does not take jurisdiction Unless we fail to prosecute, thus it maintains our judicial autonomy. Also the Congress would need to ratify the treaty which means congress would be FREELY submitting to the Jurisdiction. Thus maintaining Autonomy.
2. My opponent is incorrect in assuming the U.S would not have reverse checks on the ICC. The U.S being a member state would be able to vote on the Prosecutor and judges AND being a Member of the security council would have an additional check on the ICC's Behavior as the ICC recognizes the Security Councils Authority.

Contention 1.
The fact is that the use of Atomic weapons should be a CAH in itself. Also what my opponent failed to address is the continuing deaths due to radiation and the lack of land suitable for growing crops, due to the bombings which outweighs any good done by the bombing. Even if it was prosecuted my opponent does not address why the destruction of civilian military targets is a good thing, even if it saves lives. My opponents Hedonistic View of the world led to a lot of disasters including the atomic bombs and would justify many actions based upon an assumed "greater good"
A. The simple counter is that the U.S presents its evidence to the court and the charges are dropped. Also the Damages must be systematic to be prosecuted which would not be included under the Human shields Argument.

Contention 2.
Basic rights of the Accused: http://untreaty.un.org...
Freedom from double Jepordy: " The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;" http://untreaty.un.org...
All the other due process rights my opponent dropped.

AFF
Value:
1. Peace is Harmonious Relationships, not prosperity, countries can not be harmonious and at war
2. I do not concede to his value, saying the is a legal aspect to the resolution does not concede justice,giving each his due never implies a legal framework. Thus discount my opponents attacks on this.
3. My opponent never actually attacks peace, merely saying I conceded Justice, because I proved this statement false my value still stands un-attacked.
4. Justice Falls to peace. The goal of giving each his due is to promote peace, this is acheived through the value criterion of Cosmopolitanism I have given. Also This Notion of each his due is not the only way to acheive or promote peace, this makes peace, as Milton Rockeach puts it as a "terminal Value" and Justice as an "instrumental Value" that can be used to achieve other values.

Criterion:
1. My Opponent conceded absolute morals in his value, if we are to give each his due as my opponent says we must first have something to give, because my opponents value is contextualized in a multinational sense it too involves universal morals.
2. The U.S recognizes the existence of Universal Rights. The U.S is one of the chief proponents of a system of universal rights, we have a legal Obligation under U.S code chapter 22 to "promote universally recognized human rights"
3. Cosmopolitanism stands as the paramount criterion in this round as A) my opponents attacks fall due to the beliefs of the U.S itself as well as the ICC, the U.N and the E.U and B) as it better works to create both Justice and peace than my opponents criterion of Judicial Autonomy.

Contention 1
I have provided an example of when the ICC deterred a Crime and I will present another. According to a Human Rights watch reporter local Militia in Khartoum were speaking fearfully of 'la Hauge' the Hauge or the seat of the ICC. While it may not have stopped the genocide it has certainly slowed down since the ICC began investigations. Even If the U.S deter, the ICC is just another factor of deterrence to add to the deterrence of the U.S. It also allows for a peaceful, multilateral approach to the resolution of conflicts. My opponents claim that I must prove future deterrence is faulty, I have proven past deterrence which is a good enough indicator of future deterrence. Even the deterrence of One genocide is worth it, this means saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and think with the U.S at its back the ICC could stop 10 genocides instead of just a few.

Contention 2
My opponent concedes this contention so I will now Impact this out... The ICC at its current state deters Crimes against Humanity and serves out each his due. With the U.S strengthening the ICC it would be able to do both of these more effectively and protect even more rights and Ensure that Genocidaries are given their due, my opponents value as well would need to accept this as just and under Cosmopolitanism and peace it would further Global Protection of Human Rights and promote the creation of World Peace. Also it would encourage others to follow suit which would again further what I have just mentioned.

Contention 3.
A. This contention is not contingent upon due process although I have defeated my opponents Due process points so whatever this contention relied on due process, which I never said it did and there was no warrant by my opponent, have been won. My opponent essentially says the ICC is not the most extensive system saying the Rome statute is a loophole and yet provides no warrant to back up this claim. I have shown the ICC's System of Rights and Evidence admissibility processes so I have empirically proven the AFF side while the NEG provides no warrants. The ICC may not function better than U.S courts but will fill holes in the U.S legal system such as the inability to prosecute Blackwater for their War Crimes, which under my opponents value even is Unjust. The ICC also ensures this on a Global Scale.
B. My opponent assumes only force can ensure peace, but the ICC provides us with deterrence, prosecution Etc which is a better route to peace than force. My Opponent drops the main idea of this contention which was that we should preemptively protect ourselves should we ever need it, and we will not know when we do until it is to late. This Flows AFF.

VOTERS:
(remember Value and Criterion are not voters, merely framework pieces and weighing mechanisms)
1. Each his Due: Aff Better uphold by ensuring that International War Criminals and such get their Due and that Companies such as Blackwater do as Well, this flows Aff on both the AFF and NEG Values.
2. Deterrence: The Peaceful Deterrence of Crimes is a Benefit to any court and reflects our National and Cosmopolitan Obligations. I have proven This empirically and thus this Flows AFF.
3. Bulwark: It is Wise for Any state, including the U.S to protect itself from any future violence or Issues it may have, thus as I proved in C3, subpoint A they will be beneficial if such a situation arises. Dropped by NEG and thus conceded, flow through.
4. Legitimacy: Addressed in My contention 2, this strengthens my first , second and Third voting issues as well as allows the ICC to work at its full potential, this was conceded by NEG and Flows AFF.

Voters all Covered i
Nobody

Con

Nobody forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
looks as if my opponnent has closed his account so.... won't resopond in his last round, vote according to points
Posted by Nobody 8 years ago
Nobody
You, too, Metz. Apologies for the "," I do not know why they appear.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Good Luck to my opponent *nobody* and I hope for a Very good round...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
MetzNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
MetzNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
MetzNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70