The Instigator
Debatenewbie14
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Metz
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Jan/Feb LD topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,941 times Debate No: 6871
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Debatenewbie14

Con

I love LD and I have found that this really helps with it, so who want to debate.
Metz

Pro

"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 this sentiment by 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. 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. As the Stoics of Greece claimed "each of us dwells, in effect, in two communities, the local community of our birth and the community of human argument and aspiration that is truly great and truly common". "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. Ghanaian Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah writes "We will only solve our problems if we see them as human problems" We should not constrain our political decisions to our national borders but rather should uphold the U.S promise to humanity. As Immanuel Kant Notes "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. "

Definitions:
Ought: used to indicate requirement or obligation in accord with morality. (Wordsmyth Dictionary)(If a Definition clash is needed-- it is better for this debate as the resolution questions morals and the word ought is used to indicate a moral obligation in joining an international court. Thus this definition is the most specific to the round.)
Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster)
Crimes against humanity, "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 Crimes
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. As Immanuel Kant states "a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all places" We have a cosmopolitan duty to humanity and a violation of rights, such as a genocide is felt in all places, as we are all united by your own humanity. Because of this we must work to Minimize if not stop "crimes against humanity" through an international Court that will work to stop these violations.

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 Influence in the world. 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 a 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. The Legitimacy of the court is dependent upon international cooperation, the United States has the experience and would add the legitimacy to, as Kant states "give a fulcrum to the federation with other states so that they may adhere to it and thus secure freedom under the idea of the law of nations."
3rd Contention—U.S Cosmopolitan Obligation
Even the U.S itself recognizes These Cosmopolitan Ethics in its Foreign Policy goals. Chapter 22 U.S Code, Section 2304, is titled Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy. The law continues saying "The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights Throughout the world. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries.... the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs in a manner which will promote and advance human rights in this section or otherwise."
The Purpose of an International court perfectly fits the legal duty I have just presented, to promote universally accepted Human Rights. The U.S recognizes the Existence of these universal Human Rights and thus, should act according to both its moral, and legal duty to protect them, by joining an International court. Our cosmopolitan duty to humanity tells us we have a moral duty to submit to the court, our laws reflect this and by this same note our legal duty tells us the same.
Debate Round No. 1
Debatenewbie14

Con

Margaret Chase smith once stated that "Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character." I stand in firm negation of the resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Definitions:
Submit: to yield ones power to the power of another, to give up resistance.
Jurisdiction: the legal power of authority of a particular court to hear and determine cases.
International court: a court extending across national boundaries, and prosecutes crimes when a state is unable to.
My value is Morality, which is defined as the practice of moral duties. In order for the U.S. to uphold this vital concept that is stated in the very framework of the Declaration of Independence, when it points to the fact that we are "self-evident" and that we "are endowed by our creator" with these "Inalienable rights" because no power should take them away from the citizens for they deserve the same respect and rights from their government. When those rights are violated then it thus becomes immoral.
My value criterion is national sovereignty. National sovereignty is defined as authority in a political community. In other words meaning we rule our selves and not others ruling us. For we are built upon what morals we have, and other countries are built upon their own morals. For us to submit to a national court would deny us our national sovereignty which thus be immoral and unjust.
Contention 1: national Identity:
In morality and Foreign policy, George F. Kenman stated, "If policies and actions of US government are made to conform to moral standards, those standards are going to have to be Americans own, founded on traditional American principles." For all we have worked for I believe that we should be making choices that are in the best interest of the rest America. Because this is who we are and our national Identity is what morals rights we have worked for. Madeline Morris stated "the international court decisions could hurt the U.S. interests". We have fought for what we have and died for it to. Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote "Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men" We must keep who we are for it is immoral for us to change for we need our

Contention 2: The IC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse
A) The ICC Has No Checks and Balances
-C.T. Cline writes in "Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems": The IC is an institution that lacks checks and balances. The court combines investigation, prosecution, trial, and appeal. It is monolithic and beyond the control of the citizenry or of any counteracting governmental branch. There is no meaningful outside control to curb or rein in possible excesses. This concept is foreign to Americans because the U.S. system of government is founded on the principle of checks and balances, with each branch of government--legislative, executive, judicial--fulfilling a role. But the international has not one of these things. For that will end in abuse." Because with checks and balances as our system proves to better not one person has all the power but with none will lead to abuse.
B) Unchecked Power Leads to AbuseAs noted by Senior Policy Analyst Jack Spencer, "one of the key reasons that the United States rightfully declined to become state party to the ICC was because of harassment by international anti-American activists continually making accusations against the US in the court." The Problem With any court such as the ICC is it is an unlimited outlet for abuse. It has no sufficient checks and is completely self-determinant. In an age where our enemies go to any ends to hurt us who is to say that our enemies will not manipulate this court to their own ends.

3nd Contention—Deterrence Value
International courts have no deterrence value making them useless to the United States. Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, Justice Robert Jackson, stated that "wars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. To assume that genocidaires carry out their policies based on a cost-benefit analysis is a highly unlikely scenario." Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton Adds "behind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?" Even Military Power has more of a deterrent value so submitting to the ICC would lower deterrence in fact and even maybe offer an incentive to crimes, knowing the only way they will be punished is by an inefficient and corrupt system.

I stand in firm negation of the resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. For two main reasons National Identity and The IC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse and deterrence value. I thank you
Metz

Pro

NEG/AFF

V: My opponent gives the value of morality but yet fails to define it. All he says is that Morality is "as the practice of moral duties" this still leaves us with the question, what is moral? Morality gives us no real weighing mechanism. We must instead work towards peace, as it is the pinnacle of human values.

VC: National Sovereignty is an inadequate criterion for evaluating morality. If we say that upholding national sovereignty equals morality, then the actions of the Nazi's within their borders would be Moral. Genocide would be moral. so there is no link. Sovereignty is inadequate as a criterion in general as it should not guide our actions, but rather a respect for humanity should guide our actions. The people don't exist for the government, the government exists for the people.

Contention 1: While I do agree that national identity is important, there is no evidence that submitting to an International Court would destroy our national Identity. The American Identity is as diverse as that of any country, it is founded upon the principles of internationalism, no court would violate our identity. Take the U.N for example, right now we have a national identity, but yet we are part of the U.N. no court would violate anything more than the U.N does. The U.N does not violate anything. All of these impacts my opponent gives will not happen. the conditions exist in the Status Quo yet we see no impacts.

Contention 2:
My opponent makes a mistake in saying that the ICC is unchecked. If you read the Rome statute of the ICC you will find that the ICC is checked heavily by the U.N security council. The United States, being a Member of the security council, then has a sufficient check on the court. Furthermore the court officials are elected by the member states so the U.S would have further power over who the prosecutor is who the judges are etc.... Infact it creates a Harmony of checks in which the court checks the state and the state checks the court, much like the U.S system.
Abuse is not called making an accusation. If I sue you for bumping into my car am I abusing you? Or if a suspected criminal is tried and found innocent, is that abusing him? In other words what my opponent calls abuse is infact the function of a court. If they make accusations most likely they will be turned down. In the chance that a U.S official is actually convicted then we will have to see that, like if a Criminal is convicted, justice was found. Not Abuse.

Contention 3:
Lets look a little for closely at this claim of no deterrence value my opponent makes. he says deterrence is "highly unlikely" however in my case I gave a solid example of the deterrence effect of such a court. So infact the "ICC Proponents" DO have evidence "supporting their deterrence theories."

AFF

My opponent made no attacks on my case at all so it stands in its entirety.
Debate Round No. 2
Debatenewbie14

Con

I will first go over my opponent case then my own.
His value is peace. If we do join an international court we could only prosecute crimes when a state is unwilling and unable, and also IF they are apart of the court. So we wouldn't be able to get the root of the problem. We as America do better achieve justice, then an international could, for we can going and help those people when and international court could only prosecute crimes as I state if and only if a state is unwilling and unable and also if they are apart of that international court. So his value falls.
So if his value falls his value criterion also falls, but I will also give some point why it would have fallen even if the value wouldn't have fallen. He states that we have moral obligations to all people. But we first have moral obligations to our people. So first we need to help ours selves before we can help others, so his VC falls.
I agree with some of his definitions but I don't want to get in to a definition debate.
With his 1st contention he says it would deter crimes but my 3rd contention states that Military Power has more deterrence value so you must look at which on is stronger, I will go over my third one and how it is stronger latter.
On too his second contention he says that we would further legitimize it. By joining the ICC, the U.S. would show the world irresponsibility. If you look at our governmental system with its checks and balances, and the ICC's with unrestrained power, there is no rational reason the U.S. would become part of such an entity. So why should we risk our system to join a court system that is different from us. The U.S. should not legitimize an illegitimate organization whose judicial system is on the other end of the spectrum. While joining the ICC would legitimize it, the U.S. should legitimize an illegitimate organization.
Onto my case
On my value he says that I don't define But we have moral obligations it is easily defined what is right and wrong we first have moral obligations to our selves before others. So that attack falls so my value flow threw.
Onto my VC he says it doesn't uphold my Value. But for us to change our national sovereignty would be morally wrong to our people, for they deserve the same respect from their government. So that attack falls and my Value and VC flow threw
For my 1st contention he negates to see that we need to kep how we are so to join we would have to have others ideas that don't work for us so after a while we would change. So his attack falls and it flows threw
For my 2nd contention he states I made the mistake of stating the ICC but since there is no international court, the closest thing that there is is the ICC so it would be mostly likely be like the ICC. He also states that If they make accusations most likely they will be turned down. In the chance that a U.S official is actually convicted then we will have to see that, like if a Criminal is convicted, justice was found. Not Abuse. If I know humans like I do they will look for a hole and us that to their advantage. Since this is a huge hole, it would only hurt the US to join it. For their for mine 2nd contention flows threw
On my 3rd contention he pretty much goes back on his case So his contention falls and mine flows threw.
So the key voting issues is which value holds up and which one protection the US citizens better, his onlys hurts us, when mine would better protect them better. And also I mine has held up all of his argument so mine flow threw when his don't.
So vote neg, to protect our selves and our citizens.
Metz

Pro

AFF/NEG

CV: This is actually part of the reason it promotes peace. If everyone joins, as I am arguing they should, then whenever a state fails to prosecute Crimes Against Humanity the court would step in and make sure to root out the problem. So essentially it acts as an international bulwark.

VC: what my opponent fails to see is that when we exercise our moral duty to humanity, the good reciprocates back and is felt by our own citizens. We must remember that the world is shrinking, we are all united by trade so it is paramount that we are also united by humanity. governments exist to serve the people, people don't exist to serve the government. Also we will get nowhere with this egoistic Isolationist attitude my opponent takes and instead should look to all of humanity in our political decisions.

C1. My opponent says he will go over which of our contentions is stronger later but yet never does. Here is why I Plainly outweigh. My Opponent gives us these theories that a court cannot have deterrence value, but what I give you is an example where the ICC deterred crimes. Speculation Vs. Fact. I outweigh, flow across.

C2. My opponents attacks don't even follow. For example the present day ICC, the best model we have to work with, is a court system that is checked heavily by the security council, runs parallel to us, and is on the same side of the judicial spectrum. The organization is plainly not illegitimate as 55% of the worlds countries have joined and we have not seen any of these impacts.

C3 My opponent drops this contention in its entirety. I will show the full implications of this later on but I will say now that because we have a legal duty to join, and to act in a cosmopolitan manner, we have a legal reason for my criterion, destroying my opponents attacks. '

NEG

CV: Well my opponent gives us a definition of morality that is equally vague. Right and Wrong. So what is right and what is wrong? if we say respecting national sovereignty is right, then would it have been right for us not to march into Berlin to end WWII? Not only is Morality Vague, but there is no link to the Criterion.

VC: He just makes these claims but gives us no warrants. He says "for us to change our national sovereignty would be morally wrong" Essentially this means every treaty, every alliance, every trade deal was morally wrong. So under his case moralism is the same thing as isolationism. But here that catch, that would not be best for our people, we couldn't survive. so my opponents own case contradicts his own stance.

C1: There is no such thing as "keep who we are" we are constantly changing. This contention falls. No impacts seen in the status quo.

C2: Again, my opponent drops all of my real attacks just saying "If I know humans like I do they will look for a hole and us that to their advantage. Since this is a huge hole, it would only hurt the US to join it." This impact is not seen in the status quo and thus will not happen. Also I guess my opponent doesn't now much about humans because there are plenty of times when people don't look for holes.

C3: My opponent just says I go back on my case. He doesn't explain how. Also if you look to my earlier rebuttal you will see that I don't.

essentially my opponent defense of his case is a massive logical fallacy and my case stands in its entirety. I have proven that the United states has a moral obligation to join such a court. Look to my contentions for how to vote.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Debatenewbie14 7 years ago
Debatenewbie14
fun stuff I know so how do you stand the Viglanties?
Posted by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
The topic is whether or not the US should join a world court for the purpose of prosecuting crimes against humanity.
LD (Lincoln-Douglas Debate) is a format of debate that involves two people who each take turns presenting their case, attacking their opponent's case, and defending their own case. All of which is done over a predetermined topic that one of the debaters disagrees with and the other agrees. Look it up on wikipedia for a more specific explanation as to time limits, what to say, and when to say it.
I hope I was able to answer your questions with skill and eloquence.
Goodbye.
Posted by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
it is fun Right Metz lol jk but truly I love LD debate
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
You always should tell the judge what contention you are reading so what I say is generally "Contention 2____(tagline) or Which brings me to my second contention....."
Posted by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
yeah you do say 1st conetentoin is some times annoying
Posted by ohKAYZ 8 years ago
ohKAYZ
I've been wondering about something for a while. In an LD debate where the debaters are speaking, do you say"1st contention - ___________", "2nd contention - ___________","My first contention is ....", etc. out loud?
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
No I am not at all mad.... I honestly don't care if people here use pieces of the cases I post. I change them so frequently that it doesn't matter. Neither of those contentions I actually use anymore.

as I said, I am amused
Posted by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
oh sorry I used some of the idea but I also did look at others things sorry if it makes you made
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I find it amusing that you tried to run parts of my own case against me....

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Cool... I will take this...

I Assume I go first then?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Debatenewbie14MetzTied
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