The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

LD Jan/Feb Resolution: U.S. Submitting to an International Court

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,726 times Debate No: 6676
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)




Quick Note Before My Case: Please only accept this challenge if you are an LD debater. Preferably, you debate novice or JV or your really bad at varsity. Thank you :)

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

For the clarity of the debate, I offer the following definitions:

1)The word ought translates to a moral obligation. Therefore the resolution inquires as to whether or not the U.S. has a responsibility to join an IC and submit to its jurisdiction

2)In designating an international court to use for this debate, it is preferable to take a realistic stand rather than an idealistic stand, indicated by the presence of the United States in the resolution. Therefore, it is preferable to specify an international court rather than base the following arguments of both the Affirmative and the Negative off of a theoretical court. Barring a response from the negative, I propose the International Criminal Court, or the ICC, as the designated court. Not only is it the closest match to the type of court stipulated in the resolution, but it is also the most politically relevant at this point in time.

3)Since we are designating the ICC as our international court, our definition of crimes against humanity should come from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum. However, since this provides a vague and, in this case, ineffective definition for the crimes up for discussion, a more specific definition is preferable in our scenario. For this, we look to Dr. David Nersessian, (in an article titled "Comparative Approaches to Punishing Hate: The Intersection of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity) from the Stanford Journal of International Law in the Summer of 2007, who said that

"Crimes against humanity are ordinary criminal acts committed within a wider criminal context. The prohibited act in question (murder, rape, mistreatment, etc.) must form part of the larger attack on the civilian population. Isolated offenses are not crimes against humanity. But as long as it is part and parcel of the wider attack, even a single prohibited act will suffice...At present, the authoritative list [of crimes against humanity] (derived from the ICC Statute and ICTY and ICTR jurisprudence) includes:

- Murder
- Extermination
- Enslavement
- Deportation or forcible transfer
- Imprisonment or severe deprivation of liberty
- Torture
- Sexual violence (including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other acts of "comparable gravity")
- Persecution
- Enforced Disappearance
- Apartheid
- Other inhumane acts of similar character and gravity."

My value for this case is justice. Justice is defined as giving each their due.

My value criterion is preserving the peace. A clear link is evident between the value and the value criterion, as the main aim of justice is to preserve the peace, working in two different ways and following a logical order: Criminals commit crimes, the justice system gives due punishments to the criminals, instantly preventing them (for some time at least) from committing crimes and dissuading some from committing crimes in the future. However, a deterrent effect is also created, as the example set by the prosecuted criminals affects the population as a whole, dissuading other potential criminals from committing crimes. Through both instances of dissuasion, the peace is preserved.

My first contention is that the basis of the United States judicial system requires that the U.S. submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC in an effort to give each their due even when the American government is trying to prevent it.

The primary goal of the ICC is to prosecute criminals who have committed crimes against humanity ONLY WHEN THEIR HOME STATES ARE UNABLE TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES.

According to the ICC's website,

"The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility.

In the example given by the ICC, if formal proceedings in any country, such as the United States, are being undertaken in an effort to shield someone from punishment or retribution, the entire purpose of justice is defeated, and impacts carry on to my value criterion as well, which is preserving the peace, as criminals who have committed very grave crimes, detrimental to peace, may be allowed to walk free as a result of the fallacies of the U.S. court system. What use is justice anymore? The entire order of justice mentioned in the beginning of the case is disrupted, as there is absolutely no deterrent effect present in the justice system anymore.

However, if such a cover-up were to occur, and the United States was under the jurisdiction of the ICC, the international court would be able to prosecute the offender, keeping the justice system flowing regularly. In order to prevent the collapse of the American judicial system, it is essential that the U.S. submit to the jurisdiction of an international court such as the ICC.

My second contention regards the word ought in the resolution as an indication of a moral obligation. Basically, what the United States ought to do is not limited to what is best for American citizens and nationals; of course, this takes first priority, but once that is taken care of, America's ethical responsibility extends to the remainder of the international community.

Contention one has showed the necessity of a strong international judiciary body to prosecute criminals for the United States. However, there are other nations with both stronger and weaker justice systems in place. Those with weaker systems have an even greater need for the ICC to uphold justice and preserve the peace. Essentially, we can't limit the effects of the United States submission to domestic impacts; doing so would create a ripple effect and could affect Australia, Ethiopia, China, Germany, Brazil, and potentially every other nation in the world.

This will occur in one of two ways.

A.Firstly, the act of the U.S. submitting to the IIC's jurisdiction will give the international court legitimacy. Without this backing, the IIC's rulings would not be very effective, as it would lack the power to enforce them. Therefore, justice could not be spread as widely, peace would not be maintained in all places and the court could not save state court systems from collapsing in case of fallacies in the state's justice system (such as by protecting an offender from prosecution as described in the example from the first contention)

B.If the U.S. were to submit to the IIC's jurisdiction, as the current hyperpower in the world, it would encourage more states to join, giving the court more power behind it to enforce rulings and expanding the scope of places for the IIC to extend control, promoting more justice, in more places.

Thus, I urge you to affirm


Alright I wrote a new Neg case, because I was getting sick of sovereignty so I need to try it out... as for my opponents requirements, I am a freshmen debater, so that probably qualifies as JV/Novice although here in CO it is done differently...


I Negate: Resolved the United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes Against Humanity

My Value for this Debate is National Security: National Security Refers chiefly to the protection of a state from aggression from other organizations of countries. National Security is an extension of the value of safety; the most basic of all values, but is extended to the safety of all citizens within a national border. National Security is a fundamental value because it preserves all other fundamental American values.

In Order to clarify Justice I offer the criterion of Realist Pragmatism.
Pragmatism is essentially the idea that we act upon the most practical consequences.
Philosopher William James Explains "we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve" Realist Pragmatism then is the idea that we must act on the most practical consequences for our own country alone. Henry Hazlitt Explains "If the World were constantly governed by rational, enlightened and pragmatic egoism, the world would be a much better place than it is" This Best Upholds National Security, because in order for the U.S to uphold its security it must make its decisions based upon these Pragmatic Reasons.

Observation/Resolution Analysis: The Affirmative must prove an absolute necessity for the U.S to join an international court and that the Benefits outweigh the harms. This is because the United States should not submit to an outside authority unless it is absolutely necessary from a realist perspective.

Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC Compromises National Security
A. As 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." (2003) Spencer goes on the say that the ICC "represents an unacceptable legal bureaucracy that invites political manipulation." (2004)" 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.

B. According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat.

2nd Contention—Deterrence Value
A. 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 "[w]ars 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 "[b]ehind 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.

Contention 3: Submitting Actually Destroys World Peace
According to Marc Grossman, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, "the United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity. We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not bound to politicized prosecutions" If we Join the ICC we would either but all of these soldiers at risk and cause a mass of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S citizens or we would have to pull out of these countries, causing Global destabilization.


I have a Disagreement with one off Aff's observations
1) ought is used as a substitute for should, while morality may be considered we must also take a realist approach to morality in the sense of what is best for the U.S

Value: There is no way of defining this notion of justice in an international community, as it differs between communities. Also it is outweighed by Ntl security as Natl Security is paramount for all other rights of American citizens to Exist.

1. Peace is a vauge standard for evaluation of justice, as peace cannot be created simply by prosecution, otherwise the U.S would be peaceful. Pragmatism is a better, more real life criterion.

Contention 1:
1. The U.S may not want to prosecute, as I showed in my contentions the ICC may decide to prosecute U.S soldiers even when the U.S feels they have committed no crime, this would have the court enforce jurisdiction.
2. This only further proves it is not pragmatic. If it may never prosecute American citizens why should we subject our soldiers to this even though U.S courts are fully capable. Thus this provides no benifit to the U.S, flow Neg

Contention 2
1. The U.S Self-intrest is valued over ethical responsibility, As James Fishkins(Yale) states "The Rich have no Moral obligations to contribute to the poor" The U.S has moral obligations to its citizens first, thus my case outwighs.
2. Current system is sufficiant: whenever countries need help with prosecution of genocidaries, an Specialized U.N Tribunal is created or they are tried under the law of Universal Jurisdiction as in the Case of Pinochet. There are plenty of safeguards in place for these countries.
3. There is no warrant to the ripple argument, we are not liked, we have almost No soft power, this creates an outlet for abuse. Also notice those countries named by my opponent are all the most powerful, indeed the most hegemonic countries(U.S, China, Russia) have not ratified showing a trend that these countries do not see any positives and many negatives.
4. An IGO should not be dependant on the membership of one country. or even a couple if it is truly trans-national.
5. The U.S would not convince others to join because, as i mentioned earlier, we have NO soft power, that is influencial and the more likely scenario is countries refusing to join because they would see the ICC like other IGO's as a U.S imperialist Pawn.

I Urge a Negation
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments against my case.

As for my observation regarding the definition of "ought," I submit the following warrant, a definition of the word itself from Merrian-Webster: "used to express obligation," and the same source defines obligation as "something what is bound to do." Therefore, the word "ought" need not be interpreted or used practically, as it is (in this case) what the U.S. is bound to do, not necessarily what they "should" do in a personal sense

Since no arguments are made against the ICC as the court for this debate, please consider that point extended for all arguments.

Moving on to my value, the interpretation of justice given is one that can be taken from a domestic point of view and need not be looked at internationally. Therefore, MY VALUE IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR MY OPPONENT'S VALUE TO EXIST. As defined by the domestic interpretation of justice given, domestic justice leads to national security as it creates peace, enabling a society to be safe and stable.

Criterion: No warrants are given for the U.S. not being peaceful. Second of all, even if the U.S. is not 100% peaceful, I stand by my argument that it would be less peaceful (there would be more conflict) if there was no justice.

1)There is no saying that the "U.S. may not want to prosecute." What does this mean? Does it mean that one or two sections of the government are covering up for a soldier's misconduct? Or that a select few in the U.S. don't want to prosecute? In that case, the ICC is needed to prosecute IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE U.S.
2)I am not saying we should subject soldiers to anything if the courts are fully able. It's what would happen if they are later incapable that concerns me and my case. If that doesn't happen, there is no need for the ICC and no interference from them. Everyone wins.

1)The resolution is only concerned with moral responsibility, as evident from my interpretation of the word "ought."
2)What is your warrant for saying that there are "enough safeguards in place"?
3)Untrue to your point on the hegemonic countries. Although they may see negatives from a "we-don't-want-to-give-up-any-power" point of view doesn't mean that they don't see positives from a "peace-for-the-world" point of view. It simply means they value the negatives over the positives, which defies their moral obligations, and therefore they OUGHT NOT do.
4)It is not dependent, but there is certainly no arguing that U.S. participation would not help.
5)What about countries that have not joined yet but will out of fear of the U.S.? Or the U.S.'s allies. You say that we have NO soft power, but I see no warrant.

Moving on to my opponent's case:

Value: I like your value. Unfortunately, mine is better. Justice leads to a feeling of national (and international) security by creating a more peaceful society.

VC: Quoting philosophers is stupid. It is not a warrant because philosophers have pretty much said anything and everything. It does not mean they are correct. I offer the following example: from the same philosopher (William James): "If you want a quality, act as if you already had it." So now if I pretend I'm divine, I am? Hippolyte Taine says, "I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior." Please note that both quotes offered are by philosophers.

Secondly, I agree that the United States should make decisions based on pragmatic reasons. True. But that is not what the resolution says. It asks if they "ought" (look at my definition) submit, not if practically they should.

C1: Extend argument regarding values (mine precedes his, and therefore must be preserved first)

Okay, the U.S.'s enemies cannot abuse the court unless there is something wrong with the U.S. court systems. Keep them working fine, and nothing happens. If the court system is on the verge of collapsing, any attempt to save it is worthwhile.


If you let criminals go free, how do you preserve the deterrence value? That would be counter-productive, especially if the story made its way to the public. So any check on that (such as submitting to the ICC) is an attempt on preserving the effect of deterrence. Not the other way around.


I saved the motherload for last. Let me use a card from your case: "the United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security." I'm sorry – did you just include that in your case? Your entire argument against my second contention (which I almost conceded) was that the U.S. must think of its realistic duties to the people first. Then why is this quote in here? My opponent offers a blatant contradiction in his case by including this card. Either drop the contention and apologize for using the card or forfeit.

Assuming that my opponent forfeits C3, I win the international debate (in terms of impacts on the global community) as he has no contentions referring to it.

So, to sum up my major points:
1) My entire argument (linking to my value of justice) must chronologically occur before my opponent's argument of national security. Justice is needed to create security.
2) The U.S. must succumb to the ICC's jurisdiction to ensure the failure of attemps by a select few to cover up crimes against humanity. This also ensures the stability of the court system through the deterrence effect.

I urge you to affirm. :)



Definition of Ought: My opponents warrant actually reinforces the Neg Argument. If the word ought is "used to express Obligation" that does not imply morality, but rather what we are bound to do. It never mentions morals, to put the resolution with a substitute for ought "the United States is Obligated to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute Crimes Against Humanity. A better definition of Ought would be"Used to express advisability" (Merriam Webster) as it buts the mutual burden for each side to prove what is more advisable as opposed to Obligation which cannot be decided due to the fact that the U.S is governed by Popular sovereignty.

Value: My opponent defines his value as giving each his due, this does not ensure national security. If we take this Justice from a domestic Point of view as my opponents says it is subservient to National Security. National Security is an extension of safety, which is the core of all value, without my value we cease to have the United States and people cannot even think about having their due.

Criterion: Well lets see, we invade Iraq, Afghanistan, there are still crimes. And yes the U.S will be less peaceful without a Court system but this fails to show why joining the ICC would do anything, weakening our local courts, would cause peace to fail, which would beb unjust under the AFF. peace is very vauge, and cannot be quantified thus is an inferior criterion.

1. My opponent missed the point of this attack, I was building off of my contention 1 that U.S soldiers may be punished for things that are not ordinarily prosecutable, such as collateral damage to buildings or even the environment, so the ICC would force prosecution and Hurt the U.S national sovereignty, and its National Security which would then come back to hurt the Citizens.
2. Cross Apply from above for the first part. Second, Again if there is no need then it is not Pragmatic, the U.S courts are more solid than a national court, because International Law is new and untested, any flaw in U.S law would be reflected tenfold in International Law.

1. I have already addressed this but I would like to add that even if we assumed a Moral question, I have shown that the U.S has moral responsibilities to its Citizens not the World, this was not addressed and dropped. Furthermore I would like to point out my Criterion, Pragmatism is a moral philosophy, the Issues of national Security and sovereignty are addressed very heavily by Hobbes in the Leviathan. As well as by other Social Contract Philosophers.
2. I provided the example of the U.N courts, that are specialized to the events and thus more effective than the ICC, also the theory of universal jurisdiction which Briton exercised in the Capture of Pinochet. The ICC has not achieved what any of these courts have and is newer, thus will not be as effective.
3. how do we know their Moral Obligations? Where do morals come from? Society. The first Obligation of every Government is its social contract. Thus these countries felt it would been unduly violating their contract and did not submit. They Value the Negatives because they outweigh as I have shown.
4. So why do we have a Moral Obligation to Join? if it can perform without us, and it will not help us, why join?
5. "hat have not joined yet but will out of fear of the U.S." They will then leave the court if the U.S joins because they will see it as a U.S Imperialist Pawn. We have no soft power, this is evident, our power is Hard, we are disliked in the middle east, we have alot of Major disagreements with our allies even. This COURT WILL BE ABUSED. I warrant this is my contention 1.


Value: Justice, may lead to a feeling of security, but does not in fact create security. We FELT Safe before pearl Harbor, We FELT safe before 9/11. We need to protect National Security so that we CAN be safe. National Security outweighs Justice clearly.

Criterion: "Quoting philosophers is stupid" REALLY NOW? this is LD it is a philosophical debate, MORALS are philosophical. Also I am Using the Idea of William James, not saying I am right because he said so. Yes you can pretend you are divine but that doesn't mean others will agree AND you need to warrant it, William James Warrants Pragmatism. My Opponent conceded my value saying "I agree that the United States should make decisions based on pragmatic reasons" Pragmatism is a MORAL theory, Moral theories need not be metaphysical to evaluate morals. Pragmatism is as Valid a Moral Idea as Deontology or Consequentialism.

My Burden Still stands as well.

A. This Attack is a strawman Fallacy, The court is self determinant so it can decide if it wants to take over jurisdiction. Countries can File referrals for any number of actions by the U.S because the Rome Statute is Very Vague, as I hit in my subpoint B. Also the U.S court system is not on the verge of collapsing and has Never even come close, the Surviva of the courts is parallel to the survival of the U.S itself, if our courts fail it will be because the U.S is destroyed because of a lack of National Security.
B. My opponents Cross-application does not refute. If we cannot have a Military to defend ourselves we will be destroyed. This is simple Logic, this contention is unrefuted and Still Stands.

C2. This is Assuming the ICC would be more efficient that the worlds Military Organizations or the U.N. which Logically it is not, also statistically it i not capturing only 4/12 of criminals it has sent warrants after. The Fact is that Military power is a more effective determinant than a court, AND is more efficient at capturing criminals. Under the ICC this would be forbidden and we would lose from even the current deterrent value.

This Card does not contradict, it simply states the U.S has this role and Joining the ICC would destroy that stability that the U.S offers. Also to U.S intervention in other countries does not deny its realist duties to its people. So this is within the Realist aspect of my case and their is no contradiction. The ICC destroys U.S military power, lowers deterrence, and is an outlet for abuse three unique impacts of a court that are not seen in U.S intervention. This Intervention is more effective/efficient and respects realist duties.
essentially my opponent dropped this argument, by pointing out a Strawman contradiction so I will give you the impacts again. We join the ICC we pull Aid and Support out of those 100+ countries destabilizing hundreds of regions causing disastrous effects on the World. This alone outweighs the Entirety of the AFF case.

Key Issues:
1. Criterion: No attacks on realist Pragmatism, this flows through, The Aff Burden then becomes to Prove that Affirming has the Best Practical Consequences for the U.S. Remember Regardless of weather of not this is a purely moral debate, Pragmatism and realism are BOTH MORAL THEORIES and are just as relevant as any argument in this debate.
2. Harms: Outlet for Abuse, This threatens the security of the American People and American itself. Flows NEG
Reduces Military power, This Reduces Not Only U.S Hegemony but decreases our National Security and the Ability to help out in foreign conflicts, which would as I addressed in C3 be disastrous for the world and would end up causing Massive Global Destabilization.
3. Deterrence: I have Proven the Court has No deterrence and would in fact lessen any current deterrence, proving it not Pragmatic.
Debate Round No. 2


Value: Justice does create security. Without justice and a punishment system, criminals would roam free and there would be no consequences for the crimes they commit. Therefore, they would continue to commit these crimes and nobody would ever feel safe.

VC: I believe my interpretation of ought was completely moral void of any realism. I stand by that 100%.

My opponent says that the courts have never failed. I offer the following example of a government cover-up under which some body (any ruling body) above the federal government could have intervened and restored justice in the public eye of U.S. nationals. I quote the following from Right Web Political Research Associates:

"Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff and a long-standing member of the clique of hardliners and neoconservatives who pushed for the Iraq War, was convicted in early March 2007 on charges of lying to government investigators probing the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Among the charges were two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements, and one of obstruction of justice. Just before Libby was to begin serving his 30-month prison sentence, President George W. Bush commuted the sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The decision drew widespread criticism from across the political spectrum. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times (July 3, 2007),

David Dow, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, wrote

"Lewis Libby Jr. had the best lawyers money can buy. His crime cannot be attributed to youth or retardation. He has expressed no remorse whatsoever for lying to a grand jury or participating in the administration's effort to mislead the American people about the war in Iraq. President Bush's commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence is certainly legal, but it just as surely offends the fundamental constitutional value of equality. Because President Bush signed a commutation, a rich and powerful man will spend not a day in prison, while 57 poor and poorly connected human beings died because Governor Bush refused to lift a pen for them."

As Dow says, it is completely legal for the president to have commuted Libby's sentence. However, what happened to the ideals of equality that was emphasized at the signing of the Constitution? This case shows how, without any checks on the system, a government can cover up for a criminal. What makes the situation worse is how big it blew up in media. The obvious public reaction is a safer feeling, but only for those in positions of power with connections. They can get off scot-free, even in the event that they are convicted by 12 people and a judge. Despite the evidence, they have nothing to worry about. What happened to the deterrent effect that defines the justice system?

Even though this is not a case of a crime against humanity, the conclusion is the same.

Perhaps military power is more determinant/effective, but less morally permissible. Refer back to my argument involving the "I kill my opponent" example and how the punishment should be determined by a third party.

We don't join the IIC and the IIC cannot to its full capability extend appropriate justice to the 108 nations that are a part of it. In addition, we don't join and our justice system is open for corruption, which I pointed out in my warrant used in the argument against my opponent's C1.

Key Issues: (copying you…sorry)
1)If we don't have justice, there is no method of ensuring national security. Automatically, I win, as my opponent's arguments lead to a concept that cannot exist without the Aff's value.
2)My opponent at one point says that we have no moral obligation for the other nations of the world, yet offers a card otherwise. The fact that we do extend a hand to other nations indicates a level of moral responsibility the U.S. feels towards other nations.
3)I have proven one scenario which has occurred in which the U.S. government and judicial system has failed. The same event could therefore occur on a global impact scale, involving crimes against humanity.

I urge you to affirm.


Alright Crystallize and covering some last issues....

Value: National Security, the Definition my opponent gives is "giving each his due" this in no way protects National Security. National Security is Needed in order to protect the rights of American Citizens which are paramount in U.S policy. Even under Justice I better uphold with my case by ensuring that Americans are given their Due, Protection and rights.

Criterion: Realist Pragmatism, This Fits into both my opponents Moral Standpoint in this debate round, as well as my Practical one. So here is how how this weighs out. Whoever has proven the most practical consequences FOR the U.S best upholds Realist Pragmatism. I will show how the NEG outweighs AFF

1. Global Instability-Joining the ICC would mean endangering our troops oversees on peacekeeping or relief missions, such as sudan or Iraq. This mass Withdrawal or Prosecution or U.S troops means Instability in these regions that we have troops, the ICC cannot compensate as it does not have the reach of the U.S or the Hard Power.

2. Abuse- Because this court is self-determinant it is an outlet for abuse. It is Unchecked as I brought up in my NC, and is thus a political danger to the U.S and its Citizens.

3. Lack of Deterrence: ICC does not deter Crimes, Infact submitting would lower the deterrence. This Makes it Anti-Pragmatic to join the ICC. Even if we accept my opponents claim that military deterrence is less moral than the court, it is more effective at giving out Justice, which is the core of my opponents case.

4. The Scooter Libby case(even if it was a CAH) should not be prosecuted by the ICC. The President pardoned him, this is a Constitutional Power guaranteed to the President, and an IGO should not interfere because it would then be destroying the U.S legal system and Denying popular sovereignty.

I Urge Negation
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JamesEemerson 7 years ago
The debate focused alot on definitions. Try to remember that pure logic is stronger than little tidbits. In a real LD the judge will get tired real fast if you keep returning the the same points (especially definitions). However, if needed, remember that you can debate that your source for your definition is more reliable than the opponents.

P.S.-hoopinallday-what other international courts exist besides the ICC that could even meet the criteria of international, and prosecute crimes against humanity? Are you saying that because there is one, or are you just trying to sound smart...?
Posted by hoopinallday 7 years ago
okay for the pro...ur case was coo, but dont be ICC specific. in a var round they would tear that to pieces mainly because the resolution says an international court. it doesnt mean that the ICC is the one they must submit to. otherwise u had a solid constructive. ur rebuttals need work, but i would've given the case to the AFF. the neg was solid, but i feel that the card which blatantly stated the U.S should join an IC messed up ur case. as for the pro, when u were pointing that out, u sounded very cocky about it, and that wont resonate well with lay judges. all in all, a solid debate
Posted by sbhcutie 7 years ago
I think that you guys are both very good.
i am also a freshman though i'm not very good at it yet.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
The debate over definitions seemed to be independent of the topic of the debate, done for its own sake rather than in support of either case. I thought both debaters presented good cases relative to the substance of the proposition, skillfully done. They actually had some referenced sources, which is rare around here. Pro had the burden of proof to show that the ICC would in fact provide justice, and I think that burden was ultimately not met.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
A Kritik would be rather hypocritical.... Also I don't think you would have space on the debate forms...

Thats Ironic you say it needs links.... I gave a copy to our coach and she essentially said "link to VC" for all contentions....

A couple of our Big tournaments are coming up, so do you have any other advice on how I should fix this case?
Posted by d3bate4fun 7 years ago
The main problem I see with the NC is that I don't see any place where you directly impact back into Pragmatism. Like you link into national security, but that is not your VC. It might be smart to say "and this impacts because," or "and this upholds pragmatism because..." Granted, it's like 1am while I'm reading this, so I might just be missing it. Like I think that you should just sign post a bit inside your contentions, just to keep it as clear as possible for the judge.

Oh, I just realized that in the 2nd post, I didn't finish the sentence. Here is the complete sentence: Like, based on that argument, we can conclude that we disregard all arguments in this debate because they are based on philosophy. I think that the neg does a good job responding to this. But, what you could do is run a kritik that says that philosophy is bad or something.
Posted by d3bate4fun 7 years ago
The spike about the non-abusive definitions is really more of a time suck in a formal (oral) debate, because then the neg has to both 1) provide a counter-definition, and 2) say why the aff definition is abusive. It doesn't hold that much to these online debates, because you both have more time... It is okay to include in online debate, but it really doesn't matter because there is no time suck. So I guess my answer to your question is that you should actually include it in

Also, to Metz, if the spike is included (in the AC), as I stated before, the neg just needs to prove in the analysis that the aff definition is abusive. Nevertheless, the aff still must respond in the 1AR, or if the neg never gives reasons why the definition is abusive or never responds to the spike, then all the aff must do is extend the spike and say something like, "insofar as he never responds to the spike, my definitions still stand because he never proves that mine show signs of clear abuse, thus you disregard neg counter-definitions," or something like that. I'm from the west coast, and I'm usually debating in most of the TOC bid tournaments here, but if you are debating in the parent-judge-pool tournaments, respond to definitions thoroughly, because I have run into debaters that will try to extend their definitions as voters. Also, in the 1AR, it might be good strat to just accept the neg counter-definitions, if they are reasonable, instead of wasting 15-20 secs of a 4 min speech on definitions.

Also, I don't really understand why quoting philosophers is stupid. Like, based on that argument, we can conclude that we disregard all arguments in this debate because they are based. And, the warrant for preserving the peace is really weak. Like I would just say that if prosecuting people makes people commit less crimes, then no crimes should be committed.

I'll critique the NC in another post.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
d3bate4fun.... If the Neg provides No reason for a counter definition then Aff's stands. But if a counter Definition is given and analyzed the AFF must respond to it... At least here in CO
Posted by virajgarage 7 years ago
gracias for the comments and tips!
however, quick question:

does what you said about the aff only having to prove that his/her definitions are not abusive only hold true on online debates (where the neg has more arguing space then provided in real debates) or also in formal debates (speaking orally)?
Posted by d3bate4fun 7 years ago
In response to bookworm's comment, you shouldn't put cards in for your definitions in a "real" debate, i.e. debate round when you are speaking. This is bad strategy because you read your framework (definitions, spikes, V, and VC combined), and it turns out to be 3 minutes, this is bad. Although, for these debates online, it is okay because there isn't a major time limit. Also, for the aff, you should add a spike that says something like "Aways prefer aff interpretations that do not show clear abuse because the aff is granted the right to define the terms of the debate. The neg's time advantage is balanced by aff speaking first and last and establishing the debate." Insofar as you include that spike, all you need to do (when affirming) on the definition debate is to prove that your definitions do not show clear abuse, rather than weighing analysis on the definition (and counter definition) itself.

I thought that the sign posting was really good in the debate, and I liked the weighing analysis. One thing I recommend for both of you to save time is to make some warrants analysis, instead of an entire card. In example, for the card for the first contention, you could just say: the ICC is a last resort option and will only be used when a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute, or something like that. Its just more efficient.

In all, good job to both of you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Metz 7 years ago
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 virajgarage 7 years ago
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