The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 1/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,311 times Debate No: 6661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)




I affirm today's resolution "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity"

Before I would like to offer some definitions:
International Court – a collection of nations that are responsible for prosecution
Ought: an obligation or duty
Submit - yield to the control of another
Jurisdiction - the right and power to interpret and apply the law
Crimes against humanity - as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum "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."

My Value for this debate is Human Rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human Value and thus are intrinsically valuable. Without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature. The resolution explicitly states that this international court is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Human rights are seen to be those rights that are intrinsic in humanity itself, they do not leave when you cross borders but are rather the essence of humanity These include Life, Liberty, Happiness and other rights that philosophers such as Locke held to be "natural rights".

The value criterion for today's round will be Justice because is justice is increased than we ensure human rights. Justice is defined as giving each his due. All people are due human rights and violators of human rights are due a punishment. If the United States does not do this then it actions are unjust and must be prosecuted in a just manner.

Contention 1- United States frequently commits crimes against humanity.

Although the United States considers itself to be an advocate of justice and human rights, our government continues to commit crimes against humanity. Guantanemo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and U.S rendition are examples of human rights violations and crimes that have been committed by the United States. President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime, did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In other words, he ordered that human rights are not due to individuals based on their religious and political affiliation. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and U.S Rendition.

Subpoint A. U.S Rendition
Extraordinary rendition is the extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another, especially in the case of alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to torture prisoners or to employ harsh interrogation techniques. The United States has operated an extensive rendition program since 9/11, involving the transfer of detainees from and to holding centers and prisons in several other countries. It has also been found that some of those detainees have been tortured with the knowledge, acquiescence or even participation of United States agencies. In such cases, the prisoners are tortured into signing a confession linking them to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. U.S. Representative Rohrabacher stated that he would fight any efforts to end the practice.

Subpoint B. Even though Abu Ghraib has recently been shut down, the abuse policies of America are still in place.
The Abu Ghraib prison, also known as the Baghdad Correctional Facility, became internationally known as a prison for war criminals. United States military's torture of Iraqi detainees was revealed in a series of photographs published in worldwide news media.
Major General Taguba stated that there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees was perpetrated by soldiers and members of the American intelligence community. Although Abu Ghraib closed in 2006, Executive Director of the American civil liberties union stated, "To this day, the Bush administration has refused to hold high-level officials accountable for creating policies that resulted in the abuse of detainees. Instead, only low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted."

Contention 2: U.S can't prosecute human rights violations justly by itself

The United States government openly has openly violated human rights and has abrogated the Geneva Conventions designed to protect human rights. However, high-ranked officials have yet to be prosecuted because it is the government themselves that are committing the crimes. The American decision to engage in counterterrorism beyond the reach of national or international law arose from a desire, a need as Washington saw the matter, to avoid the restrictions of the US law and constitution, which protect individual rights.
A resolution was passed by congress saying that, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Therefore, United States law has been manipulated and the Constitution has been breached in order to allow for these human rights violations. Even if the United States decides to prosecute the high-ranking officials who authorized, encouraged, and even ordered these crimes against humanity, these charges will either be dropped or the punishments will be minimal because it is the government themselves who have committed these crimes. An example is the Scooter Libby case. Scooter Libby was the Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs to the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2005, was indicted by a federal grand jury on five felony counts, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Libby was convicted but his sentence was commuted by President Bush. It is apparent that relying on our own government to prosecute criminals who are a part of our government is impractical because they are not tried and convicted justly. The international court, which derives its' general principles of law from the national laws of State in question, would lead to the just prosecution of criminals where the states fails to do so.

Since a majority of our nation's crimes against humanity reside in governmental policies and actions, it is imperative for the United States to submit to an international court. Before me can aide other countries in need, we must fix the human rights violations within out own country. This is done by submitting to an international court; therefore I urge an affirmative ballot.


Resolved: The United States ought NOT submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

The international court mentioned in the resolution does not specify a specific court. It is advantageous not to designate a specific court in order to avoid a debate centered on the effectiveness of one court in relation to another. In addition, the word designed in the resolution indicates that the court's purpose should solely be to prosecute crimes against humanity. Since no tangible court exists with only this limited function, all references should be made to a theoretical international court.

I submit my design of the international court as follows:
1)The court is one in which the majority of the international community is a part of
2)The court's ability to effectively execute the rulings it puts into effect is not to be questioned and is assumed to be both stable and ideal from an enforcement point of view
3)The court's sole purpose should be to prosecute crimes against humanity. It should not tackle separate issues that are not included under the term "crimes against humanity"

A specific definition for "crimes against humanity" 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 wrote 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."

Since the second point made regarding the international court stated that the court's effectiveness in execution is ideal, it can be concluded that the phrase "submit to the jurisdiction" indicates that if the United States, or any nation, were to join, it would be forced to accept and act in accordance with the decisions of the court.

My value for this case is domestic justice. In this case, since the resolution specifically inquires into what the United States should do, domestic impacts are valued over global impacts, and therefore the preservation of domestic justice is the most crucial in this given scenario.

My value criterion for the round is constitutionality. In the United States, the constitution is the method of determining how just something (such as a law or ruling) really is. Anything that creates conflict with the constitution is domestically unjust and therefore unacceptable in the American society.

My first contention is that any submission of power by the government is inherently unjust because it is a blatant violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. This clause, located in article six of the constitution, states the following:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

A submission to an international court, in this case one where the court's execution of rulings is flawless, is a potentially inherent contradiction to this part of the Constitution in the following ways:

a)In a dispute, the international court has the power and means to enforce its ruling, taking away from the supremacy of the constitution of the U.S. if any of the rulings conflict with the Constitution
b)Potentially, the court could support a specific state in a matter that would create a conflict with the final portion of the clause, allowing state judges to be free of the obligation to adhere to the guidelines of the Constitution

Obviously, both of these situations make the submission to an IC's jurisdiction unconstitutional, and therefore domestically unjust. It also means that as long as I, the negative position, can find one single way in which this act of submission could be unconstitutional (or, if one of my following contentions is extended), it is a violation of not only that aspect of the constitution, but also an example of a violation of the supremacy clause.

My second contention is that submitting to an IC also involves forfeiting jurisdiction on crimes committed by U.S. nationals on foreign soil. Without this, the U.S. has no ability to enforce due process as under the Constitution. Without due process guaranteed, the relinquishment of power is unconstitutional, violating the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments.

My third contention is that the implementation of any type of IC would clash with Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution, which states that

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time establish."

My fourth contention regards Article 2 of the Constitution, as submitting to an international court's jurisdiction would restrict some powers of the president, such as the power to make treaties and the pardon power. Since the Constitution does not give the President the power to surrender any executive power or authority, signing any treaty binding the U.S. to an IC is unconstitutional and therefore unjust.

In order to prevent an unconstitutional system of justice, the United States must refrain from submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court. To avoid any of the possible negative impacts mentioned in this case, and to keep America constitutional and just, I urge you to negate.

Now, moving on to the AC:
In terms of definitions, the affirmative does not offer enough on the meaning of an international court, neither giving a specific court nor offering a theoretical court to work with. Therefore, my court is favorable and all links should be made to my court. Also, the affirmative offers some insight but no analysis into the meaning of crimes against humanity, so my examples of specific crimes are more valuable than the definition according to one international court.

Contention 1
The arguments the affirmative offers are interesting, but sadly lack enough research. Guantanamo Bay has been closed down by the Obama administration, so just because human rights violations happened in the past does not mean they will happen again, especially with a president trying to prevent them.

A.The acts of torture mentioned here are not widespread and therefore not crimes against humanity.

Contention 2
What the affirmative mentions here, specifically the statement passed by Congress is interpretation, not manipulation of the Constitution and is therefore constitutional.

Also, the current administration is altering current perceptions of American policies, shown in a drastic change from the "secretive" administration before it (a word coined by Obama). He and his advisers are working to make the U.S. as open as possible. This would make it impossible for the government to condone immoral actions or act immorally as the U.S. nationals will bind Obama to his promises and keep the government "in line."
Debate Round No. 1


In response to my opponents tangible court idea - Yes it does not mention a specific court and agree one should not base ones arguments about one court, but I reserve the right to site examples from current or past international courts in order as long as they can be applied generally

My opponent sites no source for these definitions
My problem with the 1 is the court does not need to me a majority nor will it ever have to me. Does my opponent even know how many countries that is? But the other two definitions are fair and I agree.
In respocne to his definition of "crimes against humanity," It doesn't matter what the exact definition is all this is fair. A crime against humanity is a crime committed against a group for a reason such as, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. that is what is important

V- Although the resolution says "the United States" this does not mean that we should look so domestic impact over global. Global impact is still the big picture in this debate. If we look to my opponents value, we could be living in a world were as long as treat citizens with justice, nothing else matters, a world where we could kill every no citizen who might work against the US because in the negative world, they don't matter and don't deserve justice. This is why the value of Human Rights is a superior value for the round because values the rights of all people.

VC-Unfortunately, because the proper value fro the round is justice, constitutionality is not a proper weighing mechanism, but that point aside, my opponent makes a fatal mistake in choosing constitutionality as his value criterion because he forgets that the constitution is not perfect. Even the framers of the constitution agreed that the document was flawed, and that the government of the United States would be flawed, and so they instated a liberating policy to allow something called amendments to the constitution, which my opponents looks to many times in his speech. For this reason, the vale criterion of constitutionally is not a value criterion because even the framers agreed it was flawed, and it has the ability to be changed.

Contention 1- Cross apply my arguments about the Constitution here. The US law system was created to insure justice, if the United States cannot uphold justice and ensure human rights, by justly prosecuting its criminals, we must amend the Constitution and look to an international court.
for the second half of this point, he has no warrant my opponent makes numerous attacks against my case stating I have no evidence, but in this part he makes extreme claims without a warrant to back up his points, there for they are negligible.

Contention 2- Agreeing with my opponents observation about this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the itself, this point is void. In addition he has no warrant.

Contention 3-Here he quotes the Constitution, but has no impact for his statement, so to this I respond, I agree the constitution does indeed say that. But even if he were to apply an impact, again, cross apply my arguments for Constitutional amendments to ensure justice and human rights.

Contention 4-Again, cross apply my arguments, but still, the document does not state the President CAN'T surrender power, especially when it is to preserve Human Rights and Justice,.
I have already responded to his attacks against my definitions

My opponent makes one argument against my case and that is that President Obama is changing these violations. My first response to this is; does this mean we should allow human rights violations to continue for 4-8 years and wait for a change in administrations? Who says this changed administration is actually going to stop the violations, just because Obama did does not mean it will always happen or ever happen again. Third, what is to stop another President from reinstating the violations? And finally, look back to President Bush's first 10 month in office, his approval ratings were up and he passed a series of good policies, which is until 9/11. It is impossible to tell what someone is going to do with their 4-8 years in office in the first week.


I agree with my opponent's arguments against the guidelines I set in place for the theoretical IC. But points 2 and 3 of these guidelines should be extended.

Firstly, in regard to my value of domestic justice, the constitution specifically states the government's purpose to include preserving "domestic tranquility," without a mere mention of international relations. Regardless of what my opponent goes on to say about my value criterion, the constitution is the fundamental base of the U.S. government and therefore its goals (or purpose) does not change. In other words, the government is still supposed to work towards domestic tranquility, not international tranquility. While it would be good for the U.S. to look to the world as well, it is not one of the obligations that the government must fulfill. Therefore, domestic justice is

As for my value criterion of constitutionality, it is true that the Constitution is a living document, and is open to amendments. Obviously, the initial draft of the constitution would not be perfect for the times we are in now. However, the most valuable property of a living document is that it changes to suit the country's needs. Therefore, the state of the Constitution at one point in time IS PERFECT for that given time. When the need for change arises, it is amended. Therefore, at this particular point in time, the constitution is perfect for this case, as the resolution is phrased in the present tense.

Contention 1: My opponent says that I have no warrant for my arguments. However, a warrant is provided through logic as the scenarios given are theoretical; however, the very fact that they are possible means that if the U.S. submits to the IC's jurisdiction, they could possibly happen. If the door is open for atrocious violations of the standing of the U.S. legal system, then the violations can occur without any checks. The U.S. should not open that door.

Contention 2: I'm not sure where my opponent is pulling this information from, but I never said "this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the [criminal] itself." This was not one of the three point initially included regarding the theoretical IC; rather, my opponent may be confused with this property of the ICC, however that court is not under consideration in this debate, as agreed upon by both the affirmative and the negative. Therefore, the contention is not void.

Once again, since these are all simply possibilities that can occur, a warrant is not needed other than logic. However, if my opponent demands one, I offer the following:

According to David Scheffer & Ashley Cox from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Spring, 2008
"Without the ability to exercise jurisdiction over any atrocity crimes allegedly committed by U.S. nationals anywhere in the world, the United States would forfeit its privilege to apply all U.S. constitutional due process protections, including the right to trial by jury, for the benefit of U.S. nationals sought…for the commission of crimes that are not codified in U.S. Code Titles 10 and 18."

In addition, According to Lauren Fielder Redman from the Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Fall, 2007:
"Although the Rome Statute provides for the accused to be entitled to a public hearing without inexcusable delay, there is no firm definition of what constitutes inexcusable delay. The ICTY, which served as a model for the ICC, has given some indication that five years in custody awaiting trial might not be undue delay. In contrast, the United States law makes plain what is unacceptable delay. In the U.S., the defendant has the right to be brought to trial within seventy days of indictment."

Contention 3: I apologize for my oversight. Obviously, the constitution limits the extent of judicial power to the Supreme Court and those inferior. If the U.S. must submit to an IC which can contradict rulings of the Supreme Court, it is an obvious clash with the Constitution.

Contention 4: If the power is not given, it is not permissible. This is fundamental under the Constitution. The powers are given to the president by the constitution. The powers may then only travel down the line of succession should the president and or those who serve after/in place of him die. Giving up these powers is an immediate clash with the Constitution.

My opponent says that we cannot wait for 4-8 years and allow human rights violations to continue. However, no warrant is given for human rights violations under the Obama presidency. So far, the president has only righted the violations committed under past presidencies.

Basically, that entire statement of condoning HR violations is COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE unless my opponent can offer some evidence of violations under the Obama presidency. However, predicting violations to come is irrelevant. In that case, should there be a possibility of violations in the future, I propose a counter-plan involving a delay of six months, followed by re-evaluations after every period of six months as to whether or not the government should submit to the IC's jurisdiction. However, right now, in the present, no action can be taken without evidence.

My opponent does not respond to my attack on Subpoint A of contention 1, so please drop that point. Secondly, my opponent offers no response to my argument against her claim of "manipulation" of the constitution, as she completely disregards the fact that the constitution is a living document, meant for INTERPRETATION.

Fundamentally, my opponent attacks my basic case structure with two main arguments:
1.Global justice is more important than domestic justice
2.The constitution changes, and therefore cannot be considered a point of reference for justice.

In response, no, global justice is not valued higher than domestic justice from the U.S. government's point of view. Just check their website: Its primary responsibility lies with the citizens and nationals of the U.S. and preserving the peace in their nation. Secondary goals may extend to benefitting the world, but the U.S.'s obligation (indicated by the word "ought") lies solely with the U.S.

I agree that my opponent's points on this matter may make sense if the nation in question was not specified in the resolution, but since the U.S. is mentioned, we understand its responsibility is limited to the preservation of peace in its own society.

Secondly, is my opponent even serious? Please, suggest another point of reference for me to use as a basis of domestic justice, if you have one. The fact is: justice changes based on the needs of nations and their people. International courts did not even exist a few decades ago. Just because the constitution changes does not make it inapplicable. In fact, since the debate is current, the present form of the constitution is the most valuable resource we have for judging how just something IS (currently).

My opponent values human rights above all. Yes, we should try to preserve them as much as possible. But the U.S. should not attempt to do so at the sake of the fundamental rights it provides to its nationals. Thus, I urge you to negate.
Debate Round No. 2


V-Firstly, "domestic tranquility" can be preserved if we submit to an international court because we are prosecuting the human rights violators what the US court system has obviously failed to prosecute. But second, international justice show be valued higher then domestic justice because, as I stated, this can lead to a situation in which non-citizens do not deserve justice. In comparison, submitting to this international court would be saving the lives of many while the injustice my opponent is speak of is breaking insignificant and changeable details of the Constitution. While the governments primary duty does lie with its people, by submitting to an international court we save American and foreign citizens from human rights violations committed by US officials.

VC-The fact that the constitution is a living document is the reason we cannot look to it as a value criterion. This debate is not about the current times or the current president, it is about the ideas and meanings behind what we are discussing, so the fact that my opponent sites the Constitution as the weighing mechanism in this debate is faulty because it can change and therefore cannot be viewed from a nonspecific point in time. To look at the ideas behind the Constitution is one thing, but to argue the specifics of it is invalid in this debate. If we look, as we should, to the ideas and valued behind the Constitution, I will show that my opponent's value criterion can be turned to the affirmative side. The main ideas behind the Constitution are the values of equality and justice. Equality is not really a relevant topic in this debate so I will proceed to the value of justice. Firstly, my value criterion for today's round is, in fact, justice, therefore I am already upholding at least one of the main values of the Constitution throughout my case. If we do not submit to an IC than human rights violations committed by the government in the United States will continue to go unpunished and in no way is this justice. My opponent argues that we may violate the changeable details of the Constitution by submitting to an IC but I am arguing that we violate an unchanging core value of the Constitution by NOT submitting.

Contention 1- Obviously, if the Supreme Court cannot uphold justice by correctly prosecuting human rights violators, something is wrong. As I have shown in my case the US cannot justly prosecute and therefore we must make a change, the best change is to submit to an IC.

Contention 2- Although my opponent never said "this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the [criminal] itself" this is the structure of ICs and not only the ICC but all so this argument is important when it comes to weighting the round. The evidence he sites is solely against the ICC and since as we both agreed we cannot look to things claiming the ICC does not work. He talks about the Rome Statues but we are not discussing the Rome Status. These "mistakes" are not inherent in an international court. And the article from which the first piece of evidence is from is purposely left out of my opponent's argument because it is titles, The Constitutionality of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

3C and 4C- Again, my opponent supports his arguments with the nitty gritty of the US Constitution, as I have shown, the framers of the Constitution wrote it in such a way as to best aid the country at that time, but left it a living document. If the US Supreme Court or the President cannot do their job in protecting the people of America by justly prosecuting people who violate Human Rights, I believe it is time for another amendment to be added to the Constitution allowing these problems to be fixed by submitting to an IC.

My opponent tries to place a burden of proof saying that Obama will not commit human rights violations during his presidency, which I have already show it is too early to tell, but this argument is not valid. As my opponent mandates that we cannot look to the current international court, I mandate that we cannot look to the current president. This is a LD debate, we are not PF debaters here, we look to the morality and the ideas behind ideas not the current situations, which is why this argument not valid.

Please excuse my oversight of this attack against my contention 1 subpoint A, but I believed we had bigger issues to discus. But I will respond now since it is obviously extremely important. Extraordinary rendition is, in fact, a human rights violation. A human rights violation is not categorized by a number but by the selective Human Rights violations, often committed by a government, against a group for a reason such as, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. and my opponent has agreed that his is the relevant definition. The US government is not choosing one out of every one million people for this torture. The government is selectively kidnapping Muslims and people of Arabic decent for this human rights violation because OBVIOUSLY all Muslims and Arabic people are part of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Finally, before I finish, some Voting Issues
1)I have shown that Human Rights and international justice is more valuable than domestic justice
2)My opponent basis his entire case on the changeable details of the Constitution but cannot uphold the ideas and values behind it, while I can.
3)I have shown that the US commits human rights violations
4)I have shown that the US cannot prosecute those crimes themselves, and therefore must submit to the jurisdiction of an international court.


My case( tying in to my opponent's along the way):

V – My opponent says that submitting to an IC will be good for domestic tranquility because it enables offenders to be prosecuted even when the justice system fails. However, without protecting constitutional rights, people will be disgruntled (to say the least) with their government and overthrow it, as the U.S. has to adhere to the rights of citizens before what may be morally right in the big picture in the interest of self-preservation.

VC – True, but the fact that it is a living document does not mean we CANNOT look to it as a VC. It is the basis for the U.S. justice system and it should be looked at/interpreted for that reason, not solely because it is a living document. That's not what I said. So since the constitution represents justice, my opponent's criterion of justice can, in fact, be applied to my case. Therefore, even if you accept justice as a criterion, I outweigh on the grounds that domestic tranquility, or upholding domestic justice, is more important realistically than

C1: Here's another plan. Obviously, the court decision was fine, indicating that the court is adequate. Counter-plan: let's put more restrictions or checks on the president's power to commute sentences. However, one case is not a reason to suddenly fear for the collapse of the U.S. court system and join an IC.

C2: You can't add ideas/guidelines to the IC when both sides have already agreed to them. The guidelines were specifically offered and agreed upon. Therefore, your argument is void. So is my warrant, I accept that, although (as stated before) I do not need one. And I must say that I do not include article titles in the majority of my cases. They waste time and I feel the words in the actual card better convey the idea at hand.

C3 and C4 – Counter-plan: use the previous counter-plan I suggested. It is much more effective than deciding to forfeit rights of the U.S. citizens simply based on the stupid actions of one president.

As for the Obama argument, I am not saying that Obama will not commit human rights violations, but I do not have the burden to defend this argument. You said that he WILL commit human rights violations, so we should stop him now. You offer no warrant, so simply guessing when he has already demonstrated an attitude chiefly against human rights violations is invalid.

As for your defense of C1, Subpoint A, I believe you have the incorrect definition of crimes against humanity. My warrants prove, without a doubt (please look back) that crimes against humanity must be widespread. That they are based in prejudice and condoned by the government is not enough.

But I like the sarcasm at the end

Voting Issues:
1.Obviously, domestic justice is the key BEFORE any international justice can occur, therefore it outweighs temporally. Warrants in my above argument (beginning of the third round) show this
2.My value is justice. Obviously, I uphold the ideas behind the Constitution. The constitution is country-specific, so obviously domestic justice best upholds the ideals in the Constitution.
3.I have devised a counter-plan against my opponent's claims of U.S. court failure
4.Previous allegations of crimes against humanity do not currently hold true with a new administration displaying resolve to prevent such horrendous crimes.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AnimeFanTony 7 years ago
Yea u do have to have a value and a criterion. Thats only if you are doing LD however.
Posted by yates09 7 years ago
I know this doesn't have anything to do with the actual debate but i was wondering to i need to state a value & value criterion? I just start my paper after explaining my definitions with my observation please help!
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
CON-I am pretty sure counter-plans are not valid in LD.... Also it was a new argument...
I don't know if either of you do Policy but the Aff argument in Policy would be simply "Perm do both" the CP fits inside the AFF stance... (BTW I have found learning Policy is helpful for LD....)

PRO: you argued the constitution well but I would simple add the Necessary and Proper clause coupled with the Punishment clause(article one U.S constitution section 8(?) I believe) Also Supremacy clause is invalid... All IGOS are established as a treaty...

CON: look to the Supremacy Clause I pointed out above.... the Obama Fix point wouldn't fly in round...

Good Job Guys....
After: Pro
Conduct: tie(I only vote one way if someone is being really annoying or forfeits)
Grammar: Tie(I am bad enough as is, I shouldn't critique others on this)
Arguments: PRO
Sources: Con
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
PRO.... The value and Criterion Structure is Circular..... Justice cannot be a Criterion to human rights.... you could run it flipped.... HR as a VC and Justice as a CV for a more effective structure..
Posted by HeedMyFeed 7 years ago
Leaning con...
Posted by virajgarage 7 years ago
or so you think.......
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
No No I don't care at All I was Just curious....
I don't Use that Case anymore and I will never see you at a tournament...
Posted by flare1234567 7 years ago
does it matter, the definition and argument is much more coherent then my old one and he should take it as a compliment. in addition its not quite my style and so need some editing, but i needed this up so i could practice for Saturday. Dear Metz, if you feel as though this is some form of cheating or other unethical behavior, please tell me and i will rectify it.
Posted by virajgarage 7 years ago
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Hmmm.... not to nitpick or be pushy or whatnot but AFF did you take the definition of Human rights from That debate...

"My Value for this debate is Human Rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human Value and thus are intrinsically valuable. Without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature. Human rights are seen to be those rights that are intrinsic in humanity itself, they do not leave when you cross borders but are rather the essence of humanity These include Life, Liberty, Happiness and other rights that philosophers such as Locke held to be "natural rights". Human Rights are mainly those taken by Crimes against Humanity thus prosecuting crimes against humanity better secures universal human rights."

I don't care I am just curious... I don't run that case anymore...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bossLadyQueen 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
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:07 
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 Checkmark1 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:32