The Instigator
SniperJake94
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
LDdebaterCG
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

LD Jan-Feb resolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,354 times Debate No: 6718
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

SniperJake94

Con

The Jan-Feb LD resolution: the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I would like the debate to be LD style. 1st round stating your own case. 2nd round questioning and rebuttal. 3rd round rebuttal. 4th round last rebuttal and conclusion.
After the first round no other new arguments may be made. Structure of a case (I recomend): Value (main point), Value Critrion (how will you structure your case), Contentions (arguments to support your VC), and conclusion (what the reader should judge on). Good luck!

I negate the resolution: the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

For some clarification the only international court for this resolution is the International Criminal Court because the resolution states, "an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. The resolution states that we ought to submit meaning to give our resources such as military or financial resources. This resolution may imply that it is designed to prosecute but a design always has some flaws. The ICC is made up of many countries. Some of these countries are corrupt and therefore the ICC contains some corrupt flaws already.

I value military strength for moral uses. Some of our wars were for good moral purposes but not always. Our military uses in the Middle East are an attempt to cool down the tension between rivaling countries. Military is a strong way to enforce a ruling and to show power. Our military is one of the strongest ones in the world. Submitting to the ICC means that we give this world military power to the hands of many nations who are able to use it for their own interests besides to prosecute crimes against humanity. Submitting to the ICC is a symbol that the U.S judgment is weak and our wars are immoral.

My value criterion for this round is consequentialism. The result of submitting to the ICC means that we will submit our military resources for the ICC's intentions. Submitting our resources will mean we lose power.

Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC will cut our military strength because the court has rulings over our military and operations. The ICC will use our military to ensure their jurisdiction will be carried out. And when they seriously mishandle the situation resulting in many deaths they will prosecute our military for "starting a war." For example the Dred Scott Case, many Americans hoped the Court would resolve the slavery issue that was suppose to settle the problem against slavery by saying Congress cannot restrict slavery, Scott was still a slave, slaves are not citizens and had no right to bring a lawsuit, and slaves are still considered property. This led up to bloodshed and a similar scenario will result when we submit to the ICC.

Contention 2: An international court has a very low military strength to enforce their jurisdiction. If we join them we are basically offering up our military for them to use. An international court is a judicial court that dilutes the authority of the UN Security Council and is very different from the system that the framers of the UN Charter envisioned meaning it has no experience in handling military issues because it does not tie in with the UN executive branch therefore they when they would mishandle the military and they will blame the U.S when they mishandle a situation that results in massive deaths.

Contention 3: Only military actions can effectively stop crimes against humanity. The U.S is a world power and as a world power we can stop genocide and war crimes single-handedly. Submitting to an International Court would cripple our military strength needed to restore order in corrupt countries and our business interests because an international court will complicate operations by restrictions resulting in nothing achieved. Military enforcement will bring crimes to justice. Our federal and state courts are enough to complicate international military operations cases submitting to an international court will complicate it even further by placing restrictions.

In conclusion an international court will take advantage of our military resources. They will complicate matter further by providing restrictions and these restrictions will not result in any virtuous results because of the complications. Submitting to an international court will cut our military operations that are fighting crimes against humanity on the other side of the world. An International court is made up of countries and several of these countries dislike the U.S. Submitting gives them an advantage to strike us for committing crimes against their citizens or in their territory when we are trying to stop these crimes. I urge you to vote neg because submitting will cut our military issues that are simply trying to stop crimes against humanity and I've upheld my value and value criterion because the results of submitting our resources are unjustified.
LDdebaterCG

Pro

I affirm. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I would like to provide the following definitions international court the current day ICC. This definition is the basis of my case and is the only way to interpret this value other courts that currently exist that are international and specialize in crimes against humanity. Also the ICC is the only court at this time the US would think of submitting to. Thirdly if we can use hypothetical courts I could make one up just as quickly as my opponent which would make this debate unpredictable and abusive. Ought obligate to. Submit to subject to. Jurisdiction the right or authority to interpret and apply the law. Crimes Against Humanity defined as Murder, extermination, enslavement deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population. My value in this debate is human rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human because everyone need them. This value relates to the resolution because without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature and the united states is a country that supports human rights and the ICC was created to attempt to equalize human rights even further. Human Rights are mainly those taken by Crimes against Humanity thus prosecuting crimes against humanity better secures universal human rights. My Value Criterion is societal welfare societal welfare is the benefit to all societies and helps us thrive.. I provide one burden for the negative case since we have to chose whether or not to join the ICC my opponent must prove that we gain more by not joining the ICC
1st Contention By having the US join the ICC we will end up having more alliances because the US will have more soft power. With the US as a member of the ICC we will have more allies in the ICC and will have fewer terrorist events happening to the US. Secondly we are becoming multilateral now meaning we are slowly losing our power in our country and we will end up needing the allies that we gain in the ICC. Lastly article 98 is an important article regarding use of our militia. It states that we will not provide support of our militia to any member of the ICC but when we become a member of the ICC that article will basically become nullified allowing us to provide others with military support gaining us more allies.
2nd Contention International courts are beneficial entities. An Article done for the International Studies Association Found that "states with a recent history of violence, in the 1990-2005 period ratify the ICC Statute more often that not if they emerge from civil conflicts. This result validates ad hoc observation that in a number of states, transitional regimes charged with ending a cycle of recent internal conflict have found it prudent to join the ICC, precisely because it offers an international bulwark against a return to routine political violence." Also there are situations in which America would have need of an international criminal court. A federal indictment Charged five former employees of Blackwater Worldwide, hired by the State Department to provide protection services in Baghdad, with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter, and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a violent crime after firing on Civilian targets and causing the death of 17 Iraqi citizens and seriously injuring 20 more. According to investigations done by the FBI, the Iraqi government and the Pentagon the attacks were unwarranted. However it turned out that these guards could not be prosecuted due to a legal loophole. Joining an International Criminal court would have ensured punishment for the intentional killing of innocent civilians. As can be seen international courts can be extremely beneficial to members and to those hurt by these "crimes against Humanity" and Joining one would further global interests to protect human rights. Human Rights would be better protected under an international court. There is a major difference between an international court and one that is country-specific – the global authority of the international court. Even the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. states that "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness." I Note that it does not say "that all persons who were born in the United States are created equal," but that "all persons are created equal." This certainly shows the global issue of the protection of human rights. Certainly a national court cannot adequately process a global issue. Considering the global issue of crimes against humanity, it seems obvious that the most fair, accurate and unbiased judgment would come from a conglomerate of nations. It is only just that a global issue be addressed globally. How can it be just that a criminal against humanity in one nation receive several years in a prison, yet another criminal who has committed the same crime in another country be issued the death penalty? It is only just that these issues be addressed nationally, where human rights would be better protected. Rather than on separate bases where sentences would differ for the same crime

As you can see human rights are the paramount value and my value criterion is the only possible way to see that human rights are given to everyone

OK my opponents value of military strength does not moralize his actions Hitler had military strength but he was in no way moral and LD is morals debate His value criterion of consequentialism. since my opponent fails to define this i define it as believing the overall outcome should be greater than its consequence as defined by Merriam Webster's this is the same as utilitarianism which is in no way moral because util (utilitarianism) is what allowed Hiroshima Nagasaki to happen we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents to keep the Us safe which was in no way moral

Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC will cut our military strength because the court has rulings over our military and operations. ( The ICC will have no say over what we do with our army but they have say about how they are tried
and they do it better and in an even more precise way)

Contention 2: An international court has a very low military strength to enforce their jurisdiction. (Of course the an international court has low military power others who are a part of an international court are there to enforce the jurisdiction and are free to use their military as they please)

Contention 3: Only military actions can effectively stop crimes against humanity. (this is simply untrue military strength was in Hitlers beliefs and he had one of the strongest militaries alive and yet he fell military strength waxes and wanes while judicial strength stays consistent.

As you can see i have efectively taken out his value Value criterion and his contentions so i urge an affirmative vote i am now open for Cross ex
Debate Round No. 1
SniperJake94

Con

SniperJake94 forfeited this round.
LDdebaterCG

Pro

Extend all arguments made on my opponents case and my case arguments i apologize if my opponent was not near a computer
Debate Round No. 2
SniperJake94

Con

SniperJake94 forfeited this round.
LDdebaterCG

Pro

Extend my arguments made against my opponent and my arguments that support my case
Debate Round No. 3
SniperJake94

Con

SniperJake94 forfeited this round.
LDdebaterCG

Pro

as you can see my opponent has not found a way to attack my arguments and thus you negate.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
I would take this, but my case is about 14,000 characters.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
SniperJake94LDdebaterCGTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
SniperJake94LDdebaterCGTied
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 LDdebaterCG 8 years ago
LDdebaterCG
SniperJake94LDdebaterCGTied
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 wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
SniperJake94LDdebaterCGTied
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 Habluka 8 years ago
Habluka
SniperJake94LDdebaterCGTied
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