The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Winning
67 Points
The Contender
ToastOfDestiny
Con (against)
Losing
52 Points

LD international Court Resolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,792 times Debate No: 6392
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (21)

 

Metz

Pro

The Resolution box will not allow for the whole resolution so here it is:
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

This is the Jan/Feb LD topic so I would appreciate it if my opponent was familiar with LD and debated accordingly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

My Value for this debate is 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.

My Value Criterion Is Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is the view that one's primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings and political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation. "Crimes against humanity," by definition, are so heinous as to threaten the moral order of all humankind, not just individuals within any given nation. Thus, their existence requires a cosmopolitan outlook. It would thus seem that prosecution of "crimes against humanity" requires a view of international law that, to say the least, places sovereignty concerns beneath those of human rights. In other words, it is essentially cosmopolitan, valuing humans as humans rather than as citizens. It is valuing humans this way that leads to a protection of human rights. Valuing them first as citizens puts their own rights, such as life beneath the government, a practice that is exercised in brutal dictatorships, and is in itself a crime against humanity. Because Rights claims are universal, we cannot let provincialism dictate policy, and thus a cosmopolitan outlook is a moral imperative. As we examine the resolution we will find that if the U.S submits to an International court it will create a more cosmopolitan society and uphold human rights on a large scale.

Definitions:
Ought: Used to Express advisability (Merriam Webster)
Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster)
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

1st Contention International courts are Beneficial entities
Simon Caney writes in Cosmopolitan Justice and Institutional Design. "International institutions may simply be able to prevent/punish egregiously unjust actions in cases in which those whose rights have been violated are too weak to defend themselves and in which their government is either unwilling or unable to stand up for their rights." We can see examples of this in Cases such as the Rwanda Genocide. On Thursday, December 18, 2008, A former Rwandan army colonel, Theoneste Bagosora, was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity for masterminding the killings of more than half a million people, including a Rwandan Prime Minister and 10 Belgian peacekeepers, in a 100-day slaughter in 1994 by A U.N war Crimes Tribunal in Tanzania. Without an International court Bagosora would have remained unpunished, clearly international courts are helpful institutions. 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.

2nd Contention --The U.S joining the ICC would further legitimize it.
A. The U.S stands as one of the world's foremost powers, if we were to join an international court we would help to further legitimize it. Under president Bush the United Nations faltered some dues were not paid and participation was not where it used to be. This weakened the entire organization. From this we can see that the United States participation can have a massive impact on International institutions. U.S support of an International court would strengthen it would help to further legitimize it. Scott Turner, Professor at University of Montevallo Writes "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990s. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction."
As is obvious An International court made up of two countries would not carry the weight of one made up of many countries. But one made up of many countries would carry enough weight to globally protect human rights. Thus U.S Joining an International Court would further legitimize it, Strengthen the global figh
ToastOfDestiny

Con

I would like to thank Metz for starting this debate, and I look forward to an enjoyable debate.

The resolution asks us what decision the U.S. ought to make. When making decisions, the United States ultimately has to consider what is best for its citizens, and then the world. The U.S. was founded to create a free land for those who resided within it. It is the duty of the government to make sure that its people remains safe at all times.

I shall accept my opponent's value and value criterion, and will show that I better meet them than he does.

My opponent's definitions are alright by me.

It seems my opponent is advocating submitting to the ICC. As such, I shall prove that this is an undesirable choice.

Contention One: The ICC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse
A) The ICC Has No Checks and Balances
-C.T. Cline writes in "Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems" : The ICC is an institution that lacks checks and balances. The court combines investigation, prosecution, trial, and appeal. It is monolithic and beyond the control of the citizenry or of any counteracting governmental branch. It is not subject to direct U.N. Security Council oversight, as are the other tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which the United States supports. Moreover, the court interprets its own charter with no meaningful external review. There is no meaningful outside control to curb or rein in possible excesses. This concept is foreign to Americans because the U.S. system of government is founded on the principle of checks and balances, with each branch of government--legislative, executive, judicial--fulfilling a role. Congress passes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the courts interpret the laws.
B) Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse
-Cline continues: More than 200 years ago, the American founding fathers believed that unchecked power was open to abuse. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison [explains] "It may be a reflection on human nature," he wrote, "that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" Americans mindful of the shortcomings of human nature may find a "super court" standing supreme and unaccountable at the pinnacle of international judgment worrisome and unacceptable.
-Look to examples of dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Their unchecked power leads to rights deprivations, atrocious acts and unnecessary violence. While I am not comparing the ICC to a dictator, we have empirical evidence that unchecked power leads to abuse. For another example, read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment: http://www.prisonexp.org...

Contention Two: The ICC Fails Because it Ignores Local Context
A) Etelle Higgonet, from the Human Rights Watch writes: The ICC will face linguistic and cultural obstacles in reaching out to local audiences, and may need to rely on entities better able to connect to local populations. The ICC Statute places an emphasis on outreach, for instance, in its provision for the possibility of the Court sitting regionally. Although the ICC's seat is in The Hague, Article 3 of the Rome Statute allows for the ICC to move to another seat in certain circumstances--presumably to the country or region where the atrocities took place. From the perspective of most people in post-atrocity countries, the ICC will probably remain mysterious: staffed by foreigners, working in a distant land, in languages that few understand, and applying previously unheard-of laws. Notwithstanding provisions in the ICC Statute on stronger victim participation and Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's stated commitment to communicate with concerned populations, the ICC could appear even more like a deus ex machina than the ad hoc tribunals, yet further removed from local realities.

Contention Three: Hybrid Courts are Better than the ICC
A) Higgonet continues: The paper's central thesis is that hybrids draw upon both the strengths of international justice and the benefits of local prosecutions. On one hand, hybrids can harness the credibility of international law and the legitimacy of international institutions, which can lend hybrid courts a degree of authority as a fair mechanism for holding perpetrators accountable. On the other hand, hybrids can be structured to tap into domestic expertise, connect with local populations, and rebuild national judicial systems, creating a training ground for rule of law values. They also avoid the staggering costs of purely international courts. By integrating local norms, hybrid courts can bring culturally adapted justice to the people that international courts purport to serve but cannot reach; they can bridge the divide between remote, wealthy international jurists and third world victims of war crimes.

My opponent's case:

Value: Human Rights
-Look to my first contention. The ICC's unchecked power will prevent it from properly upholding rights. There is no way an unchecked international institution can properly uphold rights. Hybrid courts, on the other hand, have the benefits of international courts, and the benefits of local authority. They have checks in their power, and help rebuild a country's judicial system (like judicial training wheels).

Value Criterion: Cosmopolitanism
-I don't seem to understand my opponent's attack. Valuing humans as citizens makes sure you protect the rights bestowed upon them by the government, as well as their human rights. Valuing them as humans only guarantees human rights (in this context, that means no guarantee to fair trial, protection from double jeopardy etc.). When you value people as citizens, you uphold more rights. Dictators value people as nothing. If they were valued as citizens, they'd be given rights.

Contention One
- I have shown that the ICC has unchecked power and fails in local context. How is such an entity beneficial at all? With unchecked power, the ICC would carry out illegitimate decisions. Because it ignores local context, there is no way it can succeed. While international institutions are beneficial, the ICC is not. Hybrid courts, however, are beneficial.

Contention Two
-By joining the ICC, the U.S. would show the world irresponsibility. If you look at our governmental system with its checks and balances, and the ICC's with unrestrained power, there is no rational reason the U.S. would become part of such an entity. However, hybrid courts, which have an international arm and a local arm would be far better to join. The U.S. should not legitimize an illegitimate organization whose judicial system is on the other end of the spectrum. While joining the ICC would legitimize it, the U.S. should legitimize an illegitimate organization. The U.S. would be better off joining an organization like a hybrid court.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

I thank my Opponent ToastOfDestiny for Accepting this debate and I am looking forward to a fun debate.

I will go over Neg then AFF

Lets start with the assumption that I support submitting to the ICC. Yes I do Look at the ICC in my case by I also look at a U.N war cries tribunal in my First contention and never give support to one court over another. An International court is a court that is composed of two or more countries, the Resolution asked us to make a Decision about AN international court not THE international court. Thus the Neg must defend all international courts.

1st contention:
A.)In this contention all my opponent does is attack the ICC, howevr he also seems to defend other international courts, saying they do not suffer these shortcomings. Thus if we were to submit to one of those the resolution would still be fulfilled. Also Just to look at the ICC, The U.S helped to draft the Rome Statute so obviously we approve of it, furthermore the ICC does not just step in and prosecute, the country must first be unable to prosecute the criminal for it to have any Jurisdiction. The Power of the ICC is checked in a couple of ways, first it does not take over Jurisdiction of a non member state, second it only takes over when a country fails to prosecute and third the member states must select the Judges to Sit on the ICC.

B) While in some instances unchecked power leads to abuse this is not always the case. Also the ICC is checked significantly by its own pre-set limitations. It cannot expand its jurisdiction without consent from the member states thus it is not unchecked. In fact then you could say it is checked in the same way the government is, By the people.

2nd contention
Again this is a focus on the ICC and not necessarily other international courts. The Thing is, even if the ICC did all these things, which I find to be doubtful, it still is substantially better than no prosecution of criminals. So even with its shortcomings it is still better than having no international court.

3rd contention
As I see it this Contention is essentially a Concession. Hybrid Courts are STILL international Thus what I see is that my opponent is supporting the U.S submitting to the Jurisdiction of an international court, and thus Affirming the Resolution.

AFF
Value: Again my opponent is talking about Hybrid courts, I would Just like to remind everyone that a Hybrid court IS INTERNATIONAL, so submitting to a Hybrid court would still be Affirming the resolution.

Criterion: My opponent is attacking is a one sentence link. What I was saying is that Cosmopolitanism values humans as humans thus any sense of provincialism out to be tossed away when dealing with human rights violations, that was the link. I did not say they could not be valued as citizens but must first be valued as humans...

1st contention
Again my opponent Concedes that International courts are beneficial and again only attacks the ICC, however the majority of this contention concerned a U.N war crimes Tribunal. Once Again the ICC is better than having no court.

2nd Contention
My Opponent claims the ICC to be illegitimate because of several flaws. However just let me remind you the U.S played a substantial role in drafting the ICC thus it is a legitimate organization. Also it is legitimate because the Rome statute(ICC treaty) has been ratified by 108 countries proving its international legitimacy. Also my opponent brings up Hybrid courts, these ARE INTERNATIONAL thus still within the Affirmative position. Other than this my opponent agrees with my premise.

Summary:
My Opponent Essentially is saying that Yes we need international courts and the U.S should joing, but the ICC is a bad choice. Lets look at the wording of the resolution again "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." Hybrid. courts are international courts thus they are within the Affirmative position and because both of us seem to agree the U.S Ought to join an international court the resolution must be affirmed.
ToastOfDestiny

Con

This is shaping up to be an interesting debate.

I have an opening statement about hybrid courts, then the rebuttal.

Hybrid courts are a slightly newer mechanism. They combine properties of international courts with a country's local court. For example, if a U.S. official were to be tried by a hybrid court, the Supreme Court would be supplemented to try the individual. Hybrid courts are not considered international courts. Once again, Etelle Higgonet speaks:
"Hybrids blend the international and the domestic with legal and organizational innovations that constitute important divergences from international ad hoc tribunals. In some cases they coexist with the local judiciary, operating in parallel, while in others, they have been grafted onto the local judicial system. But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers. Domestic law--reformed to include international standards--is typically applied alongside international law. Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities."

Alright, I'll address everything Metz said in the order stated.

Opening Statement
-"Lets start with the assumption that I support submitting to the ICC..."
While my opponent does bring up the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal, he goes on to talk about the ICC, and his second contention is all about the ICC. In fact, the tagline is "Joining the ICC would further legitimize it". So if he isn't favoring the ICC why have this contention? At this point we have two choices. If my opponent truly does not favor one court over another, his second contention is unduly narrow. Why talk about the ICC alone? He presents two courts in his entire case. So it is natural that I attack the examples he presents.

-"Thus the Neg must defend all international courts..." (I must attack all international courts)
My opponent asks that I oppose all international courts (designed to prosecute crimes against humanity). Sure. You can apply my second contention to international courts in general. These kinds of institutions will face cultural and linguistic barriers. International courts are too inflexible to be feasible.

My First Contention
-"In this contention all my opponent does is attack the ICC..."
Of course I attack the ICC! All my opponent does in his first contention is tout two successes of international courts! If you want a major problem with U.N. Tribunals, here's one: the different countries in the U.N. have so many differing opinions that it is difficult to unite and come to decisions. Even when decisions are made, countries remain bitter. In his first contention, my opponent touts the successes of international courts. However, there are just as many, if not more failures of international courts. For example, tribunals formed after Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides completely failed. These courts were formed in the 1990s, and both tribunals are still prosecuting individuals! I'd say almost 20 years and counting is a complete failure. The Khmer Rogue tribunals are another failure of international courts. According to the 2006 timeline, the 5 trials should be complete. Now they are expected to continue past 2010! The latest delay has been caused because defense lawyers want all documents translated to French! Remember those linguistic obstacles?

-"While in some instances unchecked power leads to abuse this is not always the case...."
Pre-set limitations mean nothing. Dictators who arise from regular government positions had pre-set limitations, but that never stopped them. Member states selecting judges can lead to political choices. A judge could be selected to advance the standings of member states rather than to serve justice. There exists no outside power that can check the ICC. My opponent ignores this fact. If you look at the U.S. government, each branch is checked by the outside power of the other branches! This is how a successful system of checks and balances is formed. Not by members, but by an outside power. The government's branches are checked by each other.

My Second Contention
-"Again this is a focus on the ICC and not necessarily other international courts."
While the evidence is directed to the ICC, these same obstacles will be faced by any international court. Ultimately, an international court will be perceived as a court of foreigners applying laws that citizens are unused to. My opponent uses ought saying "used to express advisability". He admits it is doubtful the ICC will reach out, and then accepts that it has shortcomings. It is not advisable to join such an organization with shortcomings. There is no reason the U.S. should submit to an international court that does not have a good structure. Hybrids, which are different, are far better.

My Third Contention
-"As I see it this Contention is essentially a Concession..."
Not a concession, a statement. Higgonet describes the difference between hybrid and international courts (see my opening statement). As it is, there is no opposition to this contention. He present absolutely NO arguments against it! Regardless, hybrid courts possess the benefits of international courts without the shortcomings.

The Affirmative Case
-"Value..."
I would like to remind everyone that hybrid courts are not international courts.

-"Criterion..."
There is a serious problem with international courts that prevents them from being cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism suggests that the primary moral obligation is towards all humans. Political arrangements should reflect this. International courts do not incorporate laws, rules, traditions or anything from the state where the trial is held. How is this cosmopolitan? Hybrid courts (which are different from international courts) incorporate the local government, which is far more considerate. Thus, submitting to hybrid courts provides a far more cosmopolitan society than international courts. Because I better meet the value and criterion, I should win this round.

His First Contention
-"Again my opponent Concedes that International courts are beneficial..."
I said that international institutions are beneficial. That is, when countries work together for the good of mankind, it is beneficial. International courts are plagued by many troubles, and are not beneficial (for one, those cultural and language barriers). Most of the first contention is based towards the International Criminal Court.

His Second Contention
-"My Opponent claims the ICC to be illegitimate because of several flaws..."
Just because the U.S. helps doesn't mean it's legitimate. If the U.S. were to join the ICC, then other countries would join. But that isn't necessarily good. The U.S. joining anything would make other countries want to join. But as I show, the ICC is not a good thing. Right now, the ICC has just 55% of the countries on its side, which is barely more than half of the world. Don't believe the number of countries, look to the percentage. If a law were passed on 55% of the vote, that sends a message that the law has some major weak points.
-" Hybrid courts, these ARE INTERNATIONAL"
Once again, look to the beginning of this post and what Etelle Higgonet said. Hybrid courts are completely different.

His Summary
-"My Opponent Essentially is saying that Yes we need international courts..."
I am saying we need hybrid courts, which are different from international courts. Please, please, please understand the difference.

My Summary
We must negate this resolution. Hybrid courts are far more advisable then international courts, and there is a distinct difference. The ICC is a bad choice, so are other international courts. My opponent obviously supports the ICC, as his case is directed mostly towards it. I offer the best protection of huma
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

Now lets just adress this single point that my opponent relies so heavily on.

This is the Etelle Higgonet quote my opponent relies so heavily on,

"Hybrids blend the international and the domestic with legal and organizational innovations that constitute important divergences from international ad hoc tribunals. In some cases they coexist with the local judiciary, operating in parallel, while in others, they have been grafted onto the local judicial system. But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers. Domestic law--reformed to include international standards--is typically applied alongside international law. Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities."

Look as a previously defined international court it is any court composed of more than one country. Lets look at this one section of the quote
"But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers" thus these courts are composed of more than one country and are, thus, international.

Opening statement
While I defend the ICC itself the Premise is valid in other courts. While attacking the examples may seem natural I remind you this is not Policy I do not have a plan so the Neg ,must cover the concept of a multinational courts. Now Just to further point out that Hybrid courts are composed of more than one country and are thus international. My opponent defends Hybrid courts and so is conceding the resolution by doing so. HYBRID COURTS ARE COMPOSED OF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY AND ARE THUS INTERNATIONAL.

NEG
1st contention
While there may be obstacles with courts a long prosecution is better than letting these people go free. Under the Neg side we would allow these people, such as those who committed the genocide is Rwanda to get away with it. While there may always be issues it is better than no punishment which is what we would have with a negative view.

IF you read through the rome statue the court has very specific Functions and guidelines as to when it can take over, and it can't just arbitrarily amend the treaty. The last especially is a practice that is done in dictatorships. So What the ICC says it can do, that is what it can do, it cannot extend its jurisdiction without ratification. Also the Judges have to be confirmed just like the U.S supreme court, A country does not arbitrarily appoint judges. The ICC is checked by the Rome Statue and its member states, so does not have unlimited power.

2nd Contention
HYBRID COURTS CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE NATION AND ARE THUS INTERNATIONAL. Everything created by humans has shortcomings, nothing is perfect, the thing is submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court is better than allowing the worst of criminals to get away with their actions.

3rd contention
As I covered many times, any court that is not composed of a single nation, is international. as I explained in my response to my opponents opening statement a hybrid court is multinational and is thus international.

AFF
Value: we have already covered this just cross apply arguments

Criterion:
"There is a serious problem with international courts that prevents them from being cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism suggests that the primary moral obligation is towards all humans. Political arrangements should reflect this. International courts do not incorporate laws, rules, traditions or anything from the state where the trial is held"

This is an interesting statement, the thing is that cosmopolitanism is looking at Supra-Statist politics not politics between states. International courts are looking at Humans as Humans and not as citizens of their country because they are defending human rights, which are universal. What My opponent tries to do is instigate a counterplan. LD does not call for counterplans so thus my opponent cannot achieve my criterion by saying we must submit to hybrid courts. the Negative essentially say "the united states ought not to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity" and leave it at that. That Is How LD is run. Saying that we should submit to a hybrid court is outside the resolution for a neg argument.

1st contention
My opponent says they are not beneficial due to language barriers, however language barriers can be overcome with more countries ratifying because their is more representation of languages in the court. it is very simple. Also the fact that they punish the most heinous of crimes makes them intrinsically valuable. Also because without them genocidaires would get away freely.

2nd contention
The simple fact is, the more countries to join the ICC the more Legitimate is will become. The U.S cannot complain about the nature of the court as they played a major part in drafting the treaty. Also 55% is a reasonably good statistic, also it has been shown that democracies, countries that experienced recent cultural violence and those active in international politics are most likely to join. We have Presidents elected on less that 55% an almost all of our laws are passed at about that same rate.

Summery
Hybrid courts are constructed of more than one nation and are thus international, this is fairly simple. Also my opponent is offering a counterplan which is inadmissible in LD style debate. So I urge an Affirmative ballot
ToastOfDestiny

Con

First I'd like to thank Metz for this debate. It's been tons of fun and I feel totally more comfortable with the topic now =). The statements in quotations are Metz's and text below is my rebuttal.

Late-breaking definition:
International Court- A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary)

I apologize for the extremely late definition, but finding a definition not specific to a court was tough. I got this one from another debate between "Heedmyfeed" and "fresnoinvasion". I understand that this is late for a definition, and if you wish to discard it, do so at your discretion. Remember that this definition is not slanted aff/neg and comes from a cited source. Metz's definition is uncited.

Alright. First I'll address this issue with hybrid courts not being international. If you read my Etelle Higonnet quote, you notice that she says "Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities.". In the end, hybrid courts are different from international courts. My opponent says that because these courts are composed of more than one country they are international. Let me better explain the hybrid court system. Furthermore, hybrid courts do not transcend national boundaries, their decisions remain in context within a nation. A hybrid court decision in Canada doesn't affect laws or decisions in Botswana. Unlike courts like the ICC, hybrid courts are not international. If you wish to discard this argument because of the late definition, remember that the Etelle quote shouldn't be discarded (I have offense here regardless of the definition debate).

Next - on my case being directed at the ICC.
All you really have to do is replace "ICC" with international courts. You'll find the logic in my second and third contentions works with any court you can come up with. My third contention was actually based on evidence against international courts which I titled against the ICC. My case highlights problems with international courts, and then specifies certain deficiencies within the ICC.

On to Metz's attack where he says my contention is policy. There is nothing wrong with saying that Hybrid Courts are better and we would make a better decision by submitting to them. What my third contention says is simply this: Hybrid Courts are more effective than international courts, and better achieve cosmopolitanism than international courts. That's perfectly LD. If you truly wish to discard any arguments like that, Metz's case which is so pro-ICC, discard his case which talks about joining the ICC. That's a 'plan' for sure!

Anyway, back to "LD".
"While I defend the ICC itself the Premise is valid in other courts..."
Hmmmm... This sounds like policy. He's talking about the ICC but the premise is valid with other courts (When I said that about hybrids it was apparently policy). I covered the concept of multinational courts. Regardless of how international courts are made, they face cultural and linguistic barriers. They apply law that is not familiar to the citizens of the country (imagine the U.S. performing a trial under Belgium's system of laws, it would be ridiculous (not to insult Belgium)). HYBRID COURTS ARE IN A FAMILY OF THEIR OWN! "Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities."

"While there may be obstacles ..."
There is no way that we can gloss over such problems in a trial. A more streamlined efficient trial, like a hybrid one, will definitely protect human rights and enhance cosmopolitanism far better than a four year international trial. We cannot look past this kind of thing! If a court is tied up for nearly two decades, that's two decades worth of trials they need to catch up on! That kind of slow court is unable to prosecute many cases due to sluggishness. We cannot accept a judicial system this flawed. Don't let him breeze by on this - it is a MAJOR flaw.

"IF you read through the rome statue..."
The U.S. has enough enemies abroad to stitch together a court with certain unfavorable judges. While one abuse of power is extending jurisdiction, another is bad sentencing. My opponent completely fails to address this. What if judges are slanted towards or against the defendant, and sentence them too easily or too much? There are no higher or equal powers that can prevent this from happening.

"HYBRID COURTS CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE NATION..."
HYBRID COURTS ARE ULTIMATELY DIFFERENT! They are a completely new kind of court, and NOT international! Yes, everything created has some flaws, but some things have so many flaws or such great flaws that we do not use them. Hybrid courts suffer far fewer flaws than their international counterparts, and are far better. There is no reason to submit to an international court when you can submit to a hybrid court. We need to show advisability here. It is not advisable to submit to the lesser choice or the more flawed choice.

"As I covered many times, any court that is not composed of a single nation"
Etelle Higonnet classifies them as ultimately different from other judicial bodies.

"This is an interesting statement, the thing is that cosmopolitanism is looking at Supra-Statist politics..."
The best way to consider people as humans is to accept the fact that societies differ. For example, suicide is frowned upon is western culture, but Hari Kiri was a viable option for the samurais of Japan. When applying justice, we need to consider the local populations laws. That isn't saying we cannot have overarching norms. Of course we can establish that some things, like genocide, are intrinsically wrong. But we need to look at local laws as well as international laws. Hybrids do this, international courts don't. Under hybrid courts, we consider people as humans and citizens.

"What My opponent tries to do is instigate a counterplan..."
I'm showing that there are more "advisable" options, under his definition of ought. We better serve human rights with a more efficient court. I show how the Neg better meets the value and criterion, which is how LD is run.

"Saying that we should submit to a hybrid court is outside the resolution for a neg argument..."
I'm saying that hybrid courts are a better alternative. Immediately that shows that the neg can better fulfill the value and value criterion, and is more advisable.

"My opponent says they are not beneficial due to language barriers..."
When more countries join, we see more languages, and therefore more confusion. It makes things more difficult! There are other ways to punish 'genocidaires' than international courts, like hybrid courts.

"The simple fact is, the more countries to join the ICC the more Legitimate is will become..."
The ICC has flaws, which I have already listed. It doesn't, just like other international courts, overcome cultural and linguistic barriers. It applies laws unfamiliar to the citizens. Because Metz seems to show more support for the ICC in this contention, these ICC-specific attacks are perfectly legit. Furthermore, the ICC doesn't have protections that U.S. courts do. No guaranteed protection from double jeopardy, no right to speedy trial, and no trial by jury.

My Summary
Hybrid courts are not international. They are completely different from other judicial systems. My opponent seems to default to this "counterplan" argument. However, we need to show what is "advisable" based on the definition of ought HE provided. I am working under his definition here! My arguments show that it is not advisable to submit to international courts, there are better methods of justice, and better alternatives. Furthermore, after Round 1, Metz doesn't really specify how he meets the value and criterion, where I do. Because I show this, I ultimately win the debate, because the goal in LD is to achieve the value(s) better than your opponent. I hope you've enjoyed this debate ad I urge a Neg Ballot
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Sorry to bother everyone, but as per this debate:

http://www.Debate.org...

I must concede. Congratulations, Metz, you deserve this one.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
For example my Neg right now is

V: Prudence
VC: Pragmatism

But last week I didn't read off my criterion because Aff used a criterion of maximizing security, that I knew I could turn...
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
A better version of the Hybrid court argument is "maintaining current systems" in which the Neg advocated the U.N courts and the principle of universal jurisdiction. The fact is that while these courts may be international they are not international courts designed to prosecute CAH. The resolution advocates a court with a very generic purpose which U.N courts don't offer.

It is a good plan to be able to link to a non-slanted criterion/value structure as it can save a good deal of time in the nc and nr.... But always have a backup...
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Yeah - Metz is right. In this case the V/VC were kinda conducive to my case. Thanks to this debate I dropped my whole hybrid courts argument. It was too much work to defend, and I doubt that I could win all my rounds if the Aff carried it.

I do have my own V/VC set for my neg (it ended up being Duty/Maximization of Security something like that). But sure, you can accept your opponent's if it isn't slanted.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Not to rain on the parade but often times not using a criterion can be a bad idea.... For example some criterion can be very heavily weighted to the Aff....
for example case I hit this weekend

V: International Justice
CV: internationally punishing CAH

while toast may be able to win with the whole hybrid courts, the problem is that hybrid courts, having debated this longer, are not that hard to refute in front of a judge.
Posted by aurora1616 8 years ago
aurora1616
toast is too fly
XD
Posted by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
He never does
Posted by aurora1616 8 years ago
aurora1616
toast doesn't need one
Posted by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
what the neg should always have a v and vc but they don't always have to state it
Posted by aurora1616 8 years ago
aurora1616
hahahahaha
shneezers
ur wrong
:PP
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by savvyboy781 6 years ago
savvyboy781
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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 varsityLD 8 years ago
varsityLD
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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 resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
MetzToastOfDestinyTied
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