LD jan-FEB resolution
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
My Value for this debate is peace. Peace is not only the greatest goal of every nation but is the goal of the International community as a whole. It is also the best Value to fit the resolution, as peace should be the goal of every foreign policy decision. Peace is not simply the absence of War but is better defined as harmonious relations between people and countries. Because peace is so paramount we must weigh the round on who better achieves peace.
My Criterion is Harmonic Cosmopolitanism, Harmonic Cosmopolitanism is the view that one's primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings and political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation. As the Stoics of Greece claimed "each of us dwells, in effect, in two communities, the local community of our birth and the community of human argument and aspiration that is truly great and truly common". "Crimes against humanity," by definition, are so heinous as to threaten the moral order of all humankind, not just individuals within any given nation. Thus, their existence requires a cosmopolitan outlook. Ghanaian Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah writes "We will only solve our problems if we see them as human problems" We should not constrain our political decisions to our national borders but rather should uphold the U.S promise to humanity. As Immanuel Kant Notes "Violations of cosmopolitan right would make more difficult the trust and cooperation necessary for perpetual peace among states. It is a supplement to the unwritten code of the civil and international law, indispensable for the maintenance of the public human rights and hence also of perpetual peace. One cannot flatter oneself into believing one can approach this peace except under the condition outlined here. "
Ought: Used to Express advisability (Merriam Webster)
Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster)
Jurisdiction: the territory or sphere over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends.
Crimes against humanity, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.
1st contention: International court will deter Crimes
In late 2004, tensions flared in The African Nation of Cote d'Ivoire, fueled by radio broadcasts of hate speech and violent groups in the streets these acts were strikingly reminiscent of the hate speech that preceded the Rwanda genocide. In response, Juan Mendez, a UN advisor on genocide, wrote the Security Council a widely-publicized note that reminded them that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts, such as hate speech, that lead to crimes against humanity. The message was received in Cote d'Ivoire: the hate speech and the immediate threat of violence subsided. Without an International Court the hate speech would have continued, and the World could be faced with another Rwanda. The Circumstances of both were the same, however there was no International Court at the time of Rwanda. Had their been, it is safe to say based upon the events in the Cote d'Ivoire, the Genocide would have been prevented. As Immanuel Kant states "a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all places" We have a cosmopolitan duty to humanity and a violation of rights, such as a genocide is felt in all places, as we are all united by your own humanity. Because of this we must work to Minimize if not stop "crimes against humanity" through an international Court that will work to stop these violations.
2nd contention The U.S joining the ICC would further legitimize it.
The U.S stands as the world's foremost power, we hold massive Political Influence in the world. If we were to join an international court not only would others follow suit but we would add further legitimacy to it. Scott Turner, Professor at University of Montevallo Writes "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990s. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction." The Fact that the U.S holds such a large amount of influence makes us a deciding factor in the Influence of an international court. A court without the U.S will be weaker and will perform less effectively than one that has U.S membership. The influence of the U.S would increase that of the court allowing the court to work towards its ultimate end, Peace. The Legitimacy of the court is dependent upon international cooperation, the United States has the experience and would add the legitimacy to, as Kant states "give a fulcrum to the federation with other states so that they may adhere to it and thus secure freedom under the idea of the law of nations."
Moving to NEG
Value: Military Strength is a problematic value. The Nazi's had strength they believed they were doing the world a Favor. By accepting this Value you would have to accept Nazi morality in a universal sense. Submitting to the ICC would not give the world Military Power as the ICC has no provision for Military. We are moving into a modern age, our statehood is not contingent upon how much we can destroy but how much we can create. This Militaristic World View Proposed by NEG is destructive to any Global Stability.
1. No Warrant
2. No Impact.
Essentially my opponent leaves this unwarranted, undefined and un-impacted. Cosmopolitanism is a better Criterion as it is our core moral duty.
C1. The ICC has no Provision for Military, so it cannot use the U.S military for its own ends. Thus all impacts shown in this contention are null/void. This Entire Point Falls as it is Fallacious.
C2. Again the Court would not have Military Power of Power to Direct military's. The ICC does not have this power, neither does any court in existence. The ICC is tied to the Security council because the security council acts as a check and can assign cases to the court. My opponent fails to realize the U.S is a permanent member of the Security Council and has a veto so the U.S would need to blame itself.
C3. The U.S has little Soft Power. This is because of a Tendency to act Unilaterally, so Joining this court would raise soft power, increasing hegemony. I have shown in My C1 how the Court has deterred CAH in the Ivory coast. The ICC has Captured Criminals and begun to try them. The Point is that U.S Military Intervention wouldn't be needed if we joined the ICC.
The U.S has a Moral Obligation to Collaborate Multilaterally and to forgo Provincialism in order to protect the universal Order of Humanity. This is best Upheld by AFF, by submitting to a court that will work to stop these human rights abuses.
SniperJake94 forfeited this round.
SniperJake94 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Metz 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.