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

LD res

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
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: 2/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,124 times Debate No: 6727
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




The reason i have only choosen 1 round is because i want to see someone show me the flaws in my case i really dont want to debate right now maybe later. I have a tournament this Friday-Saturday and I want to see what i should fix. So tear away!

Edwin Markham -"By a divine paradox, wherever there is one slave there are two. So in the wonderful reciprocities of being, we can never reach the higher levels until all our fellows ascend with us." I agree with quote said by Edwin Markham that a problem can not come to a solution until every individual has come to an agreement to stop it. Therefore I must affirm today's resolution, Resolved:

The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H.

Def.: C.A.H.- as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "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." ICC.COM

Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies

Submit: to give over or yield to the power or authority of another
International Court: Since the only International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H. is the ICC I will be using the ICC to define International Court.

The paramount value in today's round is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. Utili. Is the highest priority because by how much corruption there is in the United States such as Gitmo, the U.S. can more easily spread the greater good by having a third party step in and try those that have gone unpunished by committing C.A.H. in such areas.

The best criterion to uphold my value is Protecting Human Rights. Only though this can the greatest good be achieved. Protection of Human rights should be protected as much possible and in any situation that the US has the opportunity to better further the protection of Human Rights should undoubtedly and willingly do it because it creates a more peaceful and livable society.

My case has 3 contentions. They are:
1. The U.S. can't properly prosecute C.A.H.
2. It is immoral to not join.
3. By joining we would better the U.S. image.

Contention I: The United States can not properly and does not want to prosecute C.A.H and needs a court that is designed to do so to step in. Eric Saar a soldier who spent three months in the interrogation rooms at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, tells Correspondent Scott Pelley of bizarre, even sadistic, treatment of detainees in the American prison camp. He told 60 Minutes about one interrogation in particular, in which he translated for a female interrogator who was trying to break a high-priority prisoner in which she used vial acts of sexual arousment and were against his religion. Saar says that she later turned of the water to his cell so that he could not clean himself to look clean in the eyes of his god. Saar also reports that he saw a detainee had been "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head." The interrogator explained that the prisoner had been "chanting the Koran and would not stop." Also in a report released by Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached the conclusion that former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured. The tortures included beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses. All the subjects told examiners that they were subjected to multiple forms of torture or ill treatment that "often occurred in combination over a long period of time," the report says. By what is happing in Guantanamo shows that the U.S. does not care for the well being of their prisoners and they know that torture is happening which falls under a C.A.H. They choose not to recognize it and let it to continue which is going against the Geneva Convention. The U.S. can easily prosecute the interrogators who are committing the torturous acts and they choose not to because they don't see them as either forms of torture or that since they are not P.O.W's which really most of them are it "doesn't go against the G.C." To stop the injustice we need a third party being the ICC, to step and stop the inhumane acts, keep the U.S. in check, and to show the U.S. that it can not get away with whatever it so pleases just because it is a super power.

Contention II: (United States) Not submitting to the ICC is morally wrong because its "turning the other cheek" or "looking the other way" to the acts that happen in this country and others and make it seems like we have the idea that we are higher and we would not like to be subject to their laws if we do sign. To let it continue is morally wrong and the U.S. therefore has an obligation to join to help stop it by giving the jurisdiction to the ICC. With the United States's military and resources the International Criminal Court can increase efficiency and power to bring committers of immoral crimes to justice. This would reduce the amount of immoral crimes so the US has a moral obligation to join the ICC.

Leading me to my third and final contention.

Contention III: By joining the ICC it would better the American image. We could change the image from the selfish-greedy-pigs that want to govern everything to a country that seek to be equal and seek for justice and unity to be sought. By doing so we can tighten the bonds between allies because they would see us as trustworthy and caring.

In conclusion, by the U.S. can not properly prosecute C.A.H needs someone to step in, has a moral oblig. to join, and can better the a.i. if they submit to the ICC and by doing so taking a step further to bettering the well being of not just this countries humanity but the world as a whole. Draft (tournament worth maybe?)


Alright.... This is Always helpful for both sides, so lets see what I can find....

By the Way I LOVE the opening quote.....

Value: I have 4 Attacks
1. The Value of "good" or Happiness cannot be quantified, we cannot measure Good as it is subjective and based upon many other factors. Which would create the most 'happiness' giving 1 poor man 100 dollars or giving 10 poor men 10 dollars?
2. Therefore Utility created by an action can only be estimated, and utilitarianism would call on us to act upon assumed, relative consequences.
3. Because of The Theory of Utility Justifies Immoral action, as long as the hoped for Net result of happiness is greater. This was Hitlers Justification for the Holocaust, and even the American Justification for GITMO. In Both cases it was ASSUMED that action would cause the greatest good and the actual end result in the first, is completely contrary and the second cannot be told.
4. Therefore Utilitarianism is an Inadequate value for the round.

1. We will not know the end results of such action. While our goal may be success were we to act in every situation to protect human rights, regardless of other consequences , we may in-fact hurt human rights or cause a greater harm than we intended to stop.
2. While some rights may be trans-cultural, many are not. Upholding a westernized conception of human rights would be cultural Imperialism. Such a cultural Imperialism would deny more rights than it protected and would create a sort of Negative Utility. For example, if the United States held Cannibalism to be a Human Rights violation would it be Justified for us to intervene is a Cannibalistic Society and Disrupt cultural tradition. This has been seen to have a Massive Negative Impact.
3. we do not know when we are protecting any rights. By denying rights to some, we may be saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives. The Problem is we cannot tell
4 Protection of rights does not equal utility. The Link between Human Rights and Utility is faulty. If A man is dying, and we do nothing, we are denying no rights, if we take him to the hospital without his consent we are denying his right to personal Autonomy. Which course of action is the most moral? (this example may be bad, but the gist of the argument is rights alone do not create the greatest good)

Contention 1
This Contention effectively undermines the position of the affirmative. The Justification for U.S actions at Gitmo was protecting the rights of American citizens. The action was taken by the U.S government, with the goal of Protecting American citizens. Under Affirmative's value and criterion structure this would flow as a moral act. So obviously protecting human rights regardless as the principle goal of government policy is a poor guide for action. AFF is contradicting his own value structure in this contention, proving that trying to protect rights can in fact lead to CAH.

2. The U.S government, has called for the closing of Gitmo however Predident Obama has decided not to investigate torture allegations. The choice here becomes, should be submit and maybe prosecute for abuse at Gitmo and so doing deny the authority of elected officials or should be respect the indirect choice of the people through representatives?
We Pride ourselves on Democracy so we should not take power out of the hands of the freely chosen representatives of the people.

Contention 2
The U.S does not "turn the other way" we acknowledge faults and end the practice. As I said earlier President Obama has called for a shutdown of Gitmo. The Problem with investigations is even if we proved torture had taken place who would we prosecute? While it may not be the best solution from a retributive stand point it is the best from a Pragmatic and even Utilitarian standpoint. The problem has been stopped, so why continue? Affirmative has failed to show how actions such as this show the U.S turning the other way. Even if we assume that we do "look the other way" who is to say the ICC would be different?
2. The ICC does not have deterrence capabilities, Military Fails to Deter, If we joined the ICC military intervention would be severely limited and we would effectively lower the current deterrence against these crimes. From the Affirmative standpoint we would then have a moral obligation NOT to join.

Contention 3
The Problem with this is that many countries instead of seeing us in an improved light will look towards past circumstances and see the court as a new U.S imperialist pawn, this would do nothing to our image and would destroy the court. Joining a court would not suddenly turn around the Image of the U.S, people would have doubts and suspicions of possible second motives, this would actually decrease our image.

I tried to give good attacks, some may not be entirely true, but remember, If I misinterpreted while reading the contention over and over in round Judges and opponents will misinterpret it as well....

You really need warrants for Contentions 2+3 as well....
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
whats the topic?
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
You both need to be in my LD tournament. It's a part of the official tournament. Go to and click on forum. Then go under the tournament discussion thread and click on LD Sign up. Post your name respecitively. It begins March 1st.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 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 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 Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70