The Instigator
alexla
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
NItEMArE129
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolved: The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute CAH.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 6822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

alexla

Pro

I don't want to debate but could someone please help me with an idea for my 3rd contention and maybe refute my 1st and 2nd contentions to help me prepare for an upcoming tournament? Thank you for whoever accepts.

I stand in affirmation of the resolution

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

I offer the following definitions taken from Black's Law Dictionary

Submit: A yielding to the authority of will of another

Jurisdiction: A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory

Crimes against Humanity: Int'l law. A brutal crime that is not an isolated incident but that involves large and systematic actions often cloaked with official authority, and that shocks the conscience of humankind. • Among the specific crimes that fall within this category are mass murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts perpetrated against a population, whether in wartime or not

I offer the following observations:

1.The resolution states an international court but it doesn't necessarily name an existing one such as the ICC or the ICJ. It doesn't specify any name and the negation believes that when the resolution states "an international court," it could even be a hypothetical international body of justice.
2.The resolution doesn't state the name of an international court but it doesn't mean one cannot use the ICC or ICJ as international bodies as examples as to what is considered an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

Value and Criterion: The value of the affirmation is societal welfare. Societal welfare is essential to the resolution b/c an international court strides to promote societal welfare through protecting human rights for a greater amount of people which brings the affirmation to the criterion of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as the philosophical doctrine that the best social policy is that which does the most good for the greatest number of people. By submitting to an international court, it opens a door for the U.S. that allows it to protect human rights outside the United States for a greater amount of people.

I offer my first contention: An international court benefits society
Subpoint A – The United States is able to arbitrarily violate human rights without others impeding the actions of the United States because the U.S. has become so powerful, it does not need the consent of others. This is considered problematic because the United States is able to violate human rights without punishment. For example, actions such as the renditions to third world country display U.S. infringement on human rights which have gone unpunished. Since an international court has a sense of jurisdiction over human rights, it could provide a watchful eye over U.S. actions could involve infringement upon human rights. By submitting to an international court, the United States would be prevented from dealing further harm to society, there more people would benefit from this submission, and therefore society would flourish.
Subpoint B – The United States' actions for pursuing its self interests around the world should be carefully scrutinized. The United States' self interests involve thousands of people being killed. For example, one of the reasons the United States funds the Israelis is because there is a strong Hebrew voting population inside the United States and the fact that according to anusha.com/usisrael, a website created by Jerry Falwell, Fundamentalist Christians (Protestants and Baptists) like Jerry Falwell support for the Israeli cause. Since Fundamentalist Christians are considerably the largest voting population in America, not one politician in America will retain their position by opposing the Israeli cause and therefore, politicians must support Israeli-Palestinian conflict for their self interest, which in turn, involves more Palestinians being killed. The United States should submit to an international court because it would prevent the United States from causing any more harm.

I offer second contention: An international court would create equality among society
Subpoint A – An international court allows equal jurisdiction, meaning it opens other countries to the United States and vice versa. By submitting to an international court, it creates a sense of global equality and having global equality over national sovereignty is surely for the greater good. Global equality would allow the United States to check on possible human rights violations made by a country and vice versa. Through global equality, society flourishes.
Subpoint B – The idea of global equality is like the idea of cosmopolitanism. Now that everybody has equal jurisdiction over each other, we could truly protect human rights. Through a global community that is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, the United States would be able to uphold the idea of universal human rights. If other countries cannot uphold human rights for themselves and are a part of the international court, then that allows the United States and others to provide a strong international force to aid the country or countries in need. This is why equality on jurisdiction is good; it creates an equal global society that is able to uphold human rights for a greater amount of people.

I offer my third contention:
NItEMArE129

Con

Okay, I'm not going to follow true LD format because I'm not completely sure what it is... Sorry, I'm still a novice. But I'll try to refute your points. If it doesn't help much, I'm sorry, but like I said, I'm a novice still.

**********************************************************
1. My opponent declares that submitting to the jurisdiction would help to hinder the US's infringement about the rights of human beings in other areas. However, the international court has no power to protect the citizens of a government. The international government is not allowed to interfere in the affairs of individual nations. Most crimes against humanity are committed by national governments towards their own people. Sudan, for example, is funded and enabled by the national government in that location.
In addition, a nation's self interest is not totally unfounded or unjust. There is an evolutionary imperative of why people care for their families over strangers and that is because of the nature of natural selection. In simple terms, it is survival of the fittest. Each organism is programmed with the desire to survive and succeed which, in turn, ensures the survival of organisms best suited to survive. This "instinct" also applies to governments. When a government is faced with an issue to its people, it must then protect its people. If the US had 80 terrorist organizations throughout its territories, would we then launch all of our forces to prevent a genocide in another country? It is not the US first; rather, it is the idea that protecting oneself would enable one to protect others.

2. Equality among society.
My opponent believes global equality, rather than national sovereignty, is best. However, this idea is insignificant and incorrect. All nations are NOT obligated to follow this court. If they were, the topic would not exist at all. However, a country that does not participate in an international court cannot be persecuted by said court. Thus, the idea that global equality would allow the US and, indeed, all other countries to protect the rights of others is insignificant and incorrect.
B. The power of the international courts only extends to the country's willingness to participate. If one country begins an all-out attack on the rest of the world, the international court will not be able to charge the offending nation. Therefore, crimes against humanity may still occur; the only possible power of the international court would be to prosecute the offending individual or individuals after the fact. In addition to this, individuals may only be prosecuted when the nation holding them releases them to the international court. Because it is impossible to prosecute an entire nation, only the individuals that are mostly responsible for the atrocity may be prosecuted. And because nations are the ones that must offer up these individuals, the only time to prosecute the offenders would be when the nation sees the err of its ways and offers them up for prosecution.
Debate Round No. 1
alexla

Pro

alexla forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
alexla

Pro

alexla forfeited this round.
NItEMArE129

Con

NItEMArE129 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
alexlaNItEMArE129Tied
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 wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
alexlaNItEMArE129Tied
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 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
alexlaNItEMArE129Tied
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