The Instigator
thehaha
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
acetraveler
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Resolved: The United States ought Submit to Jurdict an international court design to prose CAH

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 7/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,981 times Debate No: 4563
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (13)

 

thehaha

Pro

i would like to do this lincoln dougls debate style The actual resolution states

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute crimes against humanity
I affirm the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity before I begin I would like to define some key terms from the Resolution,
Definitions
Crime against humanity- an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense
Ought- used to express duty or moral obligation
Observation of the resolution
to give both the affirmative and negative equal ground and make the debate more fair the affirmative and negative don't have to be specific on what court is being used because the resolution states an international court it not saying we should use an existing court

Value Criterion
Because of the wording in the resolution, mostly the inclusion of the word ought. We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral. My value for the round will therefore be Morality, which is defined as the practice of the moral duties, in order for the US to uphold Morality This fundamental concept is stated in the framework of the Declaration of Independence, when it points to the fact that the "self- evident" "truth" is that "all men are created equally" and "they are endowed by their creator" with these "inalienable rights". The rights were created before any form of Government or political power. And these rights are "inalienable" because no power should take them away and all people should respect them. When it is taken away then Human Rights are violated, thus becoming immoral. The standard for which the round should be weighed is by the Protection of Human Rights. By Protection of Human rights I mean that all people rights should be protected as much possible and in any opportunity that the US has to protect these human rights. Which is the very essence of morality

Contention One
Right now under the current system of the United States, the protection of human rights is not fulfilled.
The US has failed multiple times to protect the human rights of both its own citizens and other people who are not citizens in the US. A good example to look at is the very controversial topic of Guantanamo Bay, where people untouchable rights are thrown out the door. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, agree that these rights are being violated when they state, "There is no scientific answer to the question of which interrogation strategy is more effective. For obvious ethical and legal reasons, there is unlikely to be one. At Guantanamo, the fear-and-anxiety approach was often favored. The cruel and degrading measures taken by some, in violation of international human rights law and the laws of war, have become a matter of national shame. " Thus the United States is in fact acting immoral not only to those of Non-US citizens but also through the violation of the rights of its own citizens. The International Human Rights watch gave an article on 2005 which tells the story of a man, Jose Padilla, who was indicted on criminal charges. The Bush administration decision to bring Padilla into the civilian criminal justice system means that the Supreme Court likely will no longer hear Padilla's challenge to an appellate court ruling that the president may subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without criminal charge or trial. The reason for his arrest is based on an alleged link to AL-Qaeda, and because of this link he has spent over 3 years in solitary confinement. So it is not only non-us citizens whose rights are being violated but it is also our own citizens. (If the above example is not enough to convince you judge let us look at another horrific incident inside the United States which demoralized a race of people including both foreign and US citizens. The internment camps of World War II are a great example of America protecting rights gone bad, with regards to Human Rights. After Pearl Harbor, the United States set up multiple camps in order to hold supposed Japanese spies, both American citizens and foreign citizens were held up in terrible conditions, which included basically shacks to live in and almost no clothing and food, when during the winter the cold became an enemy because of the poor protection provided for these "dangerous citizens"). The cases continue on throughout the history of the US with examples such as Abu Ghraib and the Japanese American Internment camps, these examples showing the United States priority or, more realistically, the lack thereof. According to Carole Vann/Juan Gasparini/Human Rights Tribune, "the US has shown very little commitment to human rights in general. The working group against arbitrary detention gave up going to Guantanamo last month because Washington would not allow its members to have face to face meetings with detainees. For its part, the Rapporteur against racism, Doudou Diene, has fought for years to be able to pay a visit and only recently got permission." So it has become clear that the United States has been unable to protect the rights of others and its own citizens. The Impact being that the United States cannot protect human rights and even US citizen's rights, so in order to truly be moral the US needs to give jurisdiction to an international court that would protect human rights better, in order to fulfill its moral obligation. By keeping a system of checks and balances to help keep nations in an international court to full its obligation to protect it citizen and give them a fair trial
Contention 2
International court can better protect human rights
Because an international court has jurisdiction over the world not just individual nations it can better interfere with nations that do not prosecute or even try to stop these crimes against humanity so therefore an international court might have the ability to interfere with a nation and be able to stop these crime them shelves with the help of the United states which is my
Sub-a
an international court needs the united states to better prosecute crimes against humanity
This being that an international court needs the support of the US. In order to be effective, an international court needs the support of the US in order to truly utilize its ability to prosecute crimes against humanity. Now, let's go into the first point, an international court would need assistance of the United States to help enforce their policies and regulations, let's use the ICC as an example because it is one of the best examples of a court to model. From the words of Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, "The ICC has no police force of its own, so it needs robust political backing to bring accused war criminals to trial". So in order for the United States to fulfill its moral obligation it needs to defend human rights, it needs to give its support to an international court in order to fulfill the moral obligation to protect the rights of all humans.
there for because of everthing i stated you must afirm
acetraveler

Con

I agree most of your definitions. But I can't exactly understand CAH, design, prose in the topic of debate, and 'Observation of the resolution
to give both the affirmative and negative equal ground and make the debate more fair the affirmative and negative don't have to be specific on what court is being used because the resolution states an international court it not saying we should use an existing court'. Please elaborate on this to the next round. Then anyway, I start my arguments.

Response Value Criterion.
I agree most of your value from 'My value for the round will therefore be Morality,' to 'Which is the very essence of morality'. But, I don't think 'We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral.'. International court have no realistic means to realize justice to the world in the current situation basically. And I think USA reform their the judicial system is more realistic and efficient plan more than submit to jurdict an international court. We should find more realistic way to improve our morality because plan without action is nothing in the real world.

Response Contention One
This part show many examples of the violating human rights by USA government. But I can give you several questions.
First, Can you convince International Court can do more fair and clear judges than USA court? Do you really think international court can more collect evidence to protect human rights and are not affected from international interest related to superpowers or other countries?
Second, although USA government have many failure to protect human rights, what make this problem can do the powerful reason to support international court? The expense of support, we can more pressure to the USA court to check the illegal acts of USA government.
Please reply this.

Response Contention 2
As I have mentioned before, if international court can better protect human rights, the court must be supported from the conditions.
First, if some country do not submit the order from the international court, international court can have the power to pressure that government and can use it in any time.
Second, international court are not affected from the international interest.
But in the first condition, actually there are no means except war and restraint by superpowers. If the superpower commit a crime, this mean the international court have no use to deal this problem. In addition, international court also need money, but do your think international court can keep any time like each governments without the right to take tax guaranteed by the law?
And in the second condition, finally USA or other superpower keep their own interest although the way is against to the international court, there is actually useless. If superpowers decide to stop their crime, because they consider their interest from international relationship. It can be possible without international court.

I'll wait your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
thehaha

Pro

i am sorry i shorten the some words in the topic the resolution states Resolved: the united states ought to submit to an international design to prosecute crimes against humanity and the obs means observation of the resolution which is me defining what it is saying and that we can use the any internaitonal court not just the icc icj and other various courts now to the arguments

Value Criterion
well you said that "We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral" well the resolution states "the United States ought" which ought implies a moral obligation you also said that " International court have no realistic means to realize justice to the world in the current situation"
but i will give you some examples on how it has been working in the current situation first the numberg trials of world war two where we set up a internaitonal tribunal which is base on the same princple of a IC but is temperory but is where we prosecuted nazi war crimnials and here are just several more that are in front of the court right now Situation in Democratic Republic of the Congo Situation in Uganda Situation in Central African Republic
and another thing you did not give any warrents or evidence on why you said its not moral for the us to join and you stated that the us court system is better but what right does the us has to prosecute ever one on a world wide basis

onto your arguments in my contention 1
you said that i shown many examples of human right violations that the us is doing and ask if an international court could do better well first very few of the people in guantotmo bay where ever indicted which means that there rights of habus corpse {which is the right to not be held with out sufficet evidence or trial for more than 24 hours dirived from the constitution) and out of every one there very few are even going to have a trial so i am say that if the united states join an international court that the court could have a system to keep crimes like this from happening and on to your second argument
you said why can't the us be able to keep the us in check well this stuff has been happing for several years and nothing in the us court has happen to stop it

contention 2
your first argument about the if nations are commiting crimes against humanity then it is a crime against the world so it is ever one problem like the holocaust that effected everone didn't the world have the right to stop it
and i would also like to states in the rome statute that the icc is based on it said that it would only intervine when a country isn't doing anything about the crime against humanity so it would not mean that the us could not still prosicute any of it crimes first which means it is only a court of last resort when the national level judicial court do not work second argument if a super power commited a crime the court would be able to prosicute these crimes with the help of the world because the world will be the courts enforcement onto the statment the court needs money well i would like to say the un needs money to and they get it and the court could be apart of the un so it would share the same flow of income and then your statment that alot of these problems can be taken care of with out an internaitonal court if they could they would of already and also the court will have checks and balences to be able to prosecute these super powers

i am now waiting for your response
acetraveler

Con

Response Value Criterion
But I don't think International court can prosecute these things. You said 'we prosecuted nazi war criminals and here are just several more that are in front of the court right now Situation in Democratic Republic of the Congo Situation in Uganda Situation in Central African Republic and another thing' but, the international tribunal can only prosecute the losers of the war.
(cite from : 'Secret and Lies', by David Southwell, I refer to the Korean Version)
1. The incident of the gulf of Tonkin was manipulated by USA government because USA government want to start war with Vietnam. There were no attacks against USA warships. From that time, many war crimes committed that can be as compared as Holocausts.(P.65~66, 'War' part)
2. England also committed war crimes in WW2. They commit genocide and torture to war prisoners, even after the war was ended.(P.67~68) But, the criminals are never prosecuted, NEVER. If they are soldiers of Germany, they were sentenced death penalty and died.(P.67~68, 'War' part, 'Are the war crimes by winners innocence?)
3. The Leaders in USA and UK justified the War of Kosovo by using unexisting genocide. Serbian have no crimes that the leaders in USA and UK argued.
Still, international tribunal can only judges weak crimes. Aid from USA are not really help to realize international justice. You say it can be solved by directing USA government by international tribunal. But how?

Related 'onto your arguments in my contention 1'
You just say 'International court' can do more clear judges and monitors than USA government without suggesting the detail plan. In addition, you still do not reply my questions. So, Question again and edit.
First, Do you really think international court can more collect evidence to protect human rights and are not affected from international interest related to superpowers or other countries? Do you have an detail idea?
Second, although USA government have many failure to protect human rights, what make this problem can do the powerful reason to support international court? The expense of support, we can more pressure to the USA court to check the illegal acts of USA government

Related 'contention 2'
But, not helped by international court, we can still prosecute war criminals. I did not argue 'if nations are committing crimes against humanity then it is a crime against the world so it is ever one problem like the holocaust that effected everyone didn't the world have the right to stop it'. In this case, superpowers can prosecute these criminals to the court of the country of criminals like the case of Saddam Hussein.
In addition, the problems of expense still remain. I cite these things from this site. (http://www.idebate.org...)
'The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 2000. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.'

In a nutshell, You still say if USA join international court, the situation of violating human rights reformed, but not showing me the detail system and plan. So, Your arguments still lack evidence.

I'll wait your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
thehaha

Pro

thehaha forfeited this round.
acetraveler

Con

Everyone, this debate is my win so please you vote me because of the reasons.
My point is this.
First, international tribunal that supported by USA government can only judges weak crimes. Why? Because I already showed you these examples and I added 'international tribunal can only judges weak crimes. Aid from USA are not really help to realize international justice.'.
(Cite from : 'Secret and Lies', by David Southwell, I refer to the Korean Version)
1. The incident of the gulf of Tonkin was manipulated by USA government because USA government want to start war with Vietnam. There were no attacks against USA warships. From that time, many war crimes committed that can be as compared as Holocausts.(P.65~66, 'War' part)
2. England also committed war crimes in WW2. They commit genocide and torture to war prisoners, even after the war was ended.(P.67~68) But, the criminals are never prosecuted, NEVER. If they are soldiers of Germany, they were sentenced death penalty and died.(P.67~68, 'War' part, 'Are the war crimes by winners innocence?)
3. The Leaders in USA and UK justified the War of Kosovo by using unexisting genocide. Serbian have no crimes that the leaders in USA and UK argued.

Second, we can still prosecute war criminals without the help of the international tribunal like the example of Saddam Hussein. In the current situation, international tribunal have no more work specially. In addition, they consume many expenses. I showed you my words once again. (cite from : http://www.idebate.org...)
'The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 2000. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.'

But in the situation, my opponent forfeited final round where he must reply this. So, he lost his chance to prove his arguments completely. I miss this situation. But anyway, I declare this debate from now on.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by rcal7 8 years ago
rcal7
No case for con he should automatically loose anyone voting for con is a retard
Posted by rcal7 8 years ago
rcal7
It is absurd that the aff has to forefit the last round the rules are the rules....
Posted by baseketballer 8 years ago
baseketballer
the con did not even post a case
and what is cah format?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 ChopStyxNryce 8 years ago
ChopStyxNryce
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 8 years ago
Metz
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 hussoohs2 8 years ago
hussoohs2
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 baseketballer 8 years ago
baseketballer
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 kei1261 8 years ago
kei1261
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 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 sword_of_lead 8 years ago
sword_of_lead
thehahaacetravelerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
thehahaacetravelerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30