The Instigator
HeedMyFeed
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
fresnoinvasion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,326 times Debate No: 6384
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

HeedMyFeed

Pro

Since this is the current NFL LD topic, I would like to go by NFL LD rules for this round. You can find the rules at http://www.nflonline.org...

Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." I happen to agree with this quote, therefore 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.

Definitions
Ought- Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Submit- To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Jurisdiction- The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary)

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

Crimes against Humanity- Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. (Nuremberg Charter)

Value and Value Criterion
My value for this round will be justice. Justice is the principle of moral rightness, and equality. This is the definition of Justice because a variety of sources including the United Nations use this definition. This means that equality and fairness must be what we are trying to achieve over anything else. This must be the case, since we are dealing with a court, where the principles of justice apply. Second, since the resolution is defined in terms of the word ought, which implies moral obligation or duty. This falls again under the principles of justice. Justice according to John Rawls is "the first and most important virtue of social institutions." This applies to both the United States, and the International Court.
My value criterion for this round will be the Protection of Freedoms and Liberties. This means protecting Freedoms and Liberties for those who deserve it, and from those who do not. This should be the value criterion for this round because the resolution asks us what we ought to do, and we ought to protect freedoms and liberties morally. This measures justice because in order to have moral rightness and fairness we must protect freedoms and liberties we are due. It again relates to moral rightness as Thomas R. Dye, Director of Policy Studies said in 1990, "Human beings cannot choose between right and wrong if they cannot choose at all. Thus freedom is essential to a moral life." This shows again how my value criterion measures my value, and how Freedoms and Liberties are necessary for Justice.

Contention One: The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties
The international court not the United States better protects freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. First of all, the United States does a poor job in these cases, and second of all, the international court will better protect freedoms and liberties.
Contention One A: The United States has done a bad job in protecting freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity
In cases of crimes against humanity the United States will not do a better job than an international court. The United States has shown on numerous occasions, in cases of crimes against humanity, that they will not do an adequate job protecting freedoms and liberties. First of all, in the case of Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor, the United States violated the freedoms of many legal Japanese immigrants. The Pearl Harbor attack falls under the case of crimes against humanity, and the United States punishment violated freedoms and liberties. The United States denied these citizens their freedom by imprisoning them in camps without being allowed to leave. They did it in the hopes of protecting society, and in supposedly punishing those who were responsible for the Pearl Harbor attacks. They felt that these Japanese immigrants were all spies, and responsible for the attacks. The United States did this again recently in the giving of approval to CIA operatives to water board prisoners. They felt these prisoners were responsible for crimes against humanity in Iraq, and were threats to the United States citizens. However, they imprisoned them without setting a trial and violated their basic liberties by torturing them. Their responses to crimes against humanity show that the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties. In turn, the United States cannot achieve Justice by themselves in these cases.
Contention One B: An international court does a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms in the cases of crimes against humanity
In cases of crimes against humanity, an international court will do a better job of protecting liberties and freedoms. This will lead to the achievement of Justice. Over the years, international law has become more effective. Michael P. Scharf (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Customary international law on the definition and scope of war crimes and crimes against humanity has been clarified and crystallized." He further states the fact that international law will be effective, and will help the court punish effectively. As well, Madeline Morris (J.D.) in Law and Contemporary Problems in 2001 stated, "Where that international court is controlled by a large number of states, the various states parties may provide checks and balances against abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states." This shows that the court will in fact have appropriate measures to prevent abuses. This leads to a better protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, by joining the international court, the United States and its' citizens will have its' freedoms and liberties protected. This will lead to Justice.

Contention Two: The international court has sufficient legal safeguards
The international court has sufficient legal safeguards, which will increase the protection of freedoms and liberties. First of all, the current international court in the ICC has provided the sixth amendment right of confronting witnesses of the prosecution, by allowing the right to "examine such witnesses". As well, according to the Rome Statute the defendants are allowed "to be tried without undue delay." This means they still have the right to a speedy trial as well. Finally, according to Adrian T. Delmont (Author) of the Journal of Legislation in 2001 said, "Before the prosecutor could begin an investigation she must present her intentions, and supporting evidence, to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC." This means that the prosecutor cannot start any investigation without evidence. All these safeguards and the non-bias which has been shown previously, allow the ICC and future international courts to protect freedoms and liberties effectively. Even though it may not contain all rights of the constitution, the constitution will still not apply to those U.S citizens who commit crimes against humanity abroad, or foreigners committing crimes against humanity on U.S. soil. As well, we can only assume that international courts will improve as time goes on, then it will always have these sufficient legal safeguards. This shows how an international court protects freedoms and liberties. Therefore, it will achieve Justice as well.

I wish good luck to whoever takes this debate.
fresnoinvasion

Con

Yea, LD rules are good.

I too look at Martin Luther King Jr as one of the wisest men to live as of this day. And I full agree with his quote, however, the context in which he said it does not apply to this debate round. Not one type of people as of the status-quo are being suppressed by our "individualistic concerns". We are all human, and we all do have individual concerns, its just natural and the way it is. It is ok to strive to fulfill those individual concerns, as long as no one is being put down in the process.

When we look to the status-quo we see a judicial system that is working. Lowering ourselves to an international court will take away us autonomy and strip us of the very thing our nation stands on, individuality and independence.

Definitions- Thank you for picking definitions that are fair to both sides of the debate, I truly do appreciate it.

However, there is a minor problem in your "crimes against humanity" definition that I believe works against you.

The definition is in context to war. All of those things are crimes against humanity when a country is at war. "before or during the war". So by this definition we see that any war at all that a person dies, is a crime against humanity. However, if this is true we see that the United States of America is the biggest offenders of "crimes against humanity". Now if you vote for the affirmative team based on these definitions the United States of America will be the first to be imprisoned based on the international code that defines "crimes against humanity" as murder that occurs in war.

But because I do agree that this is a fair definition, we will keep it. The only thing is that it will hurt the affirmatives case drastically.

I believe that Justice is a fair Value, so i am adopting it;the topic essentially calls for this value
Your value Criterion is also fair, so I am adopting it, but will work against you in this debate. I will go over this in my case later on, just to keep it organized.

Onto his case

His first contention essentially says "America isnt good for C.A.H. but the international court will be" and, with all due respect, the argument is fundamentally flawed.

If you look to who is driving for the international court, we see that it is the US. As of the status-quo, the United States has remained the hegemon and what we say goes. The world follows our norms, our habits, and conforms to what we want them to. When there is an international court, the same will happen. The US will be leading this court and what it says should be punishment will be. The only difference now is that the US has more power to reach around the whole world and not just in the US. So take this argument and completely turn it against the affirmative team. What will happen in an international court is that it will be American lead, and nothing will change from the status-quo except now America has even more power to serve "injustices".

On his second contention.

He says the court will be unbiased. However, if you look to the countries that are currently involved in the ICC, you see that they are just a bunch of random countries that have no pull whatsoever in the world, so of course they will not push their agenda on another country and they see as equals. A number of states, including China, Russia, India and the United States, have not joined the ICC, when the US joins it will push its agenda on the world immediately. The US is the biggest violators of rules, if they were to join they would change the court to what they saw fit. The US sees that the ICC has done absolutely nothing and will make changes to make it "better" these changes will push the western agenda.

When you see that the affirmative case is self destructive, you cannot vote for it. Upon first reading the arguments you may think his way of thinking is best, however, when you look deeper into his definitions and contentions you see that they work against him, not for him.

And my case.

Contention 1- The ICC is horrible.

The status-quo sees an international court system, and they have gotten absolutely nothing done. Look to the genocides happening in Rwanda and in the DRC. Thousands of people are dying, the people in the lead are not being dealt with. The ICC is just a bunch of random countries that mean nothing to world that are trying to come together. Their efforts are honorable, but the bottom line is that they are getting nothing done even by their own definitions. If they believe that "murder in war" is a C.A.H. then the US government should already be in jail. If they think that genocide is a C.A.H. they should have thrown everything they had behind efforts to stop thousands of women and children from being killed in Sub-Saharan Africa today.

Contention 2- If the US went into it, they would just mold it to status-quo USA

This destroys any reason for the US to succumb to the courts. Nothing would change at all. The USA is the world police status-quo and will continue to follow the same ethics in a world post plan. When this happens there are just more countries following the same ethics that the affirmative thinks is bad

So when you look at the details of what will really happen after you affirm the resolution, you see that nothing changes. If anything, more crimes against humanity will be committed because the USA is now at the head of this court system.

Thank you affirmative debater, I look forward to hearing a response.
Debate Round No. 1
HeedMyFeed

Pro

I will basically to signpost, just go down my opponents previous post.

The MLK quote was merely serving as an introduction to my case, so it is fine that you say it does not apply in this debate.

However, going over the crimes against humanity definition, you seemed to have misinterpreted this. It specifically says "against any civilian population". Civilian is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". Therefore, those soldiers that die during the war are not part of the civilian population. The United States during war does not intentionally target the civilian population, so this definition is in fact unbiased and does not hurt me. My opponent merely misunderstood the definition.

Next, my opponent agrees with my value and value criterion, so there is no issue here.

Onto my first contention. My opponent drops the point that the United States have done a horrible job punishing crimes against humanity in the past. Instead, they have decided to violate freedoms and liberties of people without due process. This is seen through the example of Japanese internment and in recent history with waterboarding. Since my opponent has dropped this point, we must extend the fact the United States is not an effective prosecutor in cases of crimes against humanity. Therefore, the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties and achieve justice in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent cannot achieve the value structure in this debate since he dropped this point. Therefore, this is one reason you must vote aff.

The only attack he did make against my first contention is that the United States would dictate policy in the international court since it is a hegemony. However, my opponent fails to realize two major facts. First of all, the fact that the international court cannot make laws, instead it can only merely perform prosecution, so no policies can be set by the international court. Second, that in the international court no country can "lead" the court. Every country has an equal say in this court. He failed to read the quote by Madeline Morris (J.D.) in my constructive. This states that the international court is controlled by a large number of states, and this prevents abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states. This quote is from a specialist in international law and completely refutes this point. It was already made available in my constructive. Therefore, no abuses can occur in favor of the United States, or any country for that matter. This completely refutes the argument he makes against this contention. Therefore, this international court, by not having abuses, will better protect freedoms and liberties than the United States. Therefore, affirmative again better upholds the value structure.

Moving on to my contention two you can see he makes a similar argument. He states again that the United States will push its' policies in favor of the United States, and that the countries in it currently have no pull. However, cross apply my counter arguments I made in response to his first contention attacks. This shows that each country has equal pull in making decisions in this court, which prevents abuses. Second, that this court cannot create laws, merely prosecute, so it can't create U.S. favorable policies. Therefore, my opponents attack is again refuted.

Continuing on with my second contention, my opponent fails to attack the fact that the international court has sufficient legal safeguards. Therefore, you can flow that through for the round, and accept the fact it has these safeguards. Since it provides this safeguards, it will protect freedoms and liberties and in turn achieve justice.

Now moving on to my opponents case.

His contention one stated that the ICC is horrible. He says that they fail to act with the situation in Rwanda, and are failing in punishing the United States. He goes on and says they are a bunch of random countries that mean nothing. However, this can easily be refuted. First of all, the ICC has no military, nor does it have the power to perform actions of the military. The ICC and the idea of an international court is a judicial power. This means that it can only serve as a forum of prosecution of these crimes. For example, if the United States signed onto the ICC before the Iraq invasion, and when the U.S. invaded and eventually found Saddam Hussein, he would prosecuted in the international court. They would not be prosecuted by the United States. So, this means that they prosecute those who have been suspected of committing crimes against humanity. They are not an executive branch, and cannot perform military engagements to invade countries and prosecute those who they suspect. They merely serve as a forum of prosecution. Next, with his United States argument that they should in jail, has already been refuted. You must cross apply my definition argument, and that a C.A.H classifies as a mass civilian murder that was intentional. Therefore, this refutes his first contention. The ICC and other international courts serve as a place where impartial and non-biased prosecution is supposed to be found. This is good, because many countries felt after the Saddam Hussein trials, that it was very biased against him. Instead, if they submitted to an international court, all the nations would have a stake, and would provide impartial prosecution. This impacts to the fact that this would better protect freedoms and liberties, and in turn produce Justice.

Next, moving onto my opponents contention 2, he says it would mold the status-quo of the USA. However, I have already disproved this earlier. This is because the United States cannot mold it. Each country has an equal stake in the prosecution of these offenders. Next, no policies can be made by this court, only prosecutions can take place. You can cross-apply the Madeline Norris quote, which shows that it will in fact prevent abuses in the favor of one country, or a group of countries. Therefore, the United States would not be able to mold the court. If the United States joined the court, they would be more accountable to provide for non-biased prosecutions. In fact, the court would mold the United States for the better. This impacts to the standards, because an international court would better protect freedoms and liberties as shown through my contention 1 subpoint b. This would in turn lead to Justice.

I would like to wish my opponent good luck, and thank them for a good debate.
fresnoinvasion

Con

Same, just line by line. Some of it might be messy or repetitive due to how some of the arguments are fundamentally the same.

Ok, the quote is dropped then.

I will concede that a crime against humanity is "murder or an inhumane act against a civilian". Although I concede that the USfg should not be locked up in jail for killing soldiers, the definition still works against the affirmative. A "crime against humanity" is any inhumane act against a civilian. This inhumane act does not need to be on the governmental level, but on an individual level. By my opponents own definition places the foundation that a "crime against humanity" is anything bad that is "inhumane" against a civilian. As you can see, this definition is so very broad. There are hundreds of definitions of "inhumane", what does inhumane entail? Leaving one starving? A hate crime? Tripping someone when walking down the street can be classified as inhumane because the word itself is "not-humane". Dictionary.com says "humane" is defined as "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals". Now I am not trying to stick the affirmative with having to prove every "not compassionate" act should be tried, but my point is simple. Inhumane acts occur all the time, every crime in the US can be defined as "inhumane"- even by his own definition. This would cause for the United States to have to give up its autonomous judicial system for even domestic crimes.

We will have a world "standard" for what is a crime, and how to deal with that specific crime. Doing this on an international level strips every country of its own identity. Countries that have one predominant religious system will have to change their laws in order to conform to what the new "international" order says is ok. Even if the USA is not what chooses the punishment, the independence of the country is still taken. At this point, when the USA loses its individuality and merely conforms to a world order you cannot vote for the affirmative team. All of the laws worldwide will have to conform to what the "consensus" says is ok. Religions are different, some religions call for huge punishments on little crimes such as stealing. Succumbing to the international judicial system will violate those countries values, and strip us of our individualism.

The first thing my opponent is going to say is that "I am not advocating other countries to come into it also" but at his arguments base, he is. His value criterion can only be accessed when the entire world is "Equal" onto the "equal" judicial system. So although he is not directly advocating for other countries to join, he cannot access his value or value criterion until he can prove why it is good for every country to be a part of the system.

On his first contention- Yes, I agree that the US has not done a great job of punishing crimes against humanity. However, the policy that is needed is not one of giving up our individuality and succumbing to an international order if anything is to be done, we should change America at the individual level, not give in to other people standards.

First- He says they cant make laws, only prosecute
Second- No one country can lead the court

Only providing two answers to this argument was a fatal flaw by the affirmative team. I concede they can only prosecute, but the way in which they prosecute will be based on western philosophy. The second point he makes is the last leg he stands on and really the only standing defense in the round. When I believe that you should have already made your decision based on the fact America will have no individual say and it will violate other countries religions, I will still defeat this to leave absolutely no doubt in your mind. However, even if I do not, the previous arguments are still enough to vote on. Onto his second point.

(Pretty much the rest of the debate grouped)

At this point he is standing behind the quote of Madeline Morris to defeat the logic that I presented. The problem is that the Morris quote does not even apply in a world post plan. She says that not one country has control, but you have to look to the fact that the countries involved now are just random countries with absolutely no pull in the world so of course 1 country does not have any more pull than another. When the hegemon United States of America steps in they will mold the decisions based on the United States values and nothing will change at all. He can say that safeguards are put in, but you have to look to the fact that the United States will be the ones catching the criminals, they will feel as if they have more pull then the other countries because they actually caused for the capture of the criminal. The record of the ICC is pretty horrible, they have only put out warrants for 12 arrests and only a couple have actually been tried. The United States will see that and think "we are the one arresting everyone, we should try them based on what we say" and then status-quo still happens.

So if the United States, and the world, followed suit we would see no variation in the realm of judicial systems. This is bad. When you take this away religious standards are not met, and a country has no independence. Independent countries are needed in America because this stimulates competition between them all and moves society as a whole forward.

Seeing that the affirmative calls for every country to be the same in their ethics calls for an immediate vote for the negative. When every single attack against a citizen must be taken to the international court, you have no alternative but to vote for the negative.

Thank you affirmative debater, I am thankful this debate has been kept on friendly terms and has remained very competitive. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
HeedMyFeed

Pro

I will again just go down the flow.

Going back to the definitional debate over a crime against humanity, we must look that it is "an inhumane act against any civilian population. We must look at two things first. First, a population is defined as "the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area." Therefore, the act cannot occur against one civilian, but against a large amount of persons. Next, my opponent makes the fact that inhumane is defined very loosely. However, we must look at the way this definition of crimes against humanity has been applied over the years. This will set the standard and how we will look at crimes against humanities in the future. In the cases it has been applied it has not been used against such crimes as tripping someone. Instead, it has only been used on large scale atrocities, and has not violated any countries autonomous judicial systems unless it was a large scale atrocities. Therefore, by the way this definition has been it shows that it has only been used when absolutely necessary, and not for tripping someone.

Next, moving on to my opponents attack that we will have a world standard, and that it strips a country of its identity. First, you cannot even consider this argument, because it is a new argument. According to LD rules, you cannot create new arguments in rebuttal rounds, that support your case. However, in case you do not buy that, no country will have to change its laws. Instead, they just have to submit an international court which will be more effective according to my contention 1b. As well, against individuality argument, no country can be completely individual. Countries do have to deal with each other, for example in trade, and this is an example of where they have to have a multilateral approach. This multilateral approach is necessary, because the U.S. has not been effective in punishing for these crimes. Therefore, it does not strip this individuality and change laws, but instead advocates a multilateral approach, which will better protections of freedoms and liberties. This would lead to justice. However, with this argument my opponent fails to make any impact to protecting freedoms and liberties and justice.

My value criterion does not advocate a worldwide equal judicial system, but instead adequate protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, all I have to show is why the U.S. does not provide this adequate protection of freedoms and liberties, which they do not. Also, since the resolution only deals with the U.S., we must only look at why the United States should join the international court.

This leads to my first contention subpoint a, which my opponent concedes and agrees with. This is a key factor in this round because this shows the U.S. fails to protect freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent now can have no impacts to the value and value criterion debate. Against this he says that the United States can change at an individual level. However, the fact is that the U.S. has not changed at an individual level. It was a 50 year span between Japanese internment, and the water boarding incident. This again shows why crimes against humanity requires a multilateral approach to prosecute.

My opponent dropped my contention one subpoint b and my contention two. This leads you to flow both arguments through for the round. My contention one subpoint b shows that the international court will do an effective job prosecuting, and will do a better job than the U.S. protecting freedoms and liberties. Since my opponent agrees with the value and value criterion structure, this shows that the international court will do a better job than the United States protecting freedoms and liberties, and achieving justice. Therefore, I clearly have better impacts to the structure of the debate. My contention two also shows how it has legal safeguards which provides for this protection of freedoms and liberties, and in turn the achievement of justice.

This shows how the affirmative case completely stands, and how the affirmative has better impacted to the structure.

Next the neg.

He says that the way the court will prosecute will be based on western philosophy. However, this is clearly a flawed argument. He fails to attack the fact that each country has equal say in the international court. This shows that it cannot be based on western philosophy, because each countries opinion holds equal weight. This leads to better prosecution as I have shown in my contention one b.

He continues on with this argument, by saying that the only countries in it right now are random countries with no pull, and when the U.S. join it will mold the decisions. However, he again failed to address the fact each country no matter their standing has equal weight and opinions. That Madeline Norris quote illustrates, and applies still if the United States join. He fails to address this fact that their opinions have equal weight. This is true because the courts prosecution is done by judges. The judges represent different nations and their interests. The U.S. judge would have no more say than a judge from any other nation. The reason the international court is around is for impartial prosecution. That is why the U.S. would join. This impartial prosecution would better protect freedoms and liberties and in turn lead to Justice.

My opponent still maintains the fact that the ICC has a horrible record. However, he drops the point they have no military or police force to actually arrest people. They only serve as a forum for where one person may be prosecuted. That is their only purposes as a judicial branch. However, if the United States feels like "we are the one arresting everyone, we should try them based on what we say", they cannot do that. They cannot do that because as I have stated early each nations opinions are represented equally. The reason the U.S. would allow the ICC to prosecute is for these impartial prosecutions as I have stated. Therefore, this refutes this point as well.

My opponent goes on and restates the fact that the countries have no independence, and each citizen for harming one another would be taken in. However, again these arguments are both flawed. Complete independence is impossible to reach, and this is only requiring a multilateral approach in cases of crimes against humanity. I have shown that with the U.S, in order to protect freedoms and liberties, must have this multilateral approach, which leads to progress. Also, his definition argument has already been shown as flawed.

Voter Issues
My first voter issue is the fact my opponent dropped my whole case. He agreed with my value and value criterion, agreed with my contention one subpoint a, and dropped the rest. In each of those contentions I made a clear impact back to the value and value criterion. I showed how the U.S., in cases of crimes against humanity, cannot protect freedoms and liberties. I also showed how the international court will adequately protect freedoms and liberties, and has sufficient safeguards to secure this. All this leads to the value of justice.

My second voter is my opponents argument that it violates individuality. This is one of the few arguments my opponent has left. I have successfully defeated this argument with my arguments against it. Also, since it is a new argument you cannot consider it anyways. Finally, it has no impact on the value or value criterion. Therefore, this cannot be considered.

My final voter is my opponents U.S. molding argument, and the ICC bad. I have shown how the court provides equal consideration to all nations, so U.S. cannot not mold it in their favor. Also, the ICC can only prosecute, and serves as an impartial forum. Again these arguments have no impacts to the structure. So these arguments have been refuted.

Now you can only vote aff.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate.
fresnoinvasion

Con

Ill pretty much address everything as I go along

My opponent makes a fatal flaw as of his last speech; he chose to only repeat his previous answers and not address the more in depth analysis I provided. This will prove detrimental to the affirmative team, as you will later see. His definition works against him to the point of his case falling from under him and he failed to even prove how the international court will "protect freedoms and liberties". The entirety of my case is misunderstood by the affirmative team and by the end you will see that the United States of America is the best suited for achieving justice by protecting freedoms and liberties. I will further delve into even deeper analysis of the arguments I have provided, do not mistaken the new analysis for new arguments. I am sure the people who invented LD debate did not wish for the last 2 speeches of the debate round to say the same exact thing, as the affirmative seems to think.

As of my last speech I left a gaping hole in the affirmative teams case by pointing out that the definition of "crimes against humanity" is so broad, and the affirmative merely patched it up with a bit of mud. My cannons are firing once again and the mud is not doing much to stop them. He provides a new definition for "population", and this is blatantly a new argument and serves as a moving target. In his first speech it is "crime against humanity" then it is "inhumane act against a civilian" and now it is "inhumane act against an entire population". This is completely abusive to my side of the debate because he keeps changing the definition on what a crime against humanity is. Every one of my speeches is based on the new definition he provides, and to get out of every argument he just goes to change the definition. You can not let the affirmative debater do this in the debate round, its ruining the debate. The affirmative debater should be able to defend the definition given in the first speech, clarifying at most in the next speech, but not in the very last speech of the debate. How is the negative team supposed to maintain a strategy if after every argument made, the affirmative merely changes his definition? It is impossible for the negative team to win if you let the affirmative team stay this abusive.

He should have defined what "population" meant in the last speech instead of leaving it up to my interpretation, because I interpreted it as any civilian. It does not make sense for it to be a group of civilians because they would have just said that "a specific group of civilians". A civilian is a part of the civilian population therefore any attack on a civilian must be tried under this court.

However, this definition too hurts his case. If we are to take the affirmative teams definition it would read "an inhumane act against the total number of civilians inhabiting an area". Although it is horribly abusive, and grounds to vote against the aff to provide this definition, I will still argue it. By his definition the inhumane act had to have been committed against an entire population. He says that this is how the world has viewed crimes against humanity, but that is not true. He provides no evidence that anywhere in the government that they have ever once looked at a genocide or something of the sort as a crime against humanity and that nothing else is a crime against humanity. You have to look to my interpretation because its the only logical real world interpretation. If humanity is a civilian, anything bad you do to the civilian is a crime against him. He says that the world sees genocide as a crime against humanity but shows no evidence that that is true, or even explains himself. You may personally agree with his interpretation but you have to look to what arguments the debaters here today make. And I am the one with the offense in this round, i have proven that he is not only abusive, but my interpretation is better anyways.

Now why it matters. His definition screws him over in the value debate. His value is justice and criterion is "Protection of Freedoms and Liberties". By no means at all does he protect freedoms and liberties. If he would have conceded that he takes every case, he would have. But i go him in a double-bind, and he fell right for the trap. If he would have conceded the court will take every case of crimes against humanity, he would have been protecting PERSONAL freedoms. But he does not. He only protects the freedoms of big groups. Therefore he cannot access his criterion, losing the case.

He goes on to concede that the ICC does not have an army and cannot go out and get the criminals that committed the genocide, again he is not protecting personal freedoms at all. They merely make the decision on what punishment they should get, not protecting anyone. No where in his case does he show how they can PROTECT personal freedoms, therefore he cannot access his criterion, but the contrary is true. I, as long as he have proven that the US being a part of the ICC will not protect any personal freedoms. When he himself says that the ICCs job is not to "protect" personal freedoms, and he himself again says that the USA is ill equiped to protect personal freedoms. This is not math where too negatives make a positive. I will concede that neither can protect personal freedoms, and this is detrimental to his case because it proves he cannot solve for his value criterion.

I am conceding that the USA will not take over, it just hurts him more because now there is still no "police" to the ICC, proving they PROTECT no one.

My case on the other hand solves. When the individual countries pick punishments on their societal norms that is personal, individual justice in their eyes. I hold his same criterion and value and as you can see if the individual country picks the punishment, justice can be sought. The armies of the country can PROTECT these freedoms, and the US and ICC combined cannot. It is imperative that you understand this point. If a policy should be made it should be made changing America, he says that is not possible, but that is only because the policy is not put into place. If we pass new laws IN AMERICA we can not only PROTECT freedoms, but we can deal with punishments accordingly.

He harps on the fact that they can prosecute well, but this is not PROTECTING freedoms. It is sitting back, watching women and children be killed in a genocide, waiting only to make a decision of whether the man who caused for it should be shot in the head, hung, or injected with a deadly substance. Countries have armies, and can protect the freedoms. That the ICC cannot.

I will concede that America will not take over. They will just be a part of the ICC and feel no moral obligation to stop crimes against humanity because they will not be the ones that will execute the punishment.

Why to vote- In a nut shell

1. When a debater can prove that the status-quo is more efficient to solve for the affirmative teams Value and Value Criterion you must vote for him. He has not proven what he said, he has done the exact opposite. He said that the ICC cannot police and has no army. In no way is this "protecting" freedoms, it is just sitting back and deciding their punishment. Although the USA might not make the right decisions sometimes, they are the key to PROTECT freedoms. I solve his own case, vote neg

2. He doesnt answer this because I won the definition debate. My definition is better and his are abusive. You will take the countries individuality because EVERY crime committed to another person must be taken to this court. Thus, losing the countries individuality on decisons.

3. I concede the USA wont take over. I agree they will just sit back and do nothing too.

The main issue is definition debate, re-read that over and you can see that I easily win it and turn his case.

So many reasons to vote neg, so do it.

Thank you affirmative debater, it was a great round
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
Yea, I have the backfiles from policy camp Michigan.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Oh ok. I don't do LD, im policy. But I thought I would take it as entertainment. I think that the college policy topic a couple years ago was similar and had to do with the ICC, try checking some backfiles for some evidence
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
I actually have written a new affirmative, tell me if you want to debate me on that. May use this affirmative though.

Thanks for the great debate.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
You're probably going to be using this in your real debate tournaments in the future, if you make it 100 percent clear as of your first speech it will do a lot to shut up the neg side. The LD debate will come down to that definition, so make sure the neg knows exactly what you mean. I am not telling you this to be an idiot, but if you take my advice youll see you will have more straightforward debates, not just talking about the definitions. You have a very strong case though, just make sure the neg and the judge knows exactly what you mean as of the first speech.

Great job
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
No, you completely misinterpreted the definition. Look up what each part means before you try poking imaginary holes next time. The definition means attacks against a large amount of civilians. This is true because a population means civilians inhabiting an area. Also, civilians mean non military members. Therefore, I never ever strayed from my original definition. I merely defended the definition from imaginary holes you tried poking in it. Next time look at exactly what the definition means, before trying to attack it.

Good debate though.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Yup.

The problem is that you should have defined exactly what that was in your first, at latest second speech. As of your third it is a blatant moving target because you've changed the direction on what it exactly means twice now, giving me 1 speech to adjust. As of the second speech you tried to get out of "population" because that would mean that when the USA drops bombs it would fall into that category. But that worked to your disadvantage, so you changed it again to include "population" again. So your definition was closer to the original one, but you changed it in the middle of the debate and I accepted that, changing it again makes it almost impossible for the neg to adjust.

Thanks for the debate.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 8 years ago
HeedMyFeed
Just as clarification, it says "against any civilian population" in my original speech.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 hussoohs2 8 years ago
hussoohs2
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 bgruber93 8 years ago
bgruber93
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 sword_of_lead 8 years ago
sword_of_lead
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 CRogers_2012 8 years ago
CRogers_2012
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by afowler_phi 8 years ago
afowler_phi
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by BrianErickson 8 years ago
BrianErickson
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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 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 Alexmertens559 8 years ago
Alexmertens559
HeedMyFeedfresnoinvasionTied
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