The Instigator
Unconlv
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 1/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,677 times Debate No: 6494
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

Unconlv

Pro

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

Jurisdiction:law legal authority: the authority to enforce laws or pronounce legal judgments
Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2004. ⓒ 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

ought: be morally right: indicates that somebody has a duty or obligation to do something or that it is morally right to do something
Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2004. ⓒ 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

submit:yield to somebody: to give in to somebody's authority, control, or demands
Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2004. ⓒ 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Value: Justice
My value is justice; justice is the quality of being just, impartial, and fair. Justice is the value for the resolution because the goal of determining whether the U.S should submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity or not is to bring justice to the world.

My value criterion is Internationalism. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of internationalism is a policy of cooperation among nations. This should be the value criterion because the resolution asks whether the U.S should achieve justice through internationalism established or not. An international court requires internationalism established in order to have the jurisdiction and achieve Justice.

Observation:
Notice the resolution use the word "ought" that we should determine whether the resolution should be achieved or not in terms of morality.
The U.S is one of the dominant countries in world affairs
Since the U.S is part of the UN, the U.S seeks to promote the cooperation of the world to bring justice
ICC is an international court that is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity that most fits the resolution.

Argument 1: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity is more adequate than the U.S.
A.The U.S court is not suitable for protecting the human rights.
i.The U.S court couldn't protect the rights of most detainees in Guantanamo who have their rights violated and abused for a long time. Although the detainees in Guantanamo bay aren't protected with the Constitution, the U.S court of Appeals tried to protect their rights but they couldn't protect them effectively. 17 Uighur Muslims are found to pose no threat but only one of them is freed.
B.An international court like ICC is most appropriate to have jurisdiction for crimes against humanity.
i.The Human Rights Watch also supports the submission of the U.S court to ICC. The organization urged the Bush administration to sign the ICC Treaty, which the U.S didn't sign.
ii.The U.S, as a member of the UN, wants to bring world peace, but, in countries like Uganda, it is difficult to have jurisdiction for criminals who committed crimes against humanity. U.S court on its own, it can't prosecute criminals in foreign countries. However, with the ICC, it is possible to have jurisdiction for those criminals.
iii.Unlike the U.S court that has check and balance system restricted to the U.S government, the ICC has over 100 nations that oversee its jurisprudence, which can better protect it from abuses.
Link: It is ironic for the U.S to prosecute the criminals who committed crimes against humanity. The ICC, an international court, can better preserve justice being achieved through internationalism established than the U.S court.

Argument 2
The submission of the U.S to the ICC will further legitimize the court and this will promote the cooperation among nations, bringing justice more "effectively."
It is hard for an international institution to function without the assistance or cooperation of world's most influential countries like the U.S. The U.S can provide support for the ICC in ways such as finance and politics. Moreover American intelligence agencies can help the court gather evidence and carry out investigations for the ICC. With the internationalism established between the most powerful countries, including the U.S, the ICC's legitimacy will be bolder, deterring future human rights abuses, and become more effective in bringing universal justice

Please follow the LD rule
burningpuppies101

Con

Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, I negate.

Value= Justice. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US will uphold justice. But lets forget about this part of framework, since we both agree.

VC: Upholding a moral obligation. If in not submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court better upholds a moral obligation that the US has, then I win. Upholding a moral obligation attains my value since this debate is about justice, and what is right for the US to do. If we uphold a moral obligation, we are doing something right, and just, and therefore I attain my value.

Observation 1: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We do not have a contract with the world. We like to think of ourselves as the world's police, but we are not, formally. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first.

Observation 2: The AFF has the burden of proving why we should join the ICC. I only have to disprove everything he says to win. My burden is to negate the resolution, meaning I have to prove why the US ought not to join the ICC. If the AFF is unsuccessful in proving why we ought to join, you have to default vote NEG.

Contention 1: Citizens will lose rights.
a.The ICC (as we have agreed is an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity), does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen.
b. Right to public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, those being accused can sometimes be held up to 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a speedy trial, with 90 days being the limit.

Contention 2: The US will not be able to protect human rights throughout the world if the ICC is constantly looking over their shoulder. The US has often seen themselves as the world's police. When we invade other countries to protect those inside it, we do not have time to think about whether or not we will be tried by the ICC. If we have to do it, we have to do it. If we are constantly second guessing ourselves, we will not be as effective an international force, and that is detrimental to our international standing. So in the end, we lost international influence if we join the ICC, and that is bad since that is actually making it harder to protect our citizens.

Contention 3: Counterplan. If you don't buy everything above, you have to buy this. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens.

And now to your points.
<>
Value: Justice. I've already shown that we agree, so this is irrelevant.
VC: Internationalism. You should use my VC because internationalism does not directly achieve justice the way that my VC does. In fact, it doesn't achieve justice on its own at all! Cooperating with nations does not mean that justice will be upheld. And international court does not need everyone to join. It only needs nations in it to agree to be subject to its laws. In fact an international court may be influenced by those in it, and that actually hinders justice. For instance, if the US were to join, we would be trying to influence court decisions and prosecutions, in order to forward our own agenda. If all the other countries did the same, then justice would actually be hindered, not upheld.

CI: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity is more adequate than the US.
A. The US courts are not suitable for not protecting the human rights. You justification of this is Guantanamo Bay. You say that because we are trying to protect our citizens, we are not respecting human rights, and that gives us no right to protect human rights. However, you said it yourself. Those prisoners are not protected by the Constitution. If we determine that those being imprisoned pose a threat to the US, the US is morally obligated to do what it can to protect the citizens. If that means that we may enter the gray area of human rights, so be it, as long as we protect our citizens in the long run. If you argue that we could severely abuse human rights, and justify it by saying we would protect our citizens, you are wrong. In the long term, abusing human rights would lead to loss of US international influence, and we would be stopped from abusing human rights.
B. An international court like the ICC is the most appropriate to have jurisdiction for crimes against humanity.
i. The Human Rights Watch says we should, so we should. But where is your justification for us to join? Your argument is this: the HR Watch says we should, so we should, even though we are given no reason.
ii. My response to this argument is this: Yes there is an alternative option. ATCA. And if you don't buy that, tribunals can also be set up. My point is, there are alternative options. So this point is moot.
iii. There is no argument being made here. If there is, I don't see it. Could you please clarify it?

C2: The submission of the US to the ICC will further legitimize the court and this will promote the cooperation among nations, bringing justice more "effectively." So this argument is that the US will be able to help the ICC by supplying resources. You argue that in order for these international courts to be effective, they need effective backing. Therefore, since the ICC will be more "effective," it will uphold justice. Actually, you are wrong. We can actually turn this argument around and use it as an argument for my case. In joining the ICC, we will have to give up valuable resources in order to serve this international court that will hurt us in the end (look to my arguments above). We will be forfeiting international power to this court that isn't even effective without us! All my above arguments apply to this one, and indeed, this argument can be turned to help my case.

So if we look over the entire case, we see the following:
His case can be turned or entirely refuted to help my case.
ATCA will provide a much better option.
I am winning this debate.

Voting Issues:
Framework: My value and his value are the same. No argument there. But his VC does not attain his V in the same way that my VC does, so we should choose mine over his, since mine is more effective in achieving justice
Contentions: I am winning the contention debate.

VOTE NEG!
Debate Round No. 1
Unconlv

Pro

Unconlv forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Unconlv

Pro

Unconlv forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Unconlv

Pro

Unconlv forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

extend all arguments.

Voting issues:
Framework: I have refuted his framework, but he has not provided any response. I win on framework
Contentions: I've refuted all my opponents points, but my opponent has not provided any response. I win on contentions

Therefore you must vote con
Debate Round No. 4
Unconlv

Pro

Unconlv forfeited this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

Extend everything.

I urge you to vote for me!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why is PRO winning?
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
i was gonna vote for con, like i should have. But then i got to the end and read the "you must vote con" part, which angered me
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
aw.. come on.. post already...
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
Fo-shizzle The U.S has a legal Obligation to Globally cooperate to protect Human rights. Also saying that giving up jurisdiction will give up freedom is very flawed logic. By this same logic we should not enter in any alliances, treaties or respect any international law.
Also lest not go preaching how hateful socialism is... some of our greatest allies are pretty socialist... the U.K, France... Look, socialism is essentially an economic system, we cannot say that any country that is not a strictly Laissez-faire Capitalistic society is evil or dangerous to the U.S.
Also Obama will not cause the country to fall, we must recognize the merits of a democracy in that the people of the United states choose who they thought would best serve them and we must respect if not agree with that decision. The fact is I personally believe that the country will thrive, If we are talking about rebuilding then remember, America is almost at a historic economic low(if not there already) has almost NO soft power and really a change of policy and a change of power should help to jump start the United states.
Posted by fo-shizzle 7 years ago
fo-shizzle
how is our goverment not suited to rule are country? by giving away our jurisdiction, we our giving up our freedom! This means we have to side with nations who have different rules and laws as us with totally different belief systems. We will all regret doing such a horrible thing, siding with socialists and marxists, and etc. yes our government is slowly going to start to fall with our new president, but we only have to suffer that for four years, then we can re-build our country again!
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
I'll take this, but I warn you now, I'm not that great at LD, but i can debate pretty well. If that makes any sense.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 7 years ago
HeedMyFeed
I would accept this debate, but the problem is my negative is like 9000 characters.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 7 years ago
crazypenguin
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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 burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
Unconlvburningpuppies101Tied
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