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

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/25/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,684 times Debate No: 6647
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I don't debate I want some one to look at my case and make arguments against it just to help and give me ideas what people might say thanks


ok, post your case, and I'll refute it, and/or critique it.
Debate Round No. 1


Margaret Chase smith once stated that "Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character." I stand in firm negation of the resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Submit: to yield ones power to the power of another, to give up resistance.
Jurisdiction: the legal power of authority of a particular court to hear and determine cases.
International court: a court extending across national boundaries, and prosecutes crimes when a state is unable to.
My value is Moral Obligations, which is defined as the practice of moral duties. In order for the U.S. to uphold this vital concept that is stated in the very framework of the Declaration of Independence, when it points to the fact that we are "self-evident" and that we "are endowed by our creator" with these "Inalienable rights" because no power should take them away from the citizens for they deserve the same respect and rights from their government. When those rights are violated then it thus becomes immoral.
My value criterion is national sovereignty. National sovereignty is defined as authority in a political community. In other words meaning we rule our selves and not others ruling us. For we are built upon what morals we have, and other countries are built upon their own morals. For us to submit to a national court would deny us our national sovereignty which thus be immoral and unjust.
Contention 1: national Identity:
In morality and Foreign policy, George F. Kenman stated, "If policies and actions of US government are made to conform to moral standards, those standards are going to have to be Americans own, founded on traditional American principles." For all we have worked for I believe that we should be making choices that are in the best interest of the rest America. Because this is who we are and our national Identity is what morals rights we have worked for. Madeline Morris stated "the international court decisions could hurt the U.S. interests". We have fought for what we have and died for it to. Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote "Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men" We must keep who we are for it is immoral for us to change for we need our

Contention 2: The IC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse
A) The ICC Has No Checks and Balances
-C.T. Cline writes in "Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems": The IC is an institution that lacks checks and balances. The court combines investigation, prosecution, trial, and appeal. It is monolithic and beyond the control of the citizenry or of any counteracting governmental branch. There is no meaningful outside control to curb or rein in possible excesses. This concept is foreign to Americans because the U.S. system of government is founded on the principle of checks and balances, with each branch of government--legislative, executive, judicial--fulfilling a role. But the international has not one of these things. For that will end in abuse." Because with checks and balances as our system proves to better not one person has all the power but with none will lead to abuse.
B) Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse
Look to examples of dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Their unchecked power leads to rights deprivations, atrocious acts and unnecessary violence. While I am not comparing the ICC to a dictator, we have empirical evidence that unchecked power leads to abuse.
I stand in firm negation of the resolution: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. For two main reasons National Identity and The IC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse. I thank you and I am open to questions


I'll simply go down the NC flow.

Value: Moral Obligations

--> I have 3 responses:

First, the resolution never asks us to do what is moral, thus it is not inherent.

Second, even if you don't drop it for inherency, the ideas of moral obligations are unclear in this debate because he never provides a bright-line as to what moral obligations are, and what determines them.

Third, if you dont accept my two kicks agaisnt it, you can turn this agaisnt him on the fact that it would be moral to increase methods of protecting human rights, which would be done through this court.

VC: National Sovereignty

I have 3 responses:

First, national sovereignty is a block agaisnt lots of morality. It creates some of the worst crimes in the history of the world. If a nation can have full, absolute sovereignty then there is no check on that country. That is why we need the ICC. for example, Hitler committed the holocaust within the boundaries of national sovereignty. This leads to response #2

Second, I would argue that when national sovereignty presents a block to justice, then that national sovereignty does not exist. E.g. The Holocaust.

Third, even if you dont buy the first 2 responses, I would argue that joining the ICC gives a balance of protecting national sovereignty and the protection of human rights because by joining we would be able to enact our own policies within the ICC, thus avoiding national sovereignty interference.

C1 - National Identity

Summary of contention + responses:

1. Morality based on US standards

--> The US allowed slavery, so did that make it moral? Morality cannot be based on strictly an American standard.

2. Hurts American Interests

--> The only way to win, is to join the game. Bascially, by not joining we are stopping our influence in the ICC, and thus not helping. But furthermore, if we dont join, we would have no say if a country in the ICC arrests say, one of our humanitarian workers.

C2 - Abuse

A. No checks and Balances

--> The ICC is checked by the security council, and needs a UN referral before proceeding with action.
--> The ICC is checked by the "national committed." Link this back to an above point of mine. THe US needs to join to influence.

B. Unchecked power leads to Abuse

--> It isn't unchecked.
--> Even if it was unchecked it would have less influence because no one would join it, thus they would not abuse their power.
Debate Round No. 2


thanks for the tips it really helped


np. good luck, and send me a message if you ever need help writing a case.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LightC 9 years ago
so, do you want me to pose a negation case, or just do rebuttals agaisnt yours?
Posted by RoyLatham 9 years ago
I think you should go to the forums and ask for advice rather than post a debate topic. Debate topics are for debate. Also, look at the debates on this subject on this site that have been completed.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
Depends on what your arguments are. Besides, debating is better practice than just getting opposing arguments. Helps you to develope how to rebute under presure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70