Resolved: is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate Response to rape
Debate Rounds (2)
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 Morality, 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 ourselves 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
The ICC Has No Checks and Balances. C.T. Cline writes in "Translational 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.
Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse As noted by Senior Policy Analyst Jack Spencer, "one of the key reasons that the United States rightfully declined to become state party to the ICC was because of harassment by international anti-American activists continually making accusations against the US in the court." The Problem With any court such as the ICC is it is an unlimited outlet for abuse. It has no sufficient checks and is completely self-determinant. In an age where our enemies go to any ends to hurt us who is to say that our enemies will not manipulate this court to their own ends.
Contention 3) Deterrence Value;
International courts have no deterrence value making them useless to the United States. Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, Justice Robert Jackson, stated that "wars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. To assume that genocides carry out their policies based on a cost-benefit analysis is a highly unlikely scenario." Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton adds "behind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?" Even Military Power has more of a deterrent value so submitting to the ICC would lower deterrence in fact and even maybe offer an incentive to crimes, knowing the only way they will be punished is by an inefficient and corrupt system.
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 and deterrence value. I thank you
However, I will still respond to their argumentation, disregarding the previous resolution above. For the debaters who are reading this, it will basically be straight-refutation all the way down. Let us start on the standards.
First, I would argue that there is a huge disconnect between the value and the criterion for my opponent. The only justification for why sovereignty impacts to morality would be if we drastically had to change our moral duties. However, the only justification for why this change would occur would be because other countries would change them. This doesn't talk about the ICC, as it is a community of courts that uphold moral values that would be similar to those of the "Declaration of Independence."
Second, I challenge my opponent to show why national sovereignty is always a good thing. If we should value sovereignty over anything else, what gives the U.S. the right to invade other countries and set up what we believe to be the "correct moral duties." It is completely disingenuous to say that we can do it to other countries, yet we cannot submit ourselves to a ICC.
Onto the contention level.
First, use the second argument against the standard to turn Contention 1. We cannot change other countries national identities and deny other countries the ability to do the same to us. Thus, we must submit to an ICC otherwise we do not fit under "moral codes" which he values.
Second, There is no warrant to how American principles will be harmed. Morris states that decisions would hurt U.S. interests. First of all this is bad on a general level because we do not know how. Even more, it warrants nothing because Morris never says that this destroys American principles, but just our interests, which are completely different things. Sometimes, we use drone attacks to achieve our "interests" but at the same time we take away the freedom of life to others, violating our "principles." This disconnect shows how there is no reason from this first contention to vote Neg.
Lack of checks is even worse when we talk about the U.S. working outside other's norms. The fact is that the U.S. does not always do things the "moral" way. We kill in order to achieve our own ends sometimes. For these things we must be checked. However, an ICC would not be made up of just international judges, but would also be checked by American judges as well. This makes a check possible.
Even more, we see that as we show to the international community that we are willing to be accountable, this lack of checks will not hurt us as the neg claims.
The fact that it has no deterrence is non-unique. He doesn't increase deterrence by not joining the ICC. There is no neg offense off this last point.
Overall, we see that we have to join the ICC because of the fact that above he states that we should value sovereignty, not just U.S. sovereignty. The only way to be reciprocal to the violations of sovereignty that we commit is to join the ICC. This means that under his criterion, we still must vote negative. This is even without a negative case. Turns down the NC means that you vote for the Aff.
still the people should go to police or anyone for rescue I thank you
Anyway. Looking at the wording of the resolution we see the words "Morally Permissible." This means that I don't have to talk about the alternatives that my opponent is talking about. He says that they "should" go, but not why. As long as they can go without causing moral instability than it is alright to do the action. The permissibility of the action is just the allowability of the action. This is the burden for me to answer his one sentence.
First. There is no evidence in this round proving that police work. If anything, it is harder for a victim to report their abuse to police because of the abuse they have undergone.
Secondly. It is morally permissible for the victim to take an action because the con gives no reason why it is impermissible to do so.
Thirdly. The victim should have the permissibility to kill an attacker if the immediacy of the action requires self-defense. Many countries use immediacy to justify Self-Defense, and thus we must make these actions permissible because killing is done in self-defense. My opponent gives no argumentation against this.
Lastly, if anything my opponent is forcing these victims to suffer through rape and then go to police or others. Again, since the action is immediate, there is no other way to solve the problem. In order not to be violated, the victim must be allowed to use deadly force.
For these four reasons, we should see why their simple response of using police or others is completely false and propagates the problem. Because of this we must affirm. Thank You.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.