The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The (January/February 2009) Lincoln–Douglas debate Resolution.

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: 1/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 6429
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I do not want to debate. I just want some one to read my case and destroy it. Please help me out and find all the cracks in my case and explain why there is a problem with my case. The actually resolution is;
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Please attack me in a constructive format!
I will post my case when i find an opponent.


Allrighty, let's hear it. Why _don't_ you think the US should submit to an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity? How is this a bad idea? Do you think the US often implements fair punishments or reactions to crimes against humanity? Do you think the US does a good job of dealing with such crimes? Better than an unbaised international court would?

You asked for critical and constructive attacks on your position on this matter, so I'll wait to hear your position before saying a thing ;)
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks bauerdude for lending a hand in helping me create a great case.

"Proper government or the legitimacy of the government involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions of the state are the most appropriate and only proper ones for the society." Because I agree with American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset I negate the resolution.
The United States Ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity- is an act of persecution or any large-scale atrocity against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.
Core Value: Governmental Legitimacy. Governmental legitimacy is defined as the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern and with some recognition by the governed of that right. The government legitimacy is intertwined with it legal and court system, thus making the society of that government under the jurisdiction of only its government's courts.
Value Criterion: Allowing the United States government handle all legal matters concerning U.S. citizens. The U.S. government would not have true legitimacy over its society if an international court could prosecute it citizens without adhering to the constitution of the United States.
Contention One: A Bill of Rights is a list of rights that are considered important and essential to a government's legal system. The purpose of these bills is to protect those against infringement by the government. The United States Bill of rights guarantee right to be allotted to all American citizens. The U.S. Government must protect all Americans, benevolent or nefarious, rights. The fourth to eighth amendment specifically high light how an American must be prosecuted in a court of law.
4thInterdiction of unreasonable Searches and seizures; warrants
5thIndictments; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.
6thRight to a fair and speedy public trial, Notice of accusations, Confronting one's accuser, Subpoenas, Right to counsel
7thRight to trial by jury in civil cases
8thNo excessive bail & fines or cruel & unusual punishment
The international court system is not one that is built upon the stones of the US constitution or the US bill of rights. By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court the US would allow a foreign judicial branch the power to prosecute Americans however the court see fit. Therefore the court should not be allowed to prosecute Americans because it will not uphold American rights. Also the constitution clearly defines the original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, referring to the Supreme Court states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases… between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Submitting to the International Court would amount to a clear breach of the constitution, as the Constitution gives only the U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction over cases in which U.S. citizens are involved. The U.S. government has no way of guaranteeing constitutional protections to its citizens in an international court setting. The U.S. has no control over the court proceedings of an international court, and cannot be sure that their citizens are granted their constitutional rights. Even worse, the ICC has consistently blocked US attempts at modifying its structure. According to Hulsman and Schaeffer, "America needed a voice in the deliberations over the ICC's structure so that its serious concerns could be properly addressed. But America's efforts to change the ICC's structure were rejected by most of the other nations involved in the negotiations". For a more specific example, International Court violates the 6th amendment to the US constitution. The 6th amendment states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." In the U.S., the justice system has many checks and balances to make sure the jury that is trying the criminal is impartial. However, politicization of trials in the International Court could lead to U.S. citizens being tried by a tribunal that is biased against the U.S. Carpenter, explains "some -- perhaps all -- of the judges on a panel might come from countries where there is no concept of an independent judiciary or a tradition of fair trials. A defendant could even face jurists who were officials in regimes that were openly biased against his government or political movement."
Contention Two: The United States Government can better prevent crimes against humanity from being committed by Americans or foreigners better than any criminal court. For example the United States was the major factor in World War two in defeating Hitler's Nazis Germany and ending the Jewish holocaust happening in Europe. When the Ustaše regime in Croatia started to exterminate Muslims the United States step in and ended the Croatian holocaust. The United States has been in the fore front when it comes to protecting human rights and preventing crimes against humanity before doing so became popular by other nations and the world wide opinion of donating or using military force to prevent crimes against humanity. The United States does not need any help in prosecuting its citizens or foreign human crime criminals. An international criminal court would just get in the way. When the United States government found out that U.S. soldiers were committing grave crimes against inmates in the Abu Ghraib prison, the United States prosecuted and punished the soldiers properly for their crimes. Accounts of abuse, torture, sodomy and homicide were all reported being done at the hands of American soldiers. The U.S. was quick to respond to breach in human rights and act of crimes against humanity, and punished the soldiers to the full extent of American law. The U.S. has shown in the past that is can prevent crimes against humanity from being committed by itself or other nations without the help of an international court.
The Negative nominates the value of Governmental Legitimacy for the round and firmly urge the judge to vote Negative for the win. The value criterion to achieve Governmental Legitimacy is allowing the United States government handle all legal matters concerning U.S. citizens.
. The taglines for my contentions go as follows;
1) The international court would prosecute Americans not according to the United States laws and not uphold the Americans' civil rights.
2) The United States government can prevent Americans or itself from committing crimes against humanity, therefore not need any help.
Thank you for listening to my case and I wish my opponent luck. Let's have an interesting debate.


bauerdude forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Danger_Chams-Eddine forfeited this round.


bauerdude forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 7 years ago
Thanks for the proposition.
I'll look into it.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
you can email your case to me

(its not letting me send the email address)

I dont do LD so dont be afraid im just going to use it, but I have an understanding of the debate. This topic is also very policy so I can help you on in that aspect

Id rather give you straight up advice instead of the BS i would come up with if i would actually debate you
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 7 years ago
for this debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
Are you for or against the resolution?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF