The (January/February 2009) Lincoln–Douglas debate Resolutions.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
This is one of the better LD topics I've seen in a while, and I enthusiastically take up the opportunity to discuss it with Danger_Chams_Eddine.
I will do my best to critique and constructively criticize your case and its component arguments; I ask my opponent however to allow me some room to present my own case in response to his, first so that he has a "live" target to refute in later rounds, and second to make it a bit more interesting. The case I present will be strictly contradictory to his own, to adhere to the initial reason for this debate (i.e., to allow my opponent to practice his case and see its strengths and weaknesses).
I look forward to a good debate!
"Our civilization is now in the transition stage between the age of warring empires and a new age of world unity and peace". Because I agree with the quote by John B. Orr I the Affirm the resolution.
The United States Ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Core value: Peace. Peace is defined as absence of hostility.
Value Criterion: Lessen and eventually prevent crimes against humanity from occurring. Crimes against humanity are defined as an act of persecution or any large-scale atrocity against a body of people. An example of crimes against humanity are genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. These inhuman crimes are extremely hostile. By preventing these crimes from happening then the hostility will lessen till it is absence from reality.
Contention One: The United States should submit to the international courts jurisdiction to achieve peace. An American could commit an inhuman crime thus creating an environment of hostility. The International court would have easier process of prosecuting the American if the United States submits to the court's jurisdiction. The court would lessen and eventually prevent Americans from committing crimes against humanity. Blackwater worldwide a private military company, sponsored a Private Security Detail on September 17, 2007 that killed 17 innocent Iraqis. An U.S. military official who witness the event was quoted as saying that Backwater's guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force. This is a crime of aggression which is consider a crime against humanity. The Blackwater Worldwide Company has lost its contract with the U.S. government but the Private Security Detail will go on unpunished for committing crimes against humanity. The families of the murder Iraqis will never have justice delivered to them for the crimes committed by the American security detail. If the United States government was in the Jurisdiction of a human crimes court the Americans would be properly prosecute and peace would be brought to Iraq.
Contention Two: Americans have specific civil right allotted to them by the American constitution. Such as the7th amendment that allows all Americans the right to trial by jury or the 6th amendment that allows the right to a fair and speedy public trial, Notice of accusations and Confronting one's accuser. The international court would have to be made aware of these rights when prosecuting U.S citizens. By submitting to the international court the court would be aware of American civil rights. All Americans would be prosecuted fairly by U.S. standards. By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court the United States also would influence other nations to do the same. Alice Lyman Miller, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time. The United States is consider the only true super power after the fall of the soviet union, thus illustrating how the U.S. would ultimately influence other nations to join an international court defined in the resolution.
Contention Three: The United States does not have to be weary of the international court infringing upon the U.S. Progress. The Court is designed to prosecute crime against humanity. The court would not interfere with the United States agenda in the international community unless the U.S. or individual Americans commit crimes against humanity. The United States has nothing to fear of the court as long as Americans do not commit crimes against humanity. Also by submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the U.S. is granted legitimate use of law enforcement to promote the court. For example, the U.S. has no right to intervene in Darfur because it has no legitimate backing to use force. According to the Rome statute, a country can have legitimate authority to pursue military force in which it will be used to capture and bring the criminal to the court for prosecution. Therefore, if the US joins the court, it now has legitimacy behind it to intervene because it would be able to enforce the laws of the international community, and thus bring the leaders of the genocide to the court.
The Affirmative nominates the value of peace for the round and firmly urge the judge to vote Affirmative for the win. The value criterion to achieve peace is lessening and eventually prevents crimes against humanity from occurring. The taglines for my contentions go as follows;
1) Crimes against humanity commit by Americans can be prosecuted immediately and effectively if the United States submitted to the international courts jurisdiction.
2) By submitting to the international court, the court will be better educated in American civil or legal rights and would prosecute the Americans fairly, also the United States would influence other nations to do the same which in toll would strengthen the courts jurisdiction.
3) The court would not hassle American international affair as long as United States doesn't commit crimes against humanity. Also the court would allow the U.S. an ability to help prevent Crimes against humanity from happening.
Thank you for listening to my case and I wish my opponent luck. Let's have an interesting debate.
robert.fischer forfeited this round.
Danger_Chams-Eddine forfeited this round.
robert.fischer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.