The Instigator
Its-you-or-me
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRaven
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Ld topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheRaven
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,022 times Debate No: 7037
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Its-you-or-me

Pro

I would just like for someone to point out the flaws in my case and give me some new ideas
Edwin Markham -"By a divine paradox, wherever there is one slave there are two. So in the wonderful reciprocities of being, we can never reach the higher levels until all our fellows ascend with us." I agree with quote said by Edwin Markham that a problem can not come to a solution until every individual has come to an agreement to stop it. Therefore I must affirm today's resolution, Resolved:

The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H.

Def.: C.A.H.- as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." ICC.COM

Dictionary.COM
Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies

Submit: to give over or yield to the power or authority of another
ICC
International Court: Since the only International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H. is the ICC I will be using the ICC to define International Court.

The paramount value in today's round is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. Utili. Is the highest priority because by how much corruption there is in the United States such as Gitmo, the U.S. can more easily spread the greater good by having a third party step in and try those that have gone unpunished by committing C.A.H. in such areas.

The best criterion to uphold my value is Protecting Human Rights. Only through this can the greatest good be achieved. Protection of Human rights should be protected as much possible and in any situation that the US has the opportunity to protect Human Rights should undoubtedly and willingly do it because it creates a more peaceful and livable society.

Contention I: The United States does not want to prosecute C.A.H and needs a court that is designed to do so to step in. Eric Saar a soldier who spent three months in the interrogation rooms at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, tells Correspondent Scott Pelley of bizarre, even sadistic, treatment of detainees in the American prison camp. He told 60 Minutes about one interrogation in particular, in which he translated for a female interrogator who was trying to break a high-priority prisoner in which she used vial acts of sexual arousal that were against his religion. Saar says that she later turned off the water to his cell so that he could not clean himself to look clean in the eyes of his god. Saar also reports that he saw a detainee had been "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head." The interrogator explained that the prisoner had been "chanting the Koran and would not stop." Also a report released by Massachusetts-based Physicians for Human Rights reached the conclusion that former terrorist suspects detained by the United States were tortured. The tortures included beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sodomy and scores of other abuses. All the subjects told examiners that they were subjected to multiple forms of torture or ill treatment that "often occurred in combination over a long period of time," the report says. What is happening in Guantanamo shows that the U.S. does not care for the well being of their prisoners and they know that torture is happening which falls under a C.A.H. They choose not to recognize it and let it continue which is going against the Geneva Convention. The U.S. can easily prosecute the interrogators who are committing the torturous acts and they choose not to because they don't see them as either forms of torture or that since they are not P.O.W's though most of them are it "doesn't go against the G.C." To stop the injustice we need a third party, the ICC, to step and stop the inhumane acts, keep the U.S. in check, and to show the U.S. that it can not get away with whatever it so pleases just because it is a super power.

Contention II: (United States) not submitting to the ICC is morally wrong because it is "looking the other way" to criminal acts. To let Crimes against Humanity that the U.S. recognizes continue is wrong and the U.S. therefore has an obligation to join to help stop them. With the United States's military and resources the International Criminal Court can increase efficiency and power to bring committers of crimes to justice. This would reduce the amount of crimes. The US has an obligation to join the ICC. The U.S. has been aware of crimes against humanity happening all around the world. For example, the U.S. has known about crimes in Darfur and has continually looked the other way. The LA times explains that Sudan's president Oman Bashir stands accused of masterminding the use of rape as a form of genocide against several ethnic groups in Darfur. The U.S. has stood idly by while these heinous modern warfare strategies have occurred. To join the ICC would not only protect the human rights of these international citizens, but would provide the most good.

Contention III: Joining the ICC would better the American image. We could change the image from the selfish government that want to control everything to a country that seek to be equal and seek for justice and unity to be sought. By doing so we can tighten the bonds between allies because they would see us as trustworthy and caring.

In conclusion, the U.S. will not prosecute C.A.H and need someone to step in. We have a moral oblig. To join, and can better the a.i. if we submit to the ICC, and by doing so we take a step further to bettering the wellbeing of, not just this countries humanity, but the world as a whole.
TheRaven

Con

Ok I'll start with your arguments.

>>V: Utilitarianism
You give no warrant as to why this value is inherent to the resolution, you only say there are bad things in the world.
Contradicts your case later, I'll explain under C1.
You can never tell what the ends of an action will be, thus there is no way to affirm with this value.

>>VC:
This can never be done to the fullest extent, thus under your value you admit some people must lose their rights so a greater number of people will gain their rights.
I would accept this as the criterion for the round, after establishing the prior point.

>>C1)
Contradiction: You state that the US needs a check to stop them from committing torture, etc to get information out of people. However, by doing these acts of torture the US is able to get information that will ultimately stop other crimes against humanity, and save more people, thus achieving a utilitarian benefit. Thus contention one contradicts your entire value structure as by joining the ICC, the US would no longer be able to get this information and no longer be able to save the greater number of people. You admit in the value structure that it would be necessary to torture these terrorists to save more rights, however contention one is about stopping the US from doing just that.

>>C2)
ICC doesn't have a police force, its a court. The UN provides all peacekeeping forces and we're already in the UN.
The US is already fighting wars in two other countries to stop terrorists and crimes against humanity. If we were to go into Darfur, our military would be spread too thinly to be able to help anyone. We do not have the resources to fight three wars at once.

>>C3)
Turn: you state earlier that by joining we would be prosecuted. This can only lead us to believe that new information would most likely come to light, which could potentially damage our reputation more.
This would not help our image, countries that dislike us to not simply dislike us because of our refusal to join the ICC, they dislike the US because of dozens of reasons, ranging from cultural hatred, to the dislike of our hegemony which would continue.

Advice: Change the value to justice. It results in nearly the same thing, but is easier to defend.
Get rid of C1. Change the case to by the US joining, we would help the ICC be able to prosecute criminals which would deter them in the future. You can also bring up instances in the past where criminals were never prosecuted, i.e. Cambodia and East Timor.
Debate Round No. 1
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
No problem, good luck with it.
Posted by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
So basically i should throw out my contention 1 or reword it and switch my Value to my V.C. and my V.C. to my Value? Thanks for the points raven i haven't been debating that long its only my first year and still learning.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
well i would always define justice using aristotle's definition of "giving each their due" which isn't so vague. however valuing humanity through governmental legitimacy would work fine for this topic.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
We've already started using the March topic here in Utah. But I got thrown into Oratory and Congress for Region and State, so the only tournament I've got with this topic is National Qualifiers.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
It's also worth noting Justice is a poor value. Justice is also a means to an end and is extremely vague in its nature. "Justice" can mean things such as punitive actions in order to rehabilitate, or simply distributing goods to a society. Which is exactly why Justice doesn't work, too vague.

People often make the mistake of using a criterion as a value. It's more common in Novice LD, but it's still out there. Always aim for the most broad value your contentions allow you to uphold, through the most broad criterion you can. You may elaborate on the minute details throughout your case or criterion structure.

On my aff for this topic I valued Humanity through Governmental Legitimacy, and elaborated on how being held accountable for your actions makes you legitimate, and a legitimate government is one that would aim to uphold human rights.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Well put FlamingSheep.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
You don't value Utilitarianism through protecting human rights. You value Human Rights through Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism should never be a paramount value in a round, and Util in general is a terrible idea to use on this topic. Utilitarianism justifies slavery simply because it benefits the majority of the people, and slavery treats some people as lesser humans, thus they don't HAVE their human rights. Utilitarianism also justifies things such as the holocaust. Hitler's intent was to "purify" the human race. Thus, it was the greatest "good" for the greatest number. Using people as a means to an end can constitute grave violations of human rights.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
true. i was thinking strictly in terms of my area, where the last tournament with this topic was harvard.
Posted by PetIn_the_Box 8 years ago
PetIn_the_Box
Still February.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
I thought this topic was over?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Its-you-or-meTheRavenTied
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 TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Its-you-or-meTheRavenTied
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