The Instigator
Freeman
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The Pope should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 9/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,512 times Debate No: 13162
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (8)

 

Freeman

Pro

Pope Benedict XVI and his international syndicate of child rapists have been a continual nuisance to this Earth and an impediment to the welfare of children everywhere. Though it is likely many Catholic leaders would seek to downplay the Pope's role in the church's sex abuse scandals, recent court documents now make it clear the current Pope was at the forefront of the church's handling of these matters. The evidence is unequivocal, the very head of the Roman Catholic Church is chiefly responsible for obstructing justice and for perpetuating the sex crimes that have plagued the Church. Accordingly, civil society must finish what the Vatican has failed to do, because one thing has been made exquisitely clear in light of these recent revelations. Acquiescence to or reticence about such debauchery is not morally salient with the aim of protecting children.

=======> The Case Against The Pope: Why Joseph Ratzinger Must Be Prosecuted and Brought To Justice <=======

C1: Joseph Ratzinger failed to defrock a priest that was a serial child molester.

While he was in a position to remove a child rapist from the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to take any action to defrock a priest that proved to be a serial abuser of children. According to Laurie Goldstein of the New York Times, "Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church." [1] Moreover, numerous court documents validate these allegations. [2] In particular, a letter was sent directly to Cardinal Ratzinger's office on July 17, 1996 that kept him informed of the predator priest. [A-B] Father Lawrence Murphy — the priestly pederast in question — was a known child molester as this issue was brought to the attention of Ratzinger. In fact, Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger on January 12, 1998 in a plea to avoid prosecution. [C-D] Unfortunately, his request was granted, and Murphy was allowed to retain his status as a priest until the day he died. Given these facts, it should be obvious that the failure to prosecute Murphy is largely a consequence of the current Pope's prior actions.

C2: Joseph Ratzinger allowed the reassignment of a pedophile priest.

As an Archbishop in the 1980's, Ratzinger allowed a pedophile to remain in the priesthood despite warnings that he must never be allowed to work with children again. This particular priest, Peter Hullerman, was discovered to be a child molester in 1980 and was given "therapy" by a psychiatrist that the Catholic Church turned to. Only days after this "therapy," Hullerman was transferred to another diocese in Munich and was allowed to continue his career as a child molester with his priestly robes still around him. Of course, his "therapy" didn't appear to work, since he later went on to molest more children.

In addition, there is now concrete evidence that Ratzinger was directly involved in this state of affairs. Nicholas Kulish and Katrin Bennhold of the New York Times have shown that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish." [3] Furthermore, the memo in question also shows that "the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest's reassignment." In other words, Ratzinger knowingly transferred a pedophile to work with more children. Quite plainly, this is criminal negligence, and if the Pope were the head of a secular institution, it is quite likely that he would be dealing with much more than banal proclamations of moral disapproval.

C3: Joseph Ratzinger sought to keep the church's sex abuse crimes secret.

At the time that he was acting as the leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was diligently obscuring efforts within the church to uncover sex abuse. And all of this was going on as many Catholic priests under his jurisdiction were diligently torturing and raping children across the globe. [4] As though this wasn't bad enough, the clerical hierarchy of the church turned a blind eye to the whole situation. Moreover, there is now strong evidence to suggest that the church initiated a cover up in the aftermath of these events so that it could protect its reputation. Of course, these revelations are not surprising. For years the Catholic Church has demonstrated that it is more concerned with protecting itself as an institution than it is with protecting the children under its care. Unfortunately, this callous indifference was brought to a rather contemptible crescendo in the years of Ratzinger's prominence as a Cardinal.

In May of 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every Bishop of the Catholic Church. In this letter, he reminded his subordinates what the penalties would be if any of them dared to expose pedophile priests to legal authorities or the press. He also made it crystal clear that charges against priests were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." [5] Ratzinger's letter goes on to say that 'preliminary investigations' of abuse allegations are to be sent directly to his office and that such cases were to be handled under the Church's own jurisdiction. The letter concludes by stating that 'Cases of this kind [i.e., sexual abuse cases] are subject to the pontifical secret'. [6] Such sentiments have not only harmed prosecution efforts in the past, but they also endanger children in the present that could be abused because of the precedent of this policy.

The Catholic Church — in its enigmatic role as being a bastion of moral wisdom and the vessel of eternal truth par excellence — has yet to excommunicate anyone for torturing and raping children. However, thanks to the work of Joseph Ratzinger, those within the church who would seek to protect children from rapists could very well risk losing their job in the church and face excommunication. In doing this, it seems almost certain that cases of sexual abuse will continue and grow since parishioners are more inclined not to report them. You see ladies and gentlemen, the Catholic Church does have its standards. Lucretius was right: Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

::Conclusion::

In light of the recent evidence outlined above, it has now become apparent that Pope Benedict XVI had an intimate role in helping keep sexual abuse within the church secret; protecting child molesters from prosecution; and transferring a known pedophile priest who went on to molest more children. Words do not – indeed could not – adequately speak to the magnitude of these crimes. Consequently, the current papacy – and the clerical hierarchy that it watches over – now exudes the stench of an evil so foul and systemic that even an ocean of holy water couldn't dispel it. Luckily, the paper trail in these abuse cases leads back to the Vatican and to the doorstep of its most uncouth and decadent bete noire. What is needed now is not disingenuous pronouncements of forgiveness. The actions of this Pope require real justice - the kind of justice that the good people at The Hague seem apt to dispense.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for the debate. I shall now disprove my opponents points, since he has the burdon of proof, and if I can successfully disprove them, then I should win this debate (correct me if I'm wrong, Pro.)

=REBUTTALS=

C1: My opponents contetion claims that Joseph ratzinger "failed to defrock a priest that was a serial child molester." However, he was not a serial child molester. Under the law of the United States Supreme Law, a citizen is innoccent until proven guilty in a court of law with a verdict by their peers. The "sex offender" in question was never convicted of these crimes. However, due to the public attention and pressure, the Church was forced to take action, even though there was no evidence other than testimony (which in itself is not enough to convict, so he was not).

According to my opponents article (http://www.nytimes.com...), the Church DID have a formal trial for Father Murphy. However, due to health reasons, his arrival to these were impossible. When this trail was called off, tension eased and interests moved away for a while. He was moved to another community to not draw attention 24 YEARS ago! He died shortly before the 2000's.

My opponent (even though this is a legal case) takes the stance of moral highground. However, this issue was not brought up until recently. If the time for "justice" is immediate, as he claims, then he as well as the rest of the world, with all due respect, should on the day of finding the "injustice" rise against it. However, I assert there was no injustice, just public pressure.

My opponent states that "In fact, Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger on January 12, 1998 in a plea to avoid prosecution.", but it was never proven that he wrote back. Even so, within the year, Murphy died, stating he wanted to live out the rest of his short life in diginity of priesthood. For all we know, he could have died before they could write a letter.

For this contention, I assert that he was not a sex offender and/or child molester. The article in his "evidence" states that there was no attempt at arrest by authorites, and that the Church held it to matters more of sin and repentance. Of course they would! They are a religious group and in America, which is the case of the supposed crime, we have antidisestablishmentarianism, which means the Church can not interefear on a state level. The Church did not recieve a request to cooperate with authorities because there was no evidence, therefore he was not convicted, and in America you are innocent until proven guilty.

C2: My opponent says "He stayed in priesthood despite warnings..." There were no warnings, because warning implies consequence for an impedning wrong. There was no wrong for there was no crime, therefore there couldn't have been warnings, just critisism and heated suggestions. For example, the Micheal Jackson case, he was believed to be a pedifile and charged. He was innocent though until proven guilty, which he was not. We should make the same principal to this case.

"...was discovered a child molester..." No, he never was.

"The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish." Where is the direct source for this? By my knowledge, he was never formally convicted of a sex crime.

You state that it is criminal negligence, but you have yet directed me to a specific article where he was convicted of that crime.

C3: There was no sex crime to be had, so there was no secrecy. It is not a matter that they hid the "crimes", but they did not endorse and promote slander without any evidence against them. If there was a crime, it would have been brought to the authorities, but hearsay, to ALL judges, is not viable in court, nor the real world. If someone told my employer that I stole from work just because they didn't like me, there would be an uproar at work and more may incite this of me. Micheal Jackson's case was similar, for more people claimed he molested their children, but was never brought to court. Why? They couldn't prove it.

"And all of this was going on as many Catholic priests under his jurisdiction were diligently torturing and raping children across the globe." This is an exaggeration. Even if it was true, which I am not saying it is, you can't control everyone, but they can report them IF THEY ARE PROVEN GUILTY. It is not the Church's job to operate off of hearsay, nor is it the authorities. In Father Murphey's case, the police did not see enough evidence to pursue a court trial. You should be harassing them and not these religious officals.

Yes, there probably was a matter secrecy, but you wouldn't want negative attention to your cause if you were alleged of false, unproven accusations, would you? This is not a crime, for no crime was proven. If I went to my work and bad-mouthed it, I would be fired as well. It's not a matter secrets, but a matter of slander. I can't even speak about the military if the news media came to me. It's not a primary issue of secrecy, but slander issue.

=Conclusion=

I believe that I have succesfully rebutted all of my opponents points. If I missed something, please bring it to my attention. Before I end my turn, I would like to stress these last few things:

1. Nothing had been proven in Father Murphey's "case".
2. Police authorities did not seek the Church's compliance because they, in their expert law knowledge, did not find it adequate to entertain such ludicris allegations that did not have proof. Therefore, the Church did not fail to comply or report.
3. It is not secrecy or blackmail to request your constituants of business not to slander your buisness with allegations that were not proven.
Debate Round No. 1
Freeman

Pro

Let me begin by stating that I am deeply grateful for my opponent's response. I was beginning to fear that this debate would be swept into oblivion as no one took a stand to defend the Pope. The gravity of the claims we are dealing with really cannot be overstated. If everything I am claiming is true (and all the evidence indicates that it is), then it is very hard, indeed, to imagine how the Pope would not be criminally responsible for many instances of abuse within the Catholic Church. Having said that, let's see if we can't agree on a few things before the debate comes to an end.

C1: Joseph Ratzinger failed to defrock a priest that was a serial child molester.

Honestly, I can't really see how much of what my opponent has written about the Murphy case is relevant to the debate. Murphy admitted to being a child molester; his guilt here is not in question. Laurie Goldstein has proven this by showing that "In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse." [1] Simply put, Ratzinger failed to act so that this priest could even be temporarily removed from the priesthood. Even if Ratzinger couldn't find the time to respond before Murphy died, then that is criminal incompetence, since he was the head of the very department that oversaw these matters. That is the real issue here, which my antagonist has not addressed.

C2: Joseph Ratzinger allowed the reassignment of a pedophile priest.

I am slightly saddened to realize that my opponent is simply uninformed about the details of the case involving Peter Hullerman. In his last round, he goes on to say that "There was no wrong [in the Hullerman case] for there was no crime... just criti[c]ism and heated suggestions." This claim is based on a serious amount of misinformation. Hullerman was known by the church to be a child molester; this is partly why he agreed to go to therapy. After this therapy occurred, he was returned to the priesthood and later convicted of molesting more children. [2] These are not opinions that I hold; these are matters of fact corroborated by actual evidence and credible journalists. Moreover, we know for a fact that then Archbishop Ratzinger approved the transfer of this priest. None of what my opponent has written refutes any of this.

C3: Joseph Ratzinger sought to keep the church's sex abuse crimes secret.

My opponent's argument in this section stems, once again, from the baseless assertions he has made that there is no evidence that sex abuse crimes ever took place. As I have shown, none of the claims I have made are based on hearsay. More importantly, even if there is only a claim against a priest that he is a child molester, then a few things need to happen. 1.) The priest should be temporarily removed from his post and not allowed to work with children until the matter has been completely resolved. 2.) If there is evidence that indicates the claim is true, then the legal authorities must be notified and a criminal court should take up the case to determine if the priest is actually guilty. 3.) And if the priest is guilty, he should become a registered sex offender and serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate. Joseph Ratzinger not only told Catholic Bishops to avoid legal authorities, but he also failed to remove dangerous priests from the priesthood. Furthermore, this dereliction of duty is made even more outrageous when one considers the full extent to which abuse took place. Consider, for a moment, the detailed description of some of these events as told by a few of the victims in the CICA report.

"7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the second School, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers: 'I was brought to the infirmary...they held me over the bed, they were animals....They penetrated me, I was bleeding'. Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two Brothers in the toilets off the dormitory:

One Brother kept watch while the other abused me ...(sexually)... then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again.

I would have to go into his ...(Br X's)... room every time he wanted. You'd get a hiding if you didn't, and he'd make me do it ...(masturbate)... to him. One night I didn't ...(masturbate him)... and there was another Brother there who held me down and they hit me with a hurley and they burst my fingers ...displayed scar....
...

7.232 Witnesses reported being particularly fearful at night as they listened to residents screaming in cloakrooms, dormitories or in a staff member's bedroom while they were being abused. Witnesses were conscious that co-residents whom they described as orphans had a particularly difficult time:

The orphan children, they had it bad. I knew ...(who they were)... by the size of them, I'd ask them and they'd say they come from ...named institution.... They were there from an early age. You'd hear the screams from the room where Br ...X... would be abusing them.

There was one night, I wasn't long there and I seen one of the Brothers on the bed with one of the young boys ... and I heard the young lad screaming crying and Br ...X... said to me "if you don't mind your own business you'll get the same". ... I heard kids screaming and you know they are getting abused and that's a nightmare in anybody's mind. You are going to try and break out. ... So there was no way I was going to let that happen to me.... I remember one boy and he was bleeding from the back passage and I made up my mind, there was no way it ...(anal rape)... was going to happen to me. ... That used to play on my mind." [3]

The John Jay report identified several contributing factors in the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals. As indicated by the report, these factors include: 1.) Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem 2.) Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal 3.) Use of unqualified treatment centers 4.) Misguided willingness to forgive 5.) Insufficient accountability. [4] As I have demonstrated, Ratzinger has consistently aggravated all five of these factors numerous times, and has therefore played an integral role in the abuse of children.

::Conclusion::

None of what my opponent has said can honestly be used as a defense of the Pope. He has merely offered several pieces of information that are either inaccurate or irrelevant. On the other hand, I have consistently used evidence, solid evidence, to back up all of my claims. This Pope cannot hide behind plausible deniability as a defense of his actions. We have his signature on some of the letters and documents in question. [5-6] In any case, these actions undeniably merit a trial. If the Pope is found guilty after such a trial, then he should serve the appropriate sentence. If he is tried and miraculously found innocent through some legal loophole, then Catholics all over the world can be very proud of their dear leader. In either case, Pope Benedict XVI will be remembered for little else after he ceases to be the Vicar of Christ.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...
Itsallovernow

Con

Itsallovernow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Freeman

Pro

Thank you for the debate, Con. It would appear as if...
Itsallovernow

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate. I would like the audience to note, that forfieting a round is a loss of conduct, not a debate loss.

The Murphy Case, in every aspect, is relevant to the debate. You stated, "Murphy admitted to being a child molester; his guilt here is not in question." Unless there are offical court documents that incriminate him of being a child molester or admitting to it, he is not a registered sex offender, and therefore innocent because he was never convicted. I garuntee you if I look on the Sex Offender Registery, I would not find him.

Since this debate is entirely a legal debate, we must look at this in a legal manner, and, legally, he never committed an offense. This debate, based on legalism, can not operate off of hearsay. If he indeed 'admitted' to it, the police did not see it fit to charge him with a crime. Which is my main CONTENTION: He was never convicted, so he's innocent. In a flat-out legal sense, he never committed a crime.

You stated this from your source, "In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse."

The Church took action from 'complaints' and hired a social worker to investigate. An evaluation is not a mental assessment and it does not provide enough time to decide if one has a mental illness. I know, because I went through the process several times. The social worker can not legally disclose what a person said, and, even if it was true or false, it is still hearsay. Also, the social worker seems unsure of the numbers. "Probably molested 200 boys and felt no remorse." This could also be biasm, if complaints were as numorous as you say, because this statement alone is unprofessional.

If the social worker was hired by the Church, then you can not say the Church did not take action to ensure Father Murphy was not a child molester. You state I have not addressed the matter of criminal incompetance, which I have. My claim is he never comitted the crime, and there are NO LEGAL RECORDS to prove it!

Also, I'd like to beg your pardon on the Hullerman case, because he was suspended and, as a direct quote from the Church, "forbidden from any work with children." He broke this ban on his own accord, so please do not say that I am uninformed.
a. http://www.thaindian.com...

On the matter of 'secrecy', I believe you mean in examples like "The archdiocese also declined to reveal the full name of the priest."? It is not a matter of secrecy, but one of protection. His family could be publicly persecuted for his crime or worse. It isn't rational for any business to release every detail of everything about it's people. They told what the public needed to know and they acted upon it, but they are not obligated to give names for the protection of the person in question.

"As I have shown, none of the claims I have made are based on hearsay. More importantly, even if there is only a claim against a priest that he is a child molester, then a few things need to happen. 1.) The priest should be temporarily removed from his post and not allowed to work with children until the matter has been completely resolved"

Yes, your claims are entirely based on hearsay. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS NEXT PART APPARENT! You state that even 1 claim of pedifalism should put them on suspension? In the first statement of this debate, you declare the Pope himself and the entire church a 'sydicate of child rapists'! That alone, by your definition, should suspended Catholism! It is my exact point that hearsay without legal evidence is what can detrimentalise everyone and is very harmful. Your first word, first statement of this debate was biased and not befitting conduct for a proper legal debate.

You stated, "3.) And if the priest is guilty, he should become a registered sex offender and serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate." But Father Murphy was never registered, for he was not guilty, for there was no conviction.

Conclusion

Based on the fact that no legal evidence has been provided, it can be safely said that Father Murphy was innocent until his dying day and the Church took action against both priests. Therefore, THE POPE SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO COURT! I myself have high critisisms for the Pope, but what he does is legal, but though my views are different from his I must still respect them.

My opponent also did not refute the Church took action by legal trial in my previous posting. Based on the evidence presented in this round and the last, my opponent can not say the Church does not, did not take legal action. Therefore, the Pope should not be arrested.

He also neglected to address my matter of his stance on moral highground and the cry for immediate justice.

He also neglected to acknowledge my subpoint before C2 of repentance and that police never even attempted to arrest the priest.

He COMPLETELY neglected C2!

He also did not address what I stressed on point 2 and 3 of my last posting.

For the reasons above, I believe I won the debate, and I heavily urge you to

=VOTE CON=
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Thank you for voting reasonably, RoyLatham. And furthermore I agree with you, though I couldn't find a way to word it. He didn't cite a law, lol. That's why I don't really like online debating too much, because the voting is so unprofessional. I recently did a mock trial. I was surprised at how much this site helped me grow as a debater, though, because my peers were not well-equipped.

The jury voted in favor of my casee 8-3. The resolution was Mr. Smith should be taken off the sex offender registery. Thier reasoning was "There's no murder registery, so he shouldn't be on the sex registery." Uh....making your own arguments, jury? Furthermore, people that are convicted murderers, are in for LIFE usually!
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro has the burden to show that an international law was violated, that the jurisdiction of the International Court extends to the Pope, and that there is sufficient cause to try the Pope. Pro did not cite any international law and made no case that the Pope is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. It think that Pro's case shows reason to believe that the Pope was morally culpable and he might even be prosecuted under US law or maybe Vatican law, but Pro did not make a prima facia case that there was a violation of international law or that the Court has jurisdiction. When arguing law, there is an obligation to cite the relevant law, and Pro didn't meet that obligation. If the contention is that the Court should decide what is legal and who it applies to, as well as determine guilt, then we would have a different debate. Con does not have to say anything if Pro's case is not prima facia.

I wonder at the general mindset that is really interested in going after the Pope, but never says a word about prosecuting terrorists who cut off heads on television. Apparently the idea is to use International Courts very selectively. Pro, of course, did not suggest that terrorists not be brought to account; but the debate topic is a clue to what liberal minds think is really important. North Korea has concentration camps for political prisoners; Iran stones women to death on the word of their husbands. Not a job for International Courts, but the Pope is well worth going after.

Con loses conduct for the forfeit.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RFD:
Conduct - Pro, Con forfieted a round.
Spelling and Grammar - tied
Arguments - Pro, Con's attempt that proving that the crimes did not occur was totally unconvincing in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
Sources - Pro, all the evidence seems to support his case
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
I'll read and RFD later on once I finish this stupid book...for now I'll give the conduct point to Freeman.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
And Father Murphy, to the best of my knowledge, was never charged with molesting boys. Therefore, the Pope did not neglect a criminal case.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Because the primary concern for charging the Pope is criminal negligence, however, if there is no criminal case to neglect, the Pope should not be charged with anything.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
Why does "innocent until proven guilty" negate the resolution when Pro is attempting to "prosecute", i.e. prove guilty, the Pope?
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Why are there so many "debate people" named Freeman? It's insane! Aside from that, I'm going to try really hard at this one, so no 'vote-bombing', please.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"What is it that makes, say, Kim Il-Jung a matter of no concern to liberals, whereas the Pope merits a lynching "in the interests of justice"?"

Alright... 4 things

1. We haven't caught Bin Laden. It's rather hard to prosecute someone that has disappeared off the radar, wouldn't you agree?

2. Kim Jung Il is a despot with nuclear weapons. Perhaps you haven't factored this into the equation.

3. If someone wants to go after King Abdullah, then more power to them. They should take out Omar al-Bashir while they are at it.

4. I am not just concerned about the Pope.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
the point is that the business of the International court s not dispensing justice. Insofar as itdoes anything, it is mainly an instrument for carrying out political vendettas. the appeal for an indictment by The Hague is a call for a lynching, not justice. the principle of lynching is that ordinary legal processes will not carry out the mob's concept of justice, therefore the person has to be lynched in the name of justice.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
FreemanItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
FreemanItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
FreemanItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05