The Instigator
plainsillylol
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
LightC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,072 times Debate No: 6226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

plainsillylol

Con

Neg

V- Peace
VC- Maintaining Hegemony

Hegemony= A country's influence or authority over others; superpowers.

Submit= to succumb or give up to.

Ought= Obligation in more serious situations, Advisibilty in less serious situations.

Designed= no guarantee

Obs. One important goal of the U.S. is to get as close to a democracy as we can. Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent. Ought can mean 2 different things. In less serious situations, it can be used as a mere suggestion. For example, you ought to try the apple with peanut butter. In more situations, it is used as owing to. For example, the criminal ought to turn himself in. If we impose on the U.S., we are just hurting democracy.

1NC= By forcing the U.S. to inevitably destroy itself to benefit all, you are causing chaos among nations in general.

a)Submitting to an international court would cause another document to be valued higher than the constitution, which devalues the existence of the U.S.
b)When 1 hegemone is gone, another needs to rise. The 2 contenders being China and Russia would end up fighting for the new position.

These chains of events would end up hurting the world as a whole and hurt innocent lives which we know is immoral.

By voting affirmative we would be encouraging the growing apart of nations and end up hurting the world. Therefore, maintaining Hegemony is the only way to ensure this.
LightC

Pro

I'll go NC, then AC

V- Peace
VC- Maintaining Hegemony

--> I have 3 responses:

First, he never makes an warrants why this value structure does the following:
a. Provide a weighing mechanism for the round
b. Provide a link to the resolution
c. Therefore, you can immediately drop his V/VC

Second, I would argue that his value structure is inconsistent between the V and VC. Peace is achieved with consent of the whole global community, bot from the dominance of one country over another, i.e. hegemony. For example, the US is forming a hegemony in the Middle East, but there is obviously no peace.

Third, I would argue that it provides no solvency, and thus should be rejected. I.e. his value structure provides no benefit and solutions.

Ob. 1 "One important goal of the U.S. is to get as close to a democracy as we can. Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent."

--> Inconsistent with proposed value structure. He claims "Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent." If that is true then you are going against your VC of Maintaining Hegemony.

Contention I: By forcing the U.S. to inevitably destroy itself to benefit all, you are causing chaos among nations in general.

a)Submitting to an international court would cause another document to be valued higher than the constitution, which devalues the existence of the U.S.

--> I have 3 responses:

First, again, he makes no warrants as to why his premise is true.

Second, valuing a document higher would not lead to the destruction of the US.

Third, I would argue that it is not valuing a document higher because joining doesn't violate our national jurisdiction. According to the Rome Statute, joining the Court System does not violate national sovereignty, rather it is a mechanism designed to prosecute those that violate a countries own dignity. For example, the court system would have been able to prosecute those that lead the genocide in Rwanda. They have the right to violate sovereignty based on the fact that those crimes against humanity warrant that violation.

b)When 1 hegemony is gone, another needs to rise. The 2 contenders being China and Russia would end up fighting for the new position.

--> I have 3 responses:

First, again, no warrants as to why his premise is true.

Second, simply joining won't undermine US hegemony. Furthermore, joining does not give any reason that Russia and China would fight for that hegemony.

Third, even if you don't buy my 2nd response, I would argue that the fight between Russia and China would ultimately hurt them both, ergo they would not have the ability to make hegemony.

[AC]

I affirm: The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity

For clarity I offer the following definitions:

1. Ought: should
2. Jurisdiction: area of law
3. Crimes against humanity: crimes down on a systematic and widespread area, e.g. genocide

For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations:

1. The resolution is a contextualized as a realistic resolution rather then an idealistic one, because it states the US.
2. The function of this court is to prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity.

The affirmative values Justice, which can be defined as giving each their due. This is an appropriate value because the obligation of a court system is to distribute justice to wrongdoers. This value is achieved by the criterion of Promoting a Safer Society. The link between the two are clear. The court distributes justice, and convicts wrongdoers, which in-turn makes a safer society. This has two impacts:

First, the resolution gives two evaluative statements. 1. The US ought to submit, and 2. prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity. The value structure impacts because the Us ought to submit, if it promotes safety by prosecuting crimes agaisnt humanity.
Second, ought implies an obligation, and an obligation of a court system is to promote safety within society.

Contention I: Legitimacy

By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the US is granted legitimate use of law enforcement to promote the court. For example, the US 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 sue military force in which it will be sued 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.

In-case turn: The negative wants to promote peace by maintaining hegemony. However, use my contention as a turn agaisnt his case because I am the one giving the US legitimate backing to use force.

For these reasons you can affirm.
Debate Round No. 1
plainsillylol

Con

plainsillylol forfeited this round.
LightC

Pro

Extend my arguments. since he did not respond, no new information can be brought up int the next rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
plainsillylol

Con

plainsillylol forfeited this round.
LightC

Pro

Extend my entire case, and all my attacks.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I debate cannot be won by forfeiting.
Posted by PGrabz 8 years ago
PGrabz
kev-bear, jk lol smilez
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
wow...thx
Posted by PGrabz 8 years ago
PGrabz
cirro= overly pompous, possibly caused by child neglect OR inflated ego
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
Seeing as though my opponent is familiar with LD; he is aware of all rules then, ergo we will abide by all LD rules.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BrianErickson 8 years ago
BrianErickson
plainsillylolLightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
plainsillylolLightCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
plainsillylolLightCTied
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