The Instigator
TheOrangeOfYonatan
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Its-you-or-me
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

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
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: 1/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,040 times Debate No: 6632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

TheOrangeOfYonatan

Pro

Since this is a debate on the current LD topic, I would like to debate someone who is familiar with how LD debate works. I wish whoever accepts this topic a good round, and best of luck!

"With great power becomes great responsibility." Because I agree with the words of Uncle Ben, I affirm the resolution, The United States ought to submit to jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity."
My value for today's round is…
V. Justice
Because the resolution states, The United States "ought", making it a moral debate. This debate also speaks of joining an international court, and a court is a justice system.
My value criterion for the round is…
VC. Protection of Human Rights
This is a fitting value criterion because an infringement on human rights would not uphold justice. The resolution talks about "prosecuting crimes against humanity", which would be a violation of human rights. In order to uphold justice, we need to protect our basic human rights, which are displayed in prosecuting crimes against humanity.
Because justice cannot be upheld
Definitions:
Crimes Against Humanity: Defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of ore or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority."
Justice: The administering of deserved punishment or reward. Random House Dictionary
Jurisdiction: The extent of range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority.
Observation 1. The resolution calls for the use of an international court, and for this debate, we will be talking specifically of the ICC. The ICC is already in place, and is the international court with the most global credibility.

1. The United States could make a substantial contribution to preventing crimes against humanity.
A. The United States involvement into the ICC would further legitimize the court.
The United States is arguably the most powerful nation in the world. The United States has done what it thought right in other countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Germany. The United States has historically invaded other countries in order to spread what they thought to be "justice", and it would only further legitimize the court if the United States were to join. A Professor at University of Montevallo, Scott Turner says, "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990's. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction." The United States not joining would merely make us be viewed as, "hypocritical." The United States would lose soft power if we didn't join, and we would further legitimize the court if we would join.
B. The United States has the global firepower to get things done.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, the United States has over 300 million people, we are third in the world's available military manpower, over 100 million people totally available fit for military service, and we have the highest purchasing power on the globe. The US can do some pretty heavy damage. We would have the means necessary in order to enforce justice. We would just the strength the ICC needs.
C. The United States could prosecute crimes against humanity in places where they do not have the power to ensure justice.
There are instances where people do not have to power to punish people who are committing crimes against humanity. Adolf Hitler exterminated 2/3 of the Jewish population. (According to Lucy Dawidowicz's book, The War Against the Jews) Hitler faced many assassination attempts, but nobody was strong enough to take down the force of the Nazi party. Germany wasn't strong enough to take down Hitler, and if the US joined the ICC, we could add substantial aid to countries that don't have the power to punish people who need to be punished.
D. The United States could prosecute crimes against humanity in places where they do not wish to ensure justice.
The President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir has been charged with a committing a crime against humanity. Sudan is currently in a state of ethnic-cleansing. Right now, over 5 percent of the Sudan population is dead (according to Prentice Hall) because of this rising conflict. The Black Muslim ethnic group in charge of the government is trying to take down the Black Christian ethnic group. The ICC has called for the President of Sudan to be tried in their courts, but Sudan simply will not extradite him. They are saying, "come and get him." Well, if the US were to join the ICC that would change real quickly. The US has never been shy, and we are used to parading into places we aren't wanted in order to do what we want. We would give the ICC enforcement.

2. The United States has committed crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished.
The United States sent over 110,000 Japanese Americans to Internment Camps. (Manzanar National Historic Site) We had over 4 million African-American slaves in the US. (1860 Census) We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and killed an estimated 220,000 innocent civilians. (Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission) Most of the injustices we have done as a country have gone unpunished. We cannot allow for instances like these to occur. History has shown that the United States has committed crimes against humanity, and they cannot go unpunished. We have continued to get away with it, but with joining the jurisdiction of the ICC, things should change.

The United States needs to join the ICC in order to maintain Justice and protect human rights. With the United States participation, we could make a substantial contribution to the prosecution of crimes against humanity. We will keep our own government in check, and prevent ourselves from committing crimes against humanity. The United States can absolutely not look away from other countries that violate civil rights, because we end up paying for them. The United States can no more look away unless it's in their best interests. We have to ensure human rights, or else our country could fall.
Its-you-or-me

Con

I would like to think my opponent and wish him/her luck
Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." I agree with this because I believe that Americans deserve the rights that are stated in the Constitution and nothing should be put above it. And therefore I negate the resolution

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to Jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute Crimes against Humanity

Definitions:

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."

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

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.

Value: Independence- Independence puts the differences between different societies across the globe. In every world justice system it is necessary to give them independence from one another because of the change in them. And what may be tolerable may not be by others.

V.C. National Sovereignty- the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country and its people, which make its power. By submitting to the ICC it is excepting a new court over it's own and devaluing the constitution therefore taking away the U.S. sovereignty.

Contention 1- By the U.S. giving itself to the ICC (submitting) it will lessen its own existence. The U.S. constitution was mainly made for the purpose of protecting the people of the nation first and the nation itself. By allowing the ICC to come in and have power and influence the U.S. is no longer by itself but a larger country. Its Constitution becomes void because there is a higher power, which goes to that court system which can then prosecute the U.S. citizens freely. Then their laws can take power over the laws of the U.S and endanger the United States.

Contention 2- The ICC is not properly structured.
A) The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen.
B) By joining we lose Right to a Speedy Trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, those being accused can sometimes be held up to 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a speedy trial, with 90 days being the limit.
C) Even American citizens who get tried by the icc can get tried again. The Fifth Amendment of the American constitution says "… nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Article 20 (3) of ICC says: Persons acquitted by a national court can be brought to trial again if the ICC concludes that the original trial was "conducted in a manner which, in the circumstance, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice." One purpose of American rules of trial evidence is to protect individual liberty, giving power to the purpose of the Bill of rights, which is designed to restrain governmental abuse. That results in the exclusion of evidence obtained illegally. But the ICC has lower standards for warrants and the legitimacy of evidence. Thus, a judgment of not guilty by an U.S. court because of illegally obtained or unreliable evidence might well be rejected by the ICC as being "inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice", resulting in a second trial by the ICC using the very same evidence that had previously been rejected by the U.S. court because it was considered unreliable or illegal under our Bill of Rights.

In conclusion by giving away our jurisdiction, we our giving up our freedom.

Negate
I will now move onto attack my opponents case.

Value Justice- First of all you dont really define why justice is a stable value for this debate you just say "Because the resolution states, The United States "ought", making it a moral debate. This debate also speaks of joining an international court, and a court is a justice system."- thats not really a valid reason to have justice for this debate. What are you bringing to justice also are you using Rawls justice...what?

Contention I-
A-The United States involvement into the ICC would further legitimize the court.- This statement is false and his whole contention 1 is false and i will prove how. By joining you are submitting to ones will therefore not having power in ones court to do anything. What your saying is that if we were to join we could go in and make things stable. In order to do so you need power which once submitting the U.S. will not have. What you are speaking of is more of taking over. Like an invasion you would say. Quote "The United States would lose soft power if we didn't join, and we would further legitimize the court if we would join." -True we lose power but not because we didnt join because we did join i proved that in my whole case.
B-This is not even a valid reason. First of all if we were to join they would they could prosecute the us military for a crime against humanity while they were working for them and the icc could lessen the us military forces due to a danger to humanity. No way in any way is this a valid reason
C-We dont prosecute crimes against h. in the first place. By basing off what you said it sounds like you want us not to submit but to go in and have complete control and therefore automatically losing because you fail to pass with the burden of proof and you go against the resolution.
D-Is a repeat.

2- Your contention I goes against you second.
You say really more that we should take over than submit. So why would we want to prosecute ourselves

His case is poorly constructed and contradicts himself and goes against the resolution therefore is an automatic win-me/ loss-him
Negated
Debate Round No. 1
TheOrangeOfYonatan

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

"Value: Independence- Independence puts the differences between different societies across the globe. In every world justice system it is necessary to give them independence from one another because of the change in them. And what may be tolerable may not be by others."

This value premise does not stand up to justice for many reasons.
1. Justice is more important than independence because a country can be totally unjust and still uphold his value.
2. This suggests that a country would completely operate on it's on no matter what.
3. This value would only work in a world that had limited to no interaction between countries.
4. It is an injustice to stand by and do nothing. This would mean that one country would have to stand by and watch another nation suffer and do nothing.
5. This value would not be able to maintain any ground if in fact countries did not operate on their own. We sign international treaties, we have the United Nations, and many other international groups that have the United States involvement. If we were to uphold this value, then we would be assuming that we would withdraw from the United Nations and any other form of international multilateralism that would in anyhow not uphold complete national sovereignty.
6. This would also imply that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were moral. The Constitution is only what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean. They are just 9 dudes who get appointed by former presidents. At one point the Constitution legalized slavery, preventing women from voting, and barring the purchase of alcohol.
7. This would also mean that the US would operate on it's own, even if it were to completely fail at doing so.

"V.C. National Sovereignty- the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country and its people, which make its power. By submitting to the ICC it is excepting a new court over it's own and devaluing the constitution therefore taking away the U.S. sovereignty."

This Value Criterion also falls for many reasons.

"First they came for the Communists, but I did not speak up because I wasn't a Communist. And then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. And then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Jew. And then they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemoller

1. This means that a country were to operate on it's own even if by doing so it would fail to maintain justice.
2. This means that an unjust country would have just as much of a right to operate on its own as a just country.
3. This means that the world should stand by and allow crimes against humanity as long as it happens in another country. Which would also mean that we do nothing in the Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide, Armenian Genocide, Sudan Genocide, and other crimes against humanity across the country.
4. This ideology allows for the destruction of the world one country at a time.
5. This means that the entire world could commit crimes against humanity as long as it wasn't our country.
6. This means that if our country were to commit crimes against humanity, if we were unable to stop them, that no other country would have to place to step in.
7. This idea also implies that if one country were to commit crimes against humanity, another country wouldn't be affected. The United States has the highest net-in immigration in the world, we take in thousands of political refugees each year, we are directly affected.

"Contention 1- By the U.S. giving itself to the ICC (submitting) it will lessen its own existence. The U.S. constitution was mainly made for the purpose of protecting the people of the nation first and the nation itself. By allowing the ICC to come in and have power and influence the U.S. is no longer by itself but a larger country..."
Contention 2- The ICC is not properly structured.
A) The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury.
B) By joining we lose Right to a Speedy Trial.
C) Even American citizens who get tried by the ICC can get tried again."

I would like to group his Contentions 1 and 2 because they both talk about the Unconstitutionality of submitting to the ICC. They are all just examples of how the ICC supposedly "goes against the ICC". It also speaks of how the United States would lose power because it is not Constitutional. Grouping these two contentions would make logical sense, and they both talk about the US losing power to the ICC because joining would be Unconstitutional.

This falls for many reasons.
1. The United States still has the power to prosecute the offender. The ICC has only tried people who haven't been convicted in their own countries.
2. The Constitution allows for the United States to sign treaties in Article 3.
3. The Constitution is only what the Supreme Court justices interpret it to mean.
4. The Constitution does not definitely establish justice. At one point it meant justice was slavery, preventing women from voting, and barring the purchase of alcohol.
5. The Constitution should not be in the way of ensuring human rights.

Now moving on to defend my case.

My opponent attacked my value of justice by saying,
"thats not really a valid reason to have justice for this debate. What are you bringing to justice also are you using Rawls justice...what?"

I defined Justice as "The administering of deserved punishment or reward." My opponent also says justice isn't a good thing to have in the round even though we are talking about a justice system. Really?

My opponent never attacked my Value Criterion, and this is absolutely crucial to this round because we need to protect human rights in order to ensure justice. Since my opponent never refuted my VC, I can only guess that he accepts it as true, that by affirming the resolution we will in fact, protect human rights. My opponent never attacked my VC in his 1 NC, and this will be crucial in voting issues.

Contention 1.
A. My opponent refuted my point by saying that the ICC would hurt the US. He never addressed my point of how the US would help the ICC.
B. My opponent is speaking of war crimes, and for this debate we are only talking about crimes against humanity. Big difference.
C. We do not prosecute crimes against humanity because we are not part of the ICC.
D. Same.

Contention 2.
My Contention 2 does not go against my first. Based on the phrasing of, "submit to the jurisdiction of," and my definition of jurisdiction, it would mean that we would surrender our power to the ICC in the basis that we would respect any ICC decision according to the resolution. The US would respect any ICC decision, and prosecute CAH's in countries that do not.

For these reasons I prove that my case clearly stands tall, and that my opponent holds little or no ground. Especially with the value criterion.
Its-you-or-me

Con

ATK ON Value: Independence/His reasons
"1. Justice is more important than independence because a country can be totally unjust and still uphold his value."-You still dont define what justice is so how is justice more important than independence when you dont give a definite understanding of what justice is.2."This suggests that a country would completely operate on it's on no matter what."-He is no longer attacking my value he is attacking the value of isolationism because The U.S. is independent but it still trades with other countries. He is thinking that im saying that one should cut off all ties with the outside world.
3. Still speaking of isolationism. 4. No it does not. As i said the U.S. is independent and they have gotten involved before. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. 5. Isolationism 6. The bill of rights are moral and they mean what is stated in them not what is interpreted by the supreme court. I can interpret it to mean that i can go out and rip a bears arms off and legally own them and justify because it the way i interpreted the constitution said it was just but that doesn't actually mean that. This doesn't mean anything. 7. No it doesn't that would be isolationism and dont get me started on that.

Im going to group his attacks on my V.C. because they all speak of one thing and he's not really attacking my V.C.
1-6 Speaks about again Isolationism therefore those attacks dont count. 7-This attack makes no sense at all and i have no clue what he is saying. To me it doesn't even read like he is talking about the same thing.

Attack on 1&2 since grouped together.
His reasons why the fail:
1."The United States still has the power to prosecute the offender."-True "The ICC has only tried people who haven't been convicted in their own countries." But they can still try people that have been tried in that country again due to the fact that they saw that the jurisdiction given was given just to bring him to justice. You fail to realize this and you fail to realize that it goes against our constitution. 2. Show me where because from what the Fifth amendment says it objects to it. 3. Im not going to prove why this fails again. 4. It has established justice for this whole country and elaborate more instead of saying it meant justice was slavery, and such because the constitution never mentioned those.

To attack his case
Value cont.- You didn't define it until now and im not accepting your definition since you should have done that in r1 in your case also i did not say it wasn't a good value i said the manner in which he was using it wasn't valid.

His contention 1 cont.- A. I addressed his point on how the us would help the icc by saying that he is talking of going and taking over to make it better which goes against the resolution. B. War crimes count as a C.A.H. there is no difference. Q: Do you know the topic of this debate anymore?
C. Apparently he agrees with me

Contention 2 cont.- Yes it clearly does. Once again you talk of going in and supposedly submitting to make it better but at the same that requires authority which we will not have so it does. " The US would respect any ICC decision, and prosecute CAH's in countries that do not."- You keep saying that the US will have the jurisdiction to prosecute CAH's when it should be the icc so your saying that we should join and then control it.

So as of now My Value and V.C. stand since he failed to attack the right ones my arguments stand since he refuted ones with evidence and agreed with most of them

this guy is annoying
Debate Round No. 2
TheOrangeOfYonatan

Pro

TheOrangeOfYonatan forfeited this round.
Its-you-or-me

Con

My opponent has forfeited and therefore my arguments stand he debated poorly and never really attacked my case and his case was poorly constructed. It is clear that you should vote con for many reasons thank you and please vote.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOrangeOfYonatan 7 years ago
TheOrangeOfYonatan
And I didn't even have to post a thing in 3rd round in order to win. =P I'd have to agree with flaming sheep, national sovereignty isn't a good argument. Nor is constitutionalism. Hegemony is good. My person neg case is about how the US would corrupt an international court.
Posted by FlamingSheep 7 years ago
FlamingSheep
Isn't it also a bit of an unfair move to vote for yourself? Doesn't cease to amaze me.
Posted by alexla 7 years ago
alexla
Hmm...Perhaps if you didn't sound like a pretentious jerk with your piece of crap case, people would most likely vote for you rather than him.
Posted by FlamingSheep 7 years ago
FlamingSheep
I'm going to be honest when I say the negative on this debate was really weak. National Sovreignty? Really? Independence? You realize that the I.C.C. (which you both turned the debate into an argument about) is intended to ONLY STEP IN WHEN IT'S THE LAST RESORT. There's no independence harmed besides the fact that the U.S. can no longer brutally torture prisoners in places such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, which is indeed defined as a crime against humanity by your own definition. It's much easier to value Global Security on the neg through U.S. hegemony. It's a more solid argument, easier to warrant (in a valid manner) and create impacts for.

That's why I voted Aff. Even though the debate escalated into an I.C.C. Unresolutional debate.
Posted by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
how is he winning someone tell me please i would love to here it.
Posted by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
someone fking vote
Posted by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
1 minute
Posted by FlamingSheep 7 years ago
FlamingSheep
The I.C.C. doesn't actually deny any rights granted by the constitution. It's a really weak argument to make that can be debunked fairly easily. I'd like to see some cases based on Hegemony or Soft Power as opposed to the lazy route everyone is taking by turning it into a debate about the I.C.C., which the resolution doesn't even specify.
Posted by TheOrangeOfYonatan 7 years ago
TheOrangeOfYonatan
I don't understand what you are asking... are you asking if my affirmative and your negative are the same? Or if i am practically reading a different affirmative case than you are based on that we interpreted it in two different ways? Clarify.
Posted by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
excuse me did i read the same case as yours?
because from what i see and what you are talking about its like we are seeing two different cases.
(sarcasm)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
TheOrangeOfYonatanIts-you-or-meTied
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 FlamingSheep 7 years ago
FlamingSheep
TheOrangeOfYonatanIts-you-or-meTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by VivaLaLD 7 years ago
VivaLaLD
TheOrangeOfYonatanIts-you-or-meTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by TheOrangeOfYonatan 7 years ago
TheOrangeOfYonatan
TheOrangeOfYonatanIts-you-or-meTied
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:70