The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
TFranklin62
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

The US ought to submit to an international court to prosecute CAH. (See debate for full resolution)

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 8 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,943 times Debate No: 6927
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I will let my opponent argue first as he is pro. The resolution is: "Resolved, The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity."
TFranklin62

Pro

OK im now changing this debate from the previous stuff to whether or not m'nm's are better than skittles, ok?
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

OK, um, what? Skittles, rule, ok? Good, now that thats out of the way...
So I'll post my argument then. Here we go:
Resolved: "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." As I will show you, the idea of an international court would not be beneficial to the United States. Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court, I must negate.

As a quick observation before I enter my case: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first.

In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions:
Ought – Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Submit – TO GIVE IN: To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Jurisdiction – The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary)
International Court – A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary)
My value for this round will be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US should uphold justice, as it is what we strive for.

My value criterion will be upholding a moral obligation to our citizens. This is just because a country must first establish rights for its own citizens, before trying to help others. This brings me to my first contention.

Contention 1: US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court.
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. This is unconstitutional, and hypocritical. This hypocrisy is unjust, and does not uphold our moral obligation. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen.
US citizens have a right to a public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, the standard time leading to a hearing is 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a fair and speedy trial. Again, this would be hypocritical, and unconstitutional.

Contention 2: Counter plan. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens. It holds ALL benefits of an international court, but while still adhering to our constitution and protecting our citizen's rights. There are NO benefits of the ICC, or any other international court, that are not exercised in the ATCA.
As I have shown, an international court would not fare well for the United States. We must uphold justice, protect our citizen's rights, keep our military mobile, and adhere to our constitution. Because an international court in unconstitutional, I stand in absolute negation of today's resolution.

"Resolved, the United States ought to submit to an International Court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity."
Negated.
TFranklin62

Pro

Resolved, The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Because I agree with justice, protection of human rights, and the US constitution itself, I strongly affirm the resolution. An international court would promote just actions, protect human rights, offer equality to all, and encourage peace.

In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions:
Ought – Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Submit – To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Jurisdiction – The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary)
International Court – A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary)
Crimes against Humanity – I define crimes against humanity as offered by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes , "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.

My value for this round will be that of Justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. Justice applies to this resolution in that courts are meant to do one thing: establish justice in their area of jurisdiction. Justice will be better achieved when crimes against humanity are prosecuted by an international court. If protecting human rights is essential to justice then prosecuting "crimes against humanity" is an obligation for all nations. Every human being should have rights, and thus rights are global. If these rights are global, would it not follow suit that these crimes ought to be prosecuted globally? It would not be just for the United States to rise above other nations and refuse to participate in an international court.

My Criterion is Protecting Human Rights. The aim of the resolution is clearly to protect human rights. If these rights were not worthy of protecting, then why bother prosecuting crimes against them? Only when these rights are fully protected can justice be fully achieved. This brings me to my first contention.

Contention 1: Justice would be more fully achieved were the United States to submit to an international court. The United States does not currently do its duty to protect human rights, and thus, is not as just as it perhaps should be. Consider, for a moment, the events taking place at Guantanamo Bay. The government tortures and horribly humiliates the detainees at the facility in the hopes of gaining information. Gregg Bloche, M.D.., J.D., and Jonathan H. Marks, M.A., B.C.L., state, "There is no scientific answer to the question of which interrogation strategy is more effective. For obvious ethical and legal reasons, there is unlikely to be one. At Guantanamo, the fear-and-anxiety approach was often favored. The cruel and degrading measures taken by some, in violation of international human rights law and the laws of war, have become a matter of national shame." (1) A federal judge ruled in early 2005 that these detentions are unconstitutional. How is a country just when it will not even uphold the document that the country is based on? Recall the final thought of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance: "With Liberty and Justice for all." (2) It is, therefore, imperative that the United States uphold justice. These activities at Guantanamo have gone on for years with little or no action. How is this justice? How are human rights protected? The answer is simple: they are not. It is clear that the United States ought to submit to an international court to prosecute these atrocious crimes against humanity to further promote justice. If the U.S. cannot or will not stop the torture at Guantanamo, surely an international court should. To protect human rights, and to promote justice, it is necessary.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

To start things off, I will defend my own case, and then refute my opponent's.

My opponent DID NOT attack my case WHATSOEVER. Therefore my value, criterion, and contentions still stand. I will now attack my opponent's case.

My opponent values Justice. As I do as well, whichever side better upholds justice will win this debate.

His criterion is protecting human rights. (Could you define these please?) I see human rights as important. However, the affirmative case does not protect human rights. (See my contention 1) The ICC VIOLATES US citizens' rights. His criterion flows into the negative case. Criterion-Negated.

He gives only one contention, which is essentially his value of justice. He attempts to show you how the affirmative provides for justice. This is simply not the case. He gives the example of GITMO. The US has recently SHUT DOWN GITMO. We can end these atrocious crimes ON OUR OWN. We don't need other nations telling us how our country ought to be run. The US can provide for justice on its own. Contention 1-Negated.

So, the negative has won the value debate. He has also won the criterion debate. The Negative's case stands strong, having no attacks on it. The affirmative however has essentially no case. His value, criterion, and contention have fallen. If you vote affirmative, you are voting for an insecure United States, that forfeits the rights of its own citizens. If you vote negative, you are voting for a secure US, that protects its citizens' rights, and JUSTLY prosecutes crimes against humanity.

"Resolved, the US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity."
Negated.
TFranklin62

Pro

my argument said enough, m+m's ar best!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
agreed. it got messed up with the whole skittles deal. but hey, the president votes for himself. how is it dishonest?
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
Voting for yourself is dishonest. This wasn't really LD format either considering Con ended up going first.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
ya
Posted by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
by the way this is ld format
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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:14 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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 TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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 ohKAYZ 8 years ago
ohKAYZ
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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 Demosthenes 8 years ago
Demosthenes
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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:50 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
rougeagent21TFranklin62Tied
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