The Instigator
behairry2981
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecut

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Metz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,455 times Debate No: 6691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

behairry2981

Pro

I affirm the resolution resolved:
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Now some definitions:
Webster-dictionary defines ought as: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation.
Merriam-Webster defines to submit as: to yield oneself to the authority or will of another.
The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one.
In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c):
Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Thus if the term crimes against humanity is defined as simply anything atrocious committed on a large scale this definition is vague and should not be paid attention to; therefore, you must look to the historical definition of Article 6 (c).
My value for this round will be international justice.
International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. International justice acts as a safety net to ensure that perpetrators cannot escape justice by crossing borders i.e. Sadam Hussein
Thus my criterion will be protecting human rights.
Human rights are freedoms, immunities, and benefits that all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right.
International justice is best upheld by providing basic rights to every human being. Without dignity and respect for humanity there can be no justice.
According to philosopher John Stuart Mill, "Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect to their rights."
Thus only when each individual is given the same respect and treatment under the law can justice be obtained.
Because the United States is a high-powered democracy of the people, my burden is to prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court, such as the ICC, whereas the negative's burden is to prove the opposite.
Contention 1: Crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice.
Sub Point A: According to the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, "From 1950 to 1990 there were seventeen genocides, with two that resulted in the death of over a million people. In 1994, 80,000 Tutsis died during a three-month genocide in Rwanda. Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are not only something that occurred in the distant past; sadly they remain a vivid reality. If there is ever hope to end such crimes, they must be addressed by the law on an international scale."
Thus because there are so many acts of crimes against humanity internationally, which are a threat to international justice, the only way to stop it is to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court system, such as the ICC.
Sub Point B: Justice is an essential instrument for deterring crimes against humanity.
Jenny Lin explains how justice will deter these heinous crimes:
Justice is essential to human rights. It provides a measure of respect for the victims of serious abuse and punishes those who commit atrocities. Justice helps societies come to grips with the past and move forward. It promises to save lives by deterring at least some of tomorrow's torturers. Justice for yesterday's crimes supplies the legal foundation needed to deter atrocities tomorrow.
Sub Point C: The US public has indicated to more strongly support the ICC than the government does.
A March 2000 poll run by the Program for International Policy Attitudes shows that 71% of Americans "strongly approve" of the idea that "top leaders, such as heads of state could be arrested …for certain serious crimes and then tried by an International Criminal Court, and if judged guilty would be punished." The serious crimes mentioned include, violating human rights and making war on ethnic and other groups in that leader's country.
Thus I achieve my burden because I've proven that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court.
Contention 2: Not submitting to an international court would undermine U.S. values
The International Court cannot be judged solely on the basis of its own strengths and weaknesses. It must be placed in a larger context of a world shaped by law. U.S. foreign policy has consistently highlighted the value of international law, in constructing a world more similar to U.S. interests. Sarah Sewall and Carly Kaysen articulate
Throughout the past decades, the United States has played a leading role in strengthening international law in order to protect U.S. interests. Every new international legal instrument or institution has entailed obligations and required concessions of some form. The price of the accommodation has been outweighed by the benefits of both the specific institution and the expansion of a legal framework is the idea of equality under law. Seeking an exemption from that principle strikes a heavy blow against the international rule of law.
Sewall and Kaysen further by explaining how an International Criminal Court would actually be consistent with U.S. values:
Of course, the Court will prosecute and ultimately imprison some perpetrators of massive crimes who might otherwise enjoy impunity, and the ICC also may prompt national prosecutions where they might otherwise have been forgone. In helping establish the historical record and holding criminals accountable where states could not, the ICC may help end cycles of violence in particular conflicts. By reinforcing norms against the most egregious crimes, the ICC will have some deterrent value. And by helping to bridge the gap between promise and practice, the ICC strengthens norms of state and individual behavior that the United States has long supported, and it lends credence to the proposition that international laws matter, including laws that protect Americans overseas.
Thus not remaining consistent with strengthening international law is a danger to the U.S. because it undermines important United States international values. This is hazardous because the U.S. can lose valuable respect from other countries looking up to the United States and its international law.
Contention 3: An international court, such as the ICC, is essential to the prosecution of terrorism.
Terrorism is indeed a crime against humanity.
Mira Banchik furthers
The ICC's subject matter jurisdiction encompasses the most serious crimes of international concern. According to the analysis developed thus far, terrorism certainly falls within that category.36 The phenomena of ‘leaderless resistance', networks that are difficult to detect, and the availability of technology – including weapons of mass destruction- that can be used against large numbers of civilizations highlights the changing nature of terrorism, and its heightened (global) threat in the current era.
Thus because most types of terrorism are included in the category of "crimes against humanity", and an international court, such as the ICC, is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, the U.S. has a clear obligation to submit to an international court.
Because I have proven that submitting to an international court, such as the ICC, is within American citizen's interests because it brings justice to perpetrators of heinous crimes, such as terrists, you affirm.
Metz

Con

I Negate: Resolved the United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes Against Humanity

My Value for this Debate is National Security: National Security Refers chiefly to the protection of a state from aggression from other organizations of countries. National Security is an extension of the value of safety; the most basic of all values, but is extended to the safety of all citizens within a national border. National Security is a fundamental value because it preserves all other fundamental American values.

In Order to clarify Justice I offer the criterion of Realist Pragmatism.
Pragmatism is essentially the idea that we act upon the most practical consequences.
Philosopher William James Explains "we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve" Realist Pragmatism then is the idea that we must act on the most practical consequences for our own country alone. Henry Hazlitt Explains "If the World were constantly governed by rational, enlightened and pragmatic egoism, the world would be a much better place than it is" This Best Upholds National Security, because in order for the U.S to uphold its security it must make its decisions based upon these Pragmatic Reasons.

Clarification: The Court referred to the Resolution is Independent of any country or other organization, a Good Example is the Current ICC. The Court must either be the ICC or one with similar framework.

Observation/Resolution Analysis: The Affirmative must prove an absolute necessity for the U.S to join an international court and that the Benefits outweigh the harms. This is because the United States should not submit to an outside authority unless it is absolutely necessary from a realist perspective.

Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC Compromises National Security
A. As noted by Senior Policy Analyst Jack Spencer, "one of the key reasons that the United States rightfully declined to become state party to the ICC was because of harassment by international anti-American activists continually making accusations against the US in the court." (2003) Spencer goes on the say that the ICC "represents an unacceptable legal bureaucracy that invites political manipulation." (2004)" The Problem With any court such as the ICC is it is an unlimited outlet for abuse. It has no sufficient checks and is completely self-determinant. In an age where our enemies go to any ends to hurt us who is to say that our enemies will not manipulate this court to their own ends.

B. According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat.

2nd Contention—Deterrence Value
A. International courts have no deterrence value making them useless to the United States. Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, Justice Robert Jackson, stated that "[w]ars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. To assume that genocidaires carry out their policies based on a cost-benefit analysis is a highly unlikely scenario." Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton Adds "[b]ehind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?" Even Military Power has more of a deterrent value so submitting to the ICC would lower deterrence in fact and even maybe offer an incentive to crimes, knowing the only way they will be punished is by an inefficient and corrupt system.

Contention 3: Submitting Actually Destroys World Peace
According to Marc Grossman, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, "At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity. We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not bound to politicized prosecutions" If we Join the ICC we would either but all of these soldiers at risk and cause a mass of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S citizens or we would have to pull out of these countries, causing Global destabilization.

AFF CASE

Value: National Security outweighs. The U.S is Obligated as a Government is to protect itself/its citizens. U.S National Concerns such as Security must be addressed. Without U.S National Security, the World Itself is void of any of my opponents conception of Justice. (look to NEG C3 in particular).
Also International Justice as AFF defines is it essentially just restating the AFF Position, so National Security as a More Fair and better Value should be upheld.
Criterion: The Logic in my Opponents value and criterion Structure is Circular. He defines International Justice as "International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses" and his link to Human Rights is "International justice is best upheld by providing basic rights to every human being" This is Circular Logic and is a Logical Fallacy. Also I Show in my C2 International Courts have no deterrence value, and do not protect Human Rights. What Mill was suffering to in my opponents was not Human or Natural Rights but Civil Rights.... Also he was Addressing the Social contract, essentially a purely national system.

C1.
A. Since the Rwanda Genocide we have advanced... The U.N has war crimes tribunals that punished these offenders, that are more specialized and thus more effective... Also the Key to stopping some of these Genocides was Military Intervention. Cross Apply from my C1 and C3 regarding Military Restrictions and you will see that the effectiveness of the current system will be reduced.
B.
1. No warrant for deterrence, NEG outweighs.
2. ICC would not have EX Post Facto Jurisdiction, Reparations would not happen.
3. Even if Reparations are Assumed it would do nothing for the U.S and provides no Pragmatic benefit to us.
C.
1. AFF provides no sample size this could be a sample of 100 people.
2. unless 100% of the population was interviewed studies such as this do not reflect the American People.
3. Presidential Elections are not decided based on Polls, unless we join the ICC by national vote we cannot say that the people want anything. we are a representative government thus what the government wants/doesn't want is reflected by the people.
C2.
1. American National Policy comes First
2. We have not joined, our interests are not undermines. No uniqueness.
3. National Laws must be held to be paramount.
4 Cross-apply deterrence
5. U.S already has little soft power due to IRAQ, Afghanistan, Trade Issues. Etc
C3.
Just Because the court has Jurisdiction does not mean it will help in punishment. the Iraqi government and the U.S and other countries that are cooperating to find insurgents have Jurisdiction, but they haven't fixed the problem. The U.S, having Military Power searching is also more efficient than an International Court this would be eliminated under an International court and thus joining would be a Step Back.

I Urge Negation
Debate Round No. 1
behairry2981

Pro

Short and sweet: I have proven my burden of doing what is within the American citizen's best interest(refer to sub point C under my 1st contention), and the negative has not proved the burden placed on them by me(refer to directly under my criterion). Because I have proven my burden, which is the 1st thing that matters in the round according to LD debate rules, and that if the burden is not proven, you cannot look to anything else in the round, the decision is clear, vote pro.
Metz

Con

My opponent Drops Both Values, Criterion and Cases instead he focus' on one subpoint of his contention one, saying this proves his entire Case....

So lets look at this point then shall we...

Here were my attacks I placed on it last round, that remain un-refuted...
1. AFF provides no sample size this could be a sample of 100 people.
2. unless 100% of the population was interviewed studies such as this do not reflect the American People.
3. Presidential Elections are not decided based on Polls, unless we join the ICC by national vote we cannot say that the people want anything. we are a representative government thus what the government wants/doesn't want is reflected by the people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here is the burden he assigned himself and me: "Because the United States is a high-powered democracy of the people, my burden is to prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court, such as the ICC, whereas the negative's burden is to prove the opposite."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now My opponent does not meet this burden in two major ways.
1. The Survey does not always reflect the will of the entire American people, we can see a perfect example in the 1982 California elections for governor when Tom Bradley was way ahead in the polls on election day but lost the election by 100,000 votes(1.7%). This proves that Polls and Studies are not accurate. Furthermore the U.S is representative democracy so the peoples voices are reflected in the government and the government has not ratified.
2. Assuming for a brief moment that these outlandish claims are true AFF would still not meet his burden. His burden Specifically said "in American citizens best interest." this doesn't mean "it is what they want" but rather "what is best for them." I have proved in my Case that Submitting would destroy National Security and destabilize the World.... This is not in the American Citizens Best Interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at the Framework and standing points(excluding what I adressed ubove)

Value: National Security
Criterion: Realist Pragmatism

Burdens: My burden outweighs for it when we weigh choices as per my burden we find what is in Americas Best Interest.
Burden: Pros must outweigh cons and there must be a necessity to do join.

Clarification: Court=ICC or one with a similar construction.

1. Compromises National Security
A. Court will be Abused
B. Restricts Much of U.S military action.

2. No deterrence Value

3. Submission causes Global Destabilization

Apart from those My opponent dropped his whole case Extend My Arguments against those
Debate Round No. 2
behairry2981

Pro

My opponent has no imperical evedence proving the burden i've placed on him, and he gave the example of Tom Bradley trying to prove that ALL polls are inaccurate. It is a logical fallacy to say that one poll was inaccurate, therefore ALL polls are inaccurate. Until he proves MY poll to be inaccurate, which is pretty much impossible to do, you must look to the one who actually proves the burden. Also, 91% of the nation wanted human rights violations, which are crimes against humanity, prosecuted. So even if the poll was a little off, it would make very little difference; therefore you must vote pro.
Metz

Con

While I may not have Evidence to Prove my opponents Poll inaccurate I HAVE provided evidence that polls are not accurate. We do not decide elections based on polls....

Also As I challenged the Accuracy of the Poll it has become the Burden of the AFF to prove it accurate. I have said we should not put store in a poll without knowing sample size, people included in the poll. My opponent accuses me of Logical Fallacy, but REALLY!??!?! his entire standing is based on Fallacy, he has not offered ANY refutation, or any defense of his points. Merely restating them, as if they held true.... This is a MASSIVE LOGICAL FALLACY, assuming something as fact because he says it is. Not only is this a Fallacy but has destroyed the integrity of the debate...

The second poll merely provided that people want Crimes punished, this can be effectively done by U.S courts, my opponent did not link this to the Affirmative stance in the Resolution.

I would Again like to point out my opponent has not responded to ANY arguments so just extend those through the round... These points are considered conceded on Pro's part.

Lets look to my last round arguments....
I provided an Attack on the Burden, showing that Popular Will does not meet the burden, because what people want is not always what is best. I may not want to go to school but it is best for me if I do....
Thus, Both of my opponents surveys do not meet his burden and My arguments do....

My Opponent has not met the Burdens to LD style debate, which is that he MUST uphold a value.... My opponent provides no links to any sort of value and no links even to his own Burden....
In LD debate as well as in most debates the Pro has the burden to prove the resolution true, he has not done so.... I have the burden to prove it not true... I HAVE done so....
My opponent has not linked anything, has just a bunch of floating arguments, due to the merits of this debate and debate in general the decision must be Con...

Vote CON!!!!
If you vote otherwise, please post a reason, if you vote CON as well I urge a reason, as this Preserves the integrity of debate....

Just to summarize what has been established as fact for purpose of this debate due to concension and failure to answer.

Joining the ICC destroys U.S National Security
Joining the ICC could Destabilize the World.
The ICC has no deterrence Value
The Current system can provide as Well as the ICC
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I think it could be pretty interesting... Light framework, so you will need to be able to link to lots of criterion.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
If any of you have seen the March topic, I'm a bit skeptical. I think it's a shift in the right direction away from this Policy-esque topic, but I don't like how black and white it is.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Not in LD..... LD the first thing that matters is hitting the Value....
Posted by behairry2981 8 years ago
behairry2981
Look at the burden, that's the first thing that matters in the round
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
All 7 points went to CON:

Pro said that the burden was placed on Con. But he didn't answer it. Even if this were true, I accepted the cost/benefit analysis RA made by Con in the first speech. It threatens our national security, thus submission would ruin international justice (humanitarian aid threatened).

Although I find CON'S idea of country first dissapointing. Pro could have EASILY persuaded me to ignore the value because according to CON'S own logic, torture is ok. It is EXACTLY that idea that makes torture ok, and any basic argument that torture is bad, would have persuaded me to ignore the CON value. However, no such argument was made, thus I had to agree with CON.

It started as a good round, then pro essentially gave up.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Voted as such
Before: Pro
After: Pro
Conduct: Con-Pro failed to address Cons points or defend his own, instead repeated the same arguments over and over. this is not within the Spirit of Debate
Arguments: Con: Pro did not provide any non-fallacious arguments after round one.
Sources: Con: All pro points unwarranted, and un-explained
Posted by behairry2981 8 years ago
behairry2981
sorry just too busy- ill give you this one.
Posted by StDebateJ 8 years ago
StDebateJ
i'm jk both cases look strong so best of luck 2 both
Posted by StDebateJ 8 years ago
StDebateJ
haha i think hairy's got this one
Posted by virajgarage 8 years ago
virajgarage
good luck hairy (?)
metz ran this case against me and he is pretty beast :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by virajgarage 8 years ago
virajgarage
behairry2981MetzTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
behairry2981MetzTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
behairry2981MetzTied
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 Metz 8 years ago
Metz
behairry2981MetzTied
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