The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 7453
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




Jan-Feb NFL LD topic; LD style, please.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said, "the best way to fight man's inhumanity to his fellow man is through exposure." Because I strongly believe this statement to be true, I stand in firm affirmation of RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES OUGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL COURT DESIGNED TO PROSECUTE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Before continuing, I offer the following definitions:
From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ought is defined as should;
From the Rome Statute, Crimes against humanity are defined as murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations.
I remind you that we are debating what ought to be done by the United States. We must, therefore, strive to achieve benefits from the action. The best benefit that can be achieved from any action is our physiological needs. Therefore, the paramount value is the protection of physiological needs. Abraham Maslow defines these needs in A Theory of Human Motivation, which establishes his hierarchy of proponent needs. According to Maslow, the protection of physiological needs - food, water, shelter, etc - is the paramount value for these reasons:
1.The protection of physiological needs must be attained before anything else, including morality, justice, or societal progress. This value has necessity for achieving any other value, for without it, we would lose the ability to exist
2.The protection of physiological needs is implied by the resolution as the resolution explicitly focuses on crimes against humanity. These crimes violate and deprive the physiological needs of the people.
The best way to achieve my value is through my standard of limiting Biopower. Biopower is a term described by modern Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben. According to Agamben, biopower is the ability of the state to create a "homo sacer", one who has, in essence, no civil rights and is ultimately deemed worthless. The paradigm of biopower is Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Every crime committed against humanity is possible only through a state's biopower. Because of this, the only way to truly protect physiological needs and stop crimes against humanity is to limit biopower. For that key reason, it must be the standard for the round.

Contention 1:Biopower is Widespread and Needs to be Stopped.
Dr. Jonathan Fanton, from the MacArthur Foundation, states "in the past 20 years alone, we have witnessed ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Elsewhere we have seen systematic human rights abuses, but there is hope for a better future. A system of international justice is emerging and growing stronger with each new case […] and each new investigation."
As Doctor Fanton points out, the world is NOT perfect. Crimes against humanity still exist. If the United States does not do something new, these crimes will continue. As negative, my opponent supports the status quo and MUST prove that joining an international court will INCRESE crimes against humanity to win this round.

Contention 2:International Courts ARE Effective
Let us recognize all that the current courts have done to fight crimes against humanity. Christine H. Chung explains, "by [their] existence and operations, [international courts] raise the bar of domestic accountability. For example, knowledge that the [international courts were] ready to exercise [their] jurisdiction created the incentive for […] the Democratic Republic of Congo to invite an investigation into crimes committed IN THAT COUNTRY which OTHERWISE would have escaped SCRUTINY." Here we see an instance where the international courts were the ONLY way to SUCCESSFULLY EXPOSE and END crimes. The CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW shows that "In Columbia, the [International Criminal Court or ICC] influenced legislation and proceedings against paramilitary forces. Armies around the world are now adjusting their regulations to avoid the possibility of committing acts falling under ICC jurisdiction." Another example, Fanton reminds us that "from 2001 to late 2004, tensions FLARED in Cote d'Ivoire. In response […] a UN adviser […] reminded them that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts. The message was received in Cote d'Ivoire, and the hate speech and threat of violence IMMEDIATELY subsided."
We now see that international courts deter not just violence, but threats of violence. Chung names ANOTHER case by the courts; "[i]n Uganda, […] warrants of arrest naming the top leadership of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) are seen to have motivated that leadership into negotiations to END the twenty-year war that the LRA had been waging." I have just named a few of many crimes against humanity stopped by international courts. These courts ARE effective; they BEST fight crimes against humanity; they are the only way to limit biopower; and they are the only way to successfully protect our physiological needs.

Contention 3:If the United States joins, international courts WILL become stronger
Megan E. Lantto of the TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW explains, "Even the mere presence and existence of an international court with strong backing from powerful nations serves to deter future human rights abuses. While the [ICC] is making its way WITHOUT the United States, it would be STRONGER if the US were a member." We must understand that any arguments my opponent makes about the ineffectiveness of international courts can be used as an affirmative argument. When the US joins, these courts will become stronger and their faults can be fixed.
THE ECONOMIST on January 27, 2009 stated, "As the court's reputation grows, so does the number of countries that sign up." Here we see that more nations will follow the US and join.

Contention 4:The United States WILL be PROTECTED as a member of an international court.
To further convince that the United States ought to join an international court, I will describe the world if the United States does join the ICC. One may claim that the courts will be politicized or unfair in selecting cases. Not true. Jason Manning from the GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW states, "the Prosecutor's judiciousness in selecting cases has earned praise." Executive Officer for the United States Navy Brian A. Hoyt says, "Many cases have been investigated by international courts and they have demonstrated both EFFECTIVENESS and IMPARTIALITY." He further says that "the court has resisted political pressure to prosecute alleged crimes." Lantto explains how "safeguards currently in place in the text of the Rome Statute (which established the ICC) prove the US objections to the ICC are not only UNFOUNDED but ENTIRELY MISTAKEN." Also, Professor of Law at NYU, Judge Richard Goldstone says, "many lawyers and academics are seriously doubting whether you could obtain judges and prosecutors and investigators coming together from 40, 50, 60 countries, civil systems, common law systems, and all different systems in-between, and conduct fair trials. I have neither read nor heard ANY criticism of the fairness of the trials."

So let us CRYSTALLIZE what I have said so far. Crimes against humanity exist, and the negative side advocates doing nothing. He/she does NOT lower biopower. As affirmative, I support joining an international court. I have provided a PLETHORA of examples when international courts stopped crimes against humanity. By joining the court, the affirmative side limits biopower. If the United States joins, the court will become stronger and stop even more human rights abuses. We will increase the court's ability to limit biopower, and under the court, we will not be prosecuted politically or unfairly, and different cultures have and will cooperate to limit biopower. For all these reasons, the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, and we ought to affirm. Thank you.


Value Premise: National Security through the prism of Realism
Realism is the belie f that all countries always act in their own interests due to the lack of true authority in the international system. Individual states never behave on moral principles and mirror the fallen condition of human nature stated Hans Morgenthau. Machiavelli wrote that all people are, "Insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting, and above all else malignant, iniquitous, violent, and savage." According to realism, a nation would never give up an opportunity to become a hegemon or gain power in the international system due to their insatiable fear of being conquered or killed by a potential rival.
Thomas Hobbes explains that all people are born equally and expect equal privileges. As a result of the inequality of power in life, people and states will inevitably clash to gain those rights due to competition and quest for glory. Even though it may seem impossible to get along, Hobbes acknowledges the fact that states are rational actors which will find ways to peacefully cohabitate. If they did not, "The life of man would become solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In order to protect oneself from the violence of world affairs, the government is in a constant quest for power in order to guarantee safety. Machiavelli wrote, "Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it."
Thucydides, the Greek philosopher, sums up the realist perspective perfectly as he wrote, The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." For this reason, national sec urity is the prime value under the realist world view, which has been substantiated for thousands of years from great thinkers around the world.
Value Criterion: Preservation of National Sovereignty
Understanding the key concepts of realism will directly force one to acknowledge the national security threat this country faces by allowing other countries or international courts to dictate the policy of the United States. If the United States were to allow an international court to have jurisdiction over United States' leaders, the United States, a government ruled by and for the citizens of the US, would cease to exist. Furthermore, those that took advantage of the system and situation would prosper not moralists. It is a naive position at best to think that an international court can solve the United States' human rights problems.
Contention 1: Failure of international organizations and institutions
League of Nations - an utter failure orchestrated by the European powers and Woodrow Wilson
United Nations Human Rights Council - They have not truly led the world to a safer and more democratic place.
(Wiki) On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Human Rights Council for disproportionate focus on violations by Israel while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed graver crises.
Kofi Annan said, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of20bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute.
(Wiki) On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. A UN statement said, The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.
January 29, 2008 written by RONAN FARROW, Yale Law School
Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as free democracies, according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as not free. Four -- China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia -- are ranked as the worst of the worst. These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit.

Contention 2: The IC has potential harm for own citizens according to realism.
The United States will no longer have the ability to fight the war on terrorism in the same manner due to the fact there will be a international court who has jurisdiction over our own law and leaders. The fact of the matter is George W. Bush has effectively fought the war on terrorism. There=2 0has never been an attack on this country, since 9-11.

Sub-Point A: Purpose of US government is to protect their own citizens
-The United States was formed on the principles of staying out of entangling alliances. This is seen through the founding fathers. The US Consitutiton makes no provision for the welfare of people outside of the United States. To further prove this point, state constitutions in the United States also dictate this point of view. When the government decided to become involved in wars that had absolutely nothing to do with their own well-being, the United States has suffered (i.e. Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq II). The wisdom of the founding fathers could have saved hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives.

- George Washington -
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none.
Alexander Hamilton - Federalist #78
No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people.

Now to my opponents case
My opponent states that we must benefit the US, but by joining the ICC we threaten National Sovereignty, and national security through the realism belief, so it is not in the best interest of the US to join the ICC.
VP: Physiological needs. Now my opponent states that this must benefit US, how is making sure the kids in Africa have there needs fufiled before our own citizens, when we join ICC we must use our power to help other countries, therfore we are not fully protecting our citizens.
VC: Limiting Biopower: My opponent gives a false alternative by saying the only way to stop bio power is to joing ICC, that is completely false, we can do it Unilaterly Since US is so strong. And my opponent proves my point of Realism how countries act in their own interest. Even if countries have bio power the ICC will tell US to use their military threatining their national soverginity and national security.
C1: My oponent is saying if the US does not join ICC they can do nothing that is false. We can do it Unilaterly, or join allies. I can use allies just not IC.
C2: Turn. My opponent says that the IC is effective, and he says it raises the bar of accountability, this is false, it creates an illusion of Accountability. Since there are many countries is creates the Bystander Effect. Since there are a lot of countries the country will say, I dont have to do it, the other country will. And the Uganda example the ICC actually went in there trying to stop CAH and they created more crimes because they got the warlords angry so ICC creates more crimes
C3: Turn: Again look to my Uganda Example, it creates more crimes and a culture of violence.
C4: He says they will be protected, the US is already under the jursdiction of the IC so we should not join. Secondly, Turn: this is my point, if there is CAH going on in our country, we cant prosecute it, the ICC will do it and that is against the Constitution.
Debate Round No. 1


For a brief road map, though I'm sure you don't need one, the Negative's case shall be examined first before moving on to the Affirmative Case. =)
V: Security through Realism
V CASE TURN: "According to realism, a nation would never give up an opportunity to become a hegemon or gain power in the international system due to their insatiable fear of being conquered or killed by a potential rival."
The US must not give up the opportunity to gain power in the international system for it will be beneficial by eliminating powerful human rights abusers.
V: National security; strong must do what they can to ensure existence (Thucydides)
V Counter 1: By joining an int'l court, the US can minimize and eliminate the suffering of the weak while ensuring that the stronger states are capable of ensuring int'l safety and promoting global peace. Cross-apply the Affirmative's Contention 3 with the Lantto card which states that the power of the ICC will increase along with the admission of the US
VC: Preservation of National Sovereignty
VC Counter 1: No Connection exists between the negative's contentions to his VC weighing mechanism; the negative side provides no link determining how the rule of the national government is harmed by joining international courts
VC Counter 2: ICC does not destroy national sovereignty
Sub Point A: the ICC acts only when local courts are unwilling or unable
Elizabeth Wilmhurst from the Gale Cengage Learning Center states, "The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and takes cases only if there is no local judicial system willing or able to deal with them." Executive Officer of the US Navy Brian A. Hoyt adds, "The ICC is a court of last resort…the ICC complements, rather than competes with, national judicial systems." As we see here, the ICC does not harm the US government's rule because it allows for the US government to apply its own judicial efforts first. In the case that the national government commits crimes against humanity, if our national government refuses to stop such committing crimes against humanity, and refuses to prosecute, only then will the international court take a stand.
Sub Point B: the ICC is not a threat to US sovereignty
From here, we can cross-apply the affirmative's contention 4 that states that members of the US will be protected from prosecution. Megan E. Lantto from the Transnational Law Review stated in 2008 that "The principle of complementarity of the Rome Statute requires that the ICC first deter to national legal systems," and Tom Madison from the Washington University Global Studies Law Review commented in 2006, "The primary objection to the ICC is that US nationals would face prosecution before the court. This objection is completely unfounded because the statute explicitly state that the US would retain jurisdiction over the nationals."
C1: Failure of int'l organizations and institutions
C1 Counter 1: In his contention the negative fails to address any flaws within international courts. Instead, he simply creates a blanket argument that attempts to generalize all international organizations as incapable of operating effectively. From here, we can cross-apply the affirmative's contention 2, which states that international courts such as the ICC are, in fact, effective, and extend the four examples with their cards in which the ICC was effective in eliminating crimes against humanity
C1 Counter 2: Besides for the obvious fact that the ICC is not the League of Nations and is not the UNHRC, other logical flaws of the negative's argument can be examined. As the American President, Woodrow Wilson established the League of Nations with his 14 Points; however, the Senate refused to allow America to join the institution, and as a result, it failed. The ICC was not created by an American President, and the ICC has yet to fail, if it does indeed fail. We can further cross-apply and extend the affirmative's Contention 3, which states that the ICC will be prevented from failure if the US joins because it will become stronger. The ICC is neither the UNHRC nor is it controlled by the UN. Here the negative states that the UNHRC has not led to complete world safety and democracy. This statement contradicts the negative's entire case. By making this statement, the negative institutes his belief that international safety and democracy should have value, which can best be achieved through the affirmative's Contention 3 of allowing the US to join the ICC because it will increase the ICC's abilities. Joining the ICC also will promote international democracy through the extension of the quote from The Economist, which states that the ICC will continue to gain more power through the admittance of even more countries.
C2: The ICC potentially harms our own citizens in the world of realism
C2 Counter 1: The ability to fight the war on terrorism in the same manners will be changed as a result of the election of President Obama. Whether this is for good, or for bad, is not the affirmative argument here. Simply, George Bush may have effectively fought the war on terrorism, but US foreign policy changes with the change of the presidency. We can ensure the benefits of minimizing, if not eliminating, any potential harms by cross-applying the affirmative's Contention 4 and the affirmative's attacks against the negative's VC, which states that the US will retain jurisdiction over its nationals
SPA: US government's purpose is protection of its own citizens
C2 SPA Counter 1:The negative's use of quotes without analysis or reason for acceptance of the author create the appeal to a higher power logical fallacy
C2 SPA Turn 1: Joining the ICC creates an international authority figure with increased power, which the negative side advocates through his favor for the institution for higher powers and authoritative figures. Cross apply the affirmative's Contention 3, which states that international courts will become stronger with the addition of the US
C2 SPA Counter 2: The negative claims that "State constitutions" make no provision for foreign welfare; however this argument is obsolete for there is no specific example presented, and is just a general observation. He also claims that the US Constitution does not provide this welfare; however we can look to the 4th affirmative contention later in this rebuttal to understand that the US Constitution was created under the principle of upholding the limitation of biopower(the affirmative's VC).
C2 SPA Turn 2: George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's words are different from their actions concerning foreign affairs and conflict with each other. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were in firm support of the Jay Treaty which allowed for a peaceful alliance with the British during the times of the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the French who supported the Americans during the American Revolution. During his presidency Thomas Jefferson purchases the Louisiana territory from Napoleon, providing him with funds for his war against Britain.
C2 SPA Counter 3: The negative side provides no logical analysis, no warrant to his claim, deducing how his supposed neutrality would have saved hundreds of thousands of human lives.
As we can see, by going down the flow, the negative's entire offense has now either been turned or countered through logical reasoning and application of contentions and blocks from the affirmative case. As we look to the offense of the Negative side against the Affirmative Case, it is clear that the Negative's comments are countered because US national sovereignty will not be harmed, and the value of national security through realism is turned.

I apologize. The remainder of the rebuttal will have to be posted in the comments section due to the length of the argument. I hope it shall be accepted as part of the round, and yes, it will be posted within the time limit.


I will start off rebuilding my case. I would ask my opponent to make his arguments more clear.
VP- Realism. My opponent said that the United States would gain power in the international system. This is completly false. According to my Ronnan Farrow card there are many un demecratic countries which in turn hate the United States. And secondly look to his card on the top of his case, we would have to expose oursleves to other nations.
National Security: Ok, all he says is that we would be stopping abuses. Well even if we are we are hendering our national security because since we are in the ICC they have jursdiction over us! And we are not devoting 100% of our time and resources to help our own citizens, And again the US constitution makes no provision for the welfare outside the United States. Extend my VP because he does not say how we do not surrender it
VC: Ok, my opponent says that the courts only acted as a last resort, but that is just proving my fact that they will take cases from the United States, when THEY think we are unable to do it, thus surrending national sovereignty. And the US constitution clearly states that all US cases happen on US soil, (not exact words).
His SBB attack about prosecutions has nothing to do with it.
C1: Ok you want some harms ill give you some, no trial by jury, no right to a speedy trial, and these comply with the US constitution therfore by AFFIRMING the resolution you are breaking the constitution.
He secondly says that the League of Nations is not the ICC, well the League of nations was the first of their kind and the ICC is the first of theirs, so we can use the past as the future so the ICC will inevitably fail
C2: Ok, he says Obama will change it, well the IC will tell the US how to fight the war on terrorism. Thus hendering our national Sovereighnty.
SBA: Ok, he says that it creates a higher authority power, but I am saying in my SBA that we should not help because the United States con. makes no provision for the welfare outside of the United States. And secondly, we would lose our assests because we would be trying to stop CAH which the ICC would tell us to stop thus my vc is not upheld. Secondly it is not always good to stop CAH. There are CAH going on in Russia, they will fight sporadicly and ferocsiouly against any nation or body. So when the US joins it could potentially start a WW3
Ok my opponent gives the warrant argument dont look to it he just couldn't think of a clever comeback.

I do not contradict my C2 SNA by saying we can join allies. Look to my Jefferson card, Peace commerce and friendship with all nations entagiling alliances with none. We can be friendly just not in an International Body

Extend my Uganda example how the ICC went in there and caused more CAH. So I did answer my opponents burden. This went unanswered so by joining the ICC there will be more CAH.

To my opponents case:

VP: he says that he does not value anyone before US citizens. But in his case he says he does by protecting other citizens therfore we are not fully protecting our own.

VC: He says i contradict but look to my argument before

My opponent does not defend any other part of his case so lets go over some main points.

He does not attack the illusion of accountability and the bystander effect. He says that countries will just do it. Well why would they want to give up their valuable resources to help someone else, extend this. There will be no CAH stoped.

He says Uganda is just 1 example well my opponent has the burden of proof, I just have to give 1 example.

Extend the argument that the US is already under the jursdiction of the IC therefore there is no point to joining it,

My opponent does not defend his case well and I block out all his points.

Vote Con because we must value our constitution
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for the clarity, or lack thereof rather. I shall attempt to fix that error within this speech as I begin with the Negative and move on to the Affirmative.

V: Realism: By joining the ICC, the power of the US would directly correlate with the power of the ICC. This is comparable to the results of the usage of parallelism in English literature, in which case a group of words are compiled together, and as a result, each is set upon an equal level where they gain more effect and influence, both as a group as well as on the individual level. As for the top of the affirmative case, I was referring to the exposure of crimes against humanity, for as more states join the ICC, more crimes against humanity will have the ability to be exposed.

National Security: 1, in the first 1 and a half sentences of this point, the negative concedes that there is the possibility of a situation in which abuses are stopped. 2a, the affirmative is not hindering national security because we would be helping to limit the biopower of other states. 2b we are not hindering national security through harming national sovereignty because the US would retain primary jurisdiction. 3, as a result of 2a, helping to limit the biopower of states on the global scale would help our own citizens and ensure security because we would be limiting the biopower of foreign nations, and therefore, limiting their ability to pursue crimes against humanity against the US.

VC: 1, It is not when the ICC thinks that the US is unable to persecute crimes against humanity that the ICC will act: it is when the US refuses to persecute those who commit crimes against humanity. 2, where does it clearly state such a statement? It doesn't. The negative side cannot even provide the words located in the US Constitution because, In fact, it is untrue. For example, look at the Nuremberg trials. In those trials, we submitted to an international court that was very effective in prosecution, and the trials were held in Germany. The sub point B of the Affirmative's previous speech is relevant because it directly links how national sovereignty is not threatened.

C1: 1, According to Contention 4 of the Affirmative Case, a jury is present and consists of ALL members of the court. 2a, there is no evidence that the trials held by the ICC are not speedy. 2b, it is necessary to understand that the ICC can still limit biopower and crimes against humanity through deterrance by its mere presence as stated by the Affirmative C2. 2c, the Nuremberg Trials were extremely speedy, and the ICC is simply a continuation of the IMT ideals (24 trials were held in a single year). The ICC is not the first of its kind. The Negative's refutation is a moot point.

C2: 1, The ICC is a COURT; it will not tell the US how to fight war on terrorism; it will notify the US of procedures that can be deemed as crimes against humanity, and allows for the limitation of biopower. 2, The negative concedes that Obama has the potential to change the current military procedures, making his original point moot.
SBA: 1, The negative concedes the creation of a higher authority power that he would support. 2a, the US Constitution does not say welfare cannot be provided to non-US citizens. 2b, by limiting biopower in foreign nations, we provide welfare for foreigners, and in effect, provide greater welfare and security for ourselves. 3, The negative presents a new argument which can be refuted anyway: Russia has signed the Rome Statute, therefore we would be increasing our ties and decreasing tensions by signing as well. 4, his point concerning assets is unclear and is not comprehendible to my knowledge, but it concerns his national sovereignty criterion, so one can look to my above refutations concerning that. 5, the Affirmative sees nothing wrong with a warranted argument, and believes they are better than unwarranted arguments, and also sees no reason as to why they are worse.

Multiple contradictions are present in the negative Case, one such contradiction is that between his choice in cards and their authors; another is that by joining allies, we become part of an alliance.

1, The negative Uganda example is unwarranted, unlike the affirmative Uganda example, and is completely illogical, flawed, and moot. The negative does not answer the burden whatsoever.

Affirmative Case and voters:

V: Protection of Physiological needs: 1, The affirmative does not value citizens of foreign nations over US citizens. 2, The protection of physiological needs of the citizens of foreign nations will help the protection of the further levels in the hierarchy of needs in accordance with Maslow. 3, At the point that the needs of US citizens are ensured along with the needs of foreign citizens, as a result of the joining of the ICC, the Affirmative must win.

Look to the affirmative's above speech to the attack upon the bystander effect and its irrelevancy. By helping others limit biopower, they are protecting themselves. Crimes against humanity will be exposed and stopped.

The affirmative does not claim that the Uganda example is just one example; the affirmative claims and warrants that the negative's Uganda example is untrue and "unviable."

If the US is under the jurisdiction of the ICC, as my opponent claims, then there is no point in not submitting to it, as the resolution clearly states "submit", and the best way to "submit" is to join because by joining, crimes against humanity are exposed and eliminated through the limitation of biopower, which protects physiological needs.

The affirmative case is completely defended as the opponent makes few attacks upon it. The negative CONCEDES the contradiction of unilateral action, which was nearly the negative's entire offense.

So let us crystallize what has occurred so far:
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity because:

C1: Biopower results in crimes against humanity and needs to be stopped
C2: International Courts such as the ICC are Effective in stopping crimes against humanity
C3: The Court will become stronger and will be able to expose crimes against humanity with the addition of the US
C4: The US will be protected as a member of the ICC

The negative fails to readdress a plethora of his arguments along the way, including, but not limited to:

VC Counter
C1 Counter 1
C1 Counter 2
C2 SPA Turn 1
C2 SPA Counter 2
C2 SPA Turn 2
C2 SPA Counter 3
The unilateral offense
The Negative Uganda viability


dan1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
The Negative also fails to address the Hierarchy of Needs which allows for the paramount value of the round to be the protection of physiological needs, not that of security.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
sigh...idk how u [dan1] cover everything so concisely... i guess i need to work on my time management cuz that 2nd speech of mine would not have fit into 4 minutes...
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
So let us CRYSTALLIZE what has been said so far. The negative's case has been entirely, countered, turned, and found to be contradictory. The negative's Value has been both countered and turned, the Value Criterion and Contention 1 have been countered with cards and logic, and the Contention 2 is contradictory and has been turned. As for the affirmative case, the negative side is found to be contradicting itself with its attacks using unilateral action, and the only other attack made is through an unviable Uganda example, which was also countered. The Negative side fails to prove that crimes against humanity will increase through the joining of the ICC, and the negative side is left with neither offense nor defense, while the entire Affirmative Case remains standing. Thank you. =)

Once again, please accept the entire argument. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
Contention 1 Counter and turn: Extend the burden that the Negative side supports the status quo, and that he must prove that joining an international court will increase crimes against humanity in order to win the round. This statement went unattacked. The Negative side attempts to solve for crimes against humanity by allowing for unilateral action and the formation of alliances; however THIS IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO HIS THE NEGATIVE CASE, ESPECIALLY HIS CONTENTION 2 SUP-POINT A!!!
Contention 2 Counter-turn: Extend this contention because the only attack made against it is the Bystander Effect. The Bystander Effect is irrelevant because by admitting more states into the jurisdiction of the ICC, the witnessing of more crimes against humanity will be exposed. These "bystander countries" will inevitably join the flow in joining the ICC as more and more other states join along with them. In essence, it is a cycle of perpetuation: a loop that will end only when there are no more countries left to "stand by." The negative claims that more crimes were created as a result of ICC action, but his sole basis of analysis is that the "warlords got angry." Look to the Affirmative Cards in this contention, and extend them for they clearly explain how crimes against humanity have been limited and minimized as a result of ICC action.
Contention 3 Counter-turn: The negative's Uganda example is the only attack made, and has already been countered, so this argument can be extended across the flow, for the actual contents of the contention went unattacked.
Contention 4 Counter, Counter-turn, and Turn: The reason the Constitution was created was to prevent the unfair balance of power in government and limit American biopower. Not only does the Constitution NOT say prosecuting crimes against humanity is illegal, but the entire philosophy of the Constitution supports their prosecution.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
I apologize for the inconvenience. Here begins the remainder of the 2nd affirmative speech.
V: The affirmative case does not prioritize foreigners over American citizens, but at the point that the American government is able to solve for crimes against humanity by joining the ICC and creating safety for both the citizens of its own nation, as well as other nations, the Affirmative side wins. Extend the affirmative's value of the protection of physiological needs because crimes against humanity deprive people of these needs and the elimination and limitation of these crimes will allow for greater salvation of human life. The affirmative value of the protection of physiological needs is paramount over the protection of security (which was turned anyway) because of the two reasons listed in the affirmative constructive. Once again, looking at Maslow's Hierarchy, Safety is the second level of the hierarchy and can only be sufficiently obtained after the satisfaction of the protection of the first level (the physiological level).
VC: The negative's use of unilateral action completely contradicts the intent of the negative case, which is to avoid foreign affairs and guarantee complete security for the US. Extend the affirmative's Value Criterion of limiting biopower because limiting the biopower of states allows for the limitation of crimes against humanity, which allows for the protection of physiological needs. The negative believes that the ICC is more than a court, and that it has the ability to dictate the proceedings of the government's affairs; however, this mindset is flawed because the ICC is a court that allows for criminals who committed crimes against humanity to be tried. The ICC does not create the obligation for the US to use military power.
Posted by Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
sry, didnt have time til today, about to post it. Ive still got an hour left =)
Posted by dan1 7 years ago
Are you gonna post an argument
Posted by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
Ahhh!!! Blocks upon blocks!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 7 years ago
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 philosphical 7 years ago
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 Sherlock_HolmesXXI 7 years ago
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