The Instigator
kingbrown
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

United states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an IC designed to prosecute CA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
LightC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,727 times Debate No: 6865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

kingbrown

Con

This is not a real debate can someone comment on m first contention and make rebuttla against it thanks!
I negate; The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

To prosecute is to bring legal action for redress or punishment for a crime or violation for a law; a crime against humanity is an atrocity that is directed especially against an entire race, populations or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility on even such grounds.; jurisdiction the power or right to exercise authority. (Merriam Webster)

I have an important observation regarding the resolution: Since the resolution suggests an international court, it would be okay for the use of the International Criminal Court as an example because the ICC acts as the international court in the current world, and our debate must be grounded in the real world. This topic is one regarding international affairs and geopolitics, and as such, we need to take the status quo into account. Also, the resolution uses the term "an", so at the very least, it is okay for me to specify a court and defend it.

My value premise is Justice because the purpose of any criminal system is it in the US or an international system such as the international criminal court, aim to achieve justice. My values criterion is constitutional protection. The value works with VC because if the U.S is to get justice then the people must not lose there constitutional rights. If the rights are to be lost the value justice will not be served.

Contention 1 = United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses. If the U.S would consider being part of the international court then an amendment must be created to over rule that law. This goes back to my value criterion with constitutional protection by creating a amendment to join a IC is bad because u have to create laws to over rule others laws and in the end there is going to be so many laws over ruling other laws that the country would fall in to a state of anarchy.
LightC

Pro

I guess since this isn't a real debate, I'll just go to rebuttal.

I'll go through his case:

He makes 3 observations:

1. Use of the ICC

--> There are 2 reasons why this false:

A. He makes the assertion that since its the real world we must use the ICC. The wording of the resolution, ought implies future action. Just because the ICC is the criminal court now, does not mean it will be the court in the future.

B. The resolution states "an international court," meaning it is hypothetical, not actual.

2. Use of the Status Quo

--> This is wrong for two reasons:

A. That is completely negative abuse, because if we strictly look to the status quo then the negative can win in practically a million ways. It is abusive.

B. Is/Ought Fallacy. The resolution states ought, therefore, we are not looking at the status quo, instead we are looking to a future standard.

V: Justice

--> The resolution does not state justice. My opponent makes the argument that a court system's obligation is to achieve justice, however the resolution doesn't debate the functionality of a justice system. It is arguing what the US should do. The US is the resolution actor, thus the highest value should be Proper US Policy.

VC: Constitutional Protection

--> I have 3 responses:

First, he never actually explains the inherent link between justice and constitutional rights. He merely says that there would be no justice.

Second, the ICC or any international court would hold such basic protections. For instance under the Rome Statue, there is protection agaisnt double jeopardy, right to habeas corpus, right to legal counsel, etc.

Third, there is no way to weigh justice by constitutional protection because the constitution is a man made document and thus fallible. For instance it allowed slavery until the SC fixed that.

C1 - Participation in the ICC is unconstitutional

He makes this one point: ICC can try American citizens

--> This is wrong for 3 reasons:

First, the ICC has already set up protections agaisnt this in the fact that the ICC will only intervene if a domestic court gives up the case and hands it to the ICC.

Second, the only way to protect ourselves is to join, thus giving us leverage over policy decisions within the court.

Third, in modern times no crimes agaisnt humanity have been done in the US. Therefore, we have no need to worry.

*If you have any questions send me a message, and I would be glad to help.
Debate Round No. 1
kingbrown

Con

thanks um can u tell me what to correct and if u have any cards that can support this contention that would be great thanks
LightC

Pro

sure, ill send u the corrections through the message system, and I'll check if I have any spare cards u can use.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
For the harvard tournament I made 5 observations as to y u should look at the ICC: 1. It is the only brightline to weigh impacts. 2. Hypo = abusive 3. Resolution is contextualized in a realistic setting. 4. ICJ also adopted Rome statute. 5. "an" = one court.
Posted by ohKAYZ 8 years ago
ohKAYZ
Good idea.
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
with this topic, I think it's almost easier to just go with the ICC on both sides.
the neg can still easily argue sovereignty, while the aff doesnt need to waste their time making arguments about hypothetical courts. The ICC is legitimate, and, if you actually read the rome statute, it's a fine court.

using the ICC simply makes the debate less muddled.

also, against hypo courts, just ask them difficult questions about their un-defined court system, and when they give really vague answers, tell the judge to pin them to the ICC so their not abusive.
Posted by ohKAYZ 8 years ago
ohKAYZ
I'm not sure because I've never actually debated, but people have argued that since it states 'AN international court', it is hypothetical. Using the definition of 'Existing only in concept and not in reality' for hypothetical, this resolution exists in the real-world because it states 'the US'.

I'm not absolutely positive though.

And I have no idea how I would counter hypothetical courts in the instance of my opponent stating that 'ought' would mean in the future and the ICC is NOW and not the future.
Posted by Cheezypuff 8 years ago
Cheezypuff
You know what I really hated? at my last tournament I went against one girl that would accept the ICC because the resolution didnt specify it, even though it is the only one that prosecutes crimes against humanity! I beg you for the sake of your opponent, please don't be annoying and do that!
Would that thing about the hypothetical court really work?
Oh don't be nervous, it's way easy and 99% of the time your opponents will be morons, especially if you are novice. (I just dfinished my last novice tournament :D )
Posted by ohKAYZ 8 years ago
ohKAYZ
Your opponent had to agree to the ICC for your round! A lot of people don't realize that the international criminal court is the only international court structure that prosecutes crimes against humanity!
---
Moreover, I believe you can counter the hypothetical court argument by saying that it IS in the context of the real world since the resolution has already stated 'the US'.
I've never debated before, but I'm studying on the topic. -first real debate on saturday and nervous as hell-
Posted by Cheezypuff 8 years ago
Cheezypuff
of course it is always fantastic hitting those arguments at tournaments, I kinda wish my opponents would know what they were talking about more. some of them hadn't even heard of the Rome Statute! If the con reads through it, you will realize, there is really maybe only one argument that you can use against a decent opponent. and that argument is that Because of all the cultural diversity, the ICC has never finished a trial. It is too inefficient.

Your opponent had to agree to the ICC for your round! A lot of people don't realize that the international criminal court is the only international court structure that prosecutes crimes against humanity!
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Though I have to admit I enjoy going up against people using that argument, as it nets me an easy win for that round.

At Stanford I had a girl debate me, her entire case was cultural relativism and how the I.C.C. is unconstitutional. She agreed to my observation that we need to use the I.C.C. in the debate. I destroy her weak argument. In her final speech she says "Just because the I.C.C. does it, doesn't mean another court will.". I was a little depressed, but I simply got up and restated the fact that we're looking at the I.C.C. in this debate and my opponent agreed, so that's irrelevant.
Posted by Cheezypuff 8 years ago
Cheezypuff
the Con's first contention is weak. It is weak beacause their information is false. At my last tournament i hit this all the time and its a waste of time because their are much better arguments to be made. The reason your argument is weak is because it is all so false! The United States constitution doesnt have to be amended, article 121 of the Rome Statute says that any members of the ICC may amend it. The international criminal court must also always abide by the constitution belonging to the country of the person which it is prosecuting, so if a U.S. citizen is prosecuted, they are subject to all rights of the American Bill of Rights if not more. The Rome Statute garantees an extensive list of human rights for the prosecuted.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
This isn't a real debate, but remember that the whole unconstitutional argument is the weakest argument you can use. Don't go to a large-scale tournament with that and hope to succeed.

A better argument is one I saw recently. Joining the court increases hegemony, hegemony is bad because it leads to unipolarity. We live in a multipolar world so we're alienating others. There's tons of evidence to prove this, and nobody expects the argument. Most people on the aff advocate multipolarity so they're no ready for a neg case that can turn their entire case against them.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RagingCow 8 years ago
RagingCow
kingbrownLightCTied
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
kingbrownLightCTied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
kingbrownLightCTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Mdal 8 years ago
Mdal
kingbrownLightCTied
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