The Instigator
adambain8
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
debaterstud18
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

diplomatic immunity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,774 times Debate No: 3411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

adambain8

Con

The Vienna Convention is explicit that "without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State." Nevertheless, in some occasions, diplomatic immunity leads to some unfortunate results; protected diplomats have violated laws (including those which would be violations at home as well) of the host country and that country has been essentially limited to informing the diplomat's nation that the diplomat is no longer welcome (persona non grata). Diplomatic agents are not, however, exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state; for minor violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission.

Violation of the law by diplomats has included espionage, smuggling, child custody law violations, rape, and even murder: in London in 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was killed on the street by a person shooting from inside the Libyan embassy. The incident caused a breakdown in diplomatic relations until Libya admitted "general responsibility" in 1999.
debaterstud18

Pro

So dimplomatic immunity was designed in order to make sure that foreign dignitatries did not get harrased by other nations in order to persuade their policies. It has been an important part of increasing diplomatic ties between the countries of the world. Looking at the potential problems we need to see that they are overstated by far.

Look to my opponents claims of people getting away with murder and what not and see it directly contradicts his other piece of evidence. He says "Diplomatic agents are not, however, exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state; for minor violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission." Therefore this is a self regulating system because when ever they break a law in a foreign country they are punished by their own country, it doesnt matter where the punishment comes from as long as there is punishment. The fact is that punishment is assured becaue all nations have diplomats and this diplomatic immunity is extended to all. So if say Russia doesn't punish a diplomat who kills an American we wouldn't punish our diplomat if they did the same thing. Therefore its a self correcting system.

Also if we look to the benefits and see that our international relations have been so substantially improved by this we have to be in favor.

Now I have one major question for my opponent, If it is so negative to have diplomatic immunity, how come every nation in the world still stands by it and there has not been a move to eliminate it?
Debate Round No. 1
adambain8

Con

Diplomats are exempt from import duty and tariffs for items for their personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain quantity of cigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous.

Diplomats are not necessarily exempt from paying government-imposed fees when they are "charges levied for specific services rendered." In certain cases, such as London's congestion charge (a daily charge on all cars entering central London), the nature of the fee may lead to disputes, but there is an obligation for the receiving state not to "discriminate as between states"; in other words, any such fees should be payable by all accredited diplomats equally. This may allow the diplomatic corps to negotiate as a group with the authorities of the receiving country. In January 2006, it was reported that the United States owed several million pounds in unpaid congestion charge fees[citation needed]. It was also reported that diplomatic immunity had been used to avoid paying millions of pounds in traffic fines, as well as dodging around GBP1 million in local rates[citation needed], although some embassies have agreed to settle their bills.

Clearly, with all the quasi-illegal activities that result from diplomatic immunity, it must be abolished.
debaterstud18

Pro

Ok but still you havent responded to the reason we have diplomatic immunity and why no one has ended it. Just because the United States owed money for our diplomats England owed us money as well so it balances out. Also the system is self regulating because we can punish our diplomats. So because there is so much inherent checks on the system and it overall balances out to achieve a net benefit and because no one is in favor of it being ended as far as the global community you should vote aff for diplomatic immunity.
Debate Round No. 2
adambain8

Con

alright you serve a great point. But I have 1 thing to say 2 u.

No one, especially u is a debater stud u probably suck penis all day.
ND U KNOW WHAT

u can lick my choda.
debaterstud18

Pro

debaterstud18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 6 years ago
PublicForumG-d
EVERYONE VOTE PRO!

Damn, this must be 25 characters long, so here it is.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 6 years ago
PublicForumG-d
EVERYONE VOTE PRO!

Damn, this must be 25 characters long, so here it is.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 6 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Con,

What a waste of a debate. Seriously. And the copy and paste from wikipedia in your second argument?

Pooop.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by debaterstud18 6 years ago
debaterstud18
adambain8debaterstud18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by i-win-347 6 years ago
i-win-347
adambain8debaterstud18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
adambain8debaterstud18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Ylareina 6 years ago
Ylareina
adambain8debaterstud18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 6 years ago
HadenQuinlan
adambain8debaterstud18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30