The Instigator
baseketballer
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

resolved:The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,341 times Debate No: 6266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

baseketballer

Pro

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute crimes against humanity
I affirm the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity before I begin I would like to define some key terms from the Resolution,
Definitions
Crime against humanity- an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense
Ought- used to express duty or moral obligation
Observation of the resolution
to give both the affirmative and negative equal ground and make the debate more fair the affirmative and negative don't have to be specific on what court is being used because the resolution states an international court it not saying we should use an existing court

Value Criterion
Because of the wording in the resolution, mostly the inclusion of the word ought. We must ask ourselves if joining an international court is moral. My value for the round will therefore be Morality, which is defined as the practice of the moral duties, in order for the US to uphold Morality This fundamental concept is stated in the framework of the Declaration of Independence, when it points to the fact that the "self- evident" "truth" is that "all men are created equally" and "they are endowed by their creator" with these "inalienable rights". The rights were created before any form of Government or political power. And these rights are "inalienable" because no power should take them away and all people should respect them. When it is taken away then Human Rights are violated, thus becoming immoral. The standard for which the round should be weighed is by the Protection of Human Rights. By Protection of Human rights I mean that all people rights should be protected as much possible and in any opportunity that the US has to protect these human rights. Which is the very essence of morality
my criterion will ergo be Utilitarianism or the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons

Contention One
Right now under the current system of the United States, the protection of human rights is not fulfilled.
The US has failed multiple times to protect the human rights of both its own citizens and other people who are not citizens in the US. A good example to look at is the very controversial topic of Guantanamo Bay, where people untouchable rights are thrown out the door. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks, agree that these rights are being violated when they 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. " Thus the United States is in fact acting immoral not only to those of Non-US citizens but also through the violation of the rights of its own citizens. The International Human Rights watch gave an article on 2005 which tells the story of a man, Jose Padilla, who was indicted on criminal charges. The Bush administration decision to bring Padilla into the civilian criminal justice system means that the Supreme Court likely will no longer hear Padilla's challenge to an appellate court ruling that the president may subject American citizens to indefinite military detention without criminal charge or trial. The reason for his arrest is based on an alleged link to AL-Qaeda, and because of this link he has spent over 3 years in solitary confinement. So it is not only non-us citizens whose rights are being violated but it is also our own citizens. (If the above example is not enough to convince you judge let us look at another horrific incident inside the United States which demoralized a race of people including both foreign and US citizens. The internment camps of World War II are a great example of America protecting rights gone bad, with regards to Human Rights. After Pearl Harbor, the United States set up multiple camps in order to hold supposed Japanese spies, both American citizens and foreign citizens were held up in terrible conditions, which included basically shacks to live in and almost no clothing and food, when during the winter the cold became an enemy because of the poor protection provided for these "dangerous citizens"). The cases continue on throughout the history of the US with examples such as Abu Ghraib and the Japanese American Internment camps, these examples showing the United States priority or, more realistically, the lack thereof. According to Carole Vann/Juan Gasparini/Human Rights Tribune, "the US has shown very little commitment to human rights in general. The working group against arbitrary detention gave up going to Guantanamo last month because Washington would not allow its members to have face to face meetings with detainees. For its part, the Rapporteur against racism, Doudou Diene, has fought for years to be able to pay a visit and only recently got permission." So it has become clear that the United States has been unable to protect the rights of others and its own citizens. The Impact being that the United States cannot protect human rights and even US citizen's rights, so in order to truly be moral the US needs to give jurisdiction to an international court that would protect human rights better, in order to fulfill its moral obligation. By keeping a system of checks and balances to help keep nations in an international court to full its obligation to protect it citizen and give them a fair trial
Contention 2
International court can better protect human rights
Because an international court has jurisdiction over the world not just individual nations it can better interfere with nations that do not prosecute or even try to stop these crimes against humanity so therefore an international court might have the ability to interfere with a nation and be able to stop these crime them shelves with the help of the United states which is my
Sub-a
an international court needs the united states to better prosecute crimes against humanity
This being that an international court needs the support of the US. In order to be effective, an international court needs the support of the US in order to truly utilize its ability to prosecute crimes against humanity. Now, let's go into the first point, an international court would need assistance of the United States to help enforce their policies and regulations, let's use the ICC as an example because it is one of the best examples of a court to model. From the words of Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, "The ICC has no police force of its own, so it needs robust political backing to bring accused war criminals to trial". So in order for the United States to fulfill its moral obligation it needs to defend human rights, it needs to give its support to an international court in order to fulfill the moral obligation to protect the rights of all humans.
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46

Con

>I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

>I will state my case first, and then move on to that of my respected opponent.

>Thomas Jefferson once said that "[He] consider[ed] trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."�ƒ�'���‚����ƒ�€š�‚�� I agree with him, and it is because I believe that Americans are entitled to the rights given to them in the United States Constitution that I negate the resolution:

:: Negated ::

>The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

>For clarification during this debate, I would like to offer the following definitions:

>Crime against humanity: a crime or series of crimes, such as genocide, directed against a large group because of race, religion, country of origin, or other reason unconnected with any individual's responsibility for having committed a criminal act

>Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies

>Additionally, I would like to offer the following observations:

:: Observation ::

>The International Criminal Court in the resolution is taken by the negative to refer to the currently existing International Criminal Court which is designed for the same purpose. Additionally, the negative does not agree that United States citizens should not be tried for crimes against humanity, the resolution simply states that the United States should submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

:: Value ::

>My value is justice. Due to the wording of the resolution, justice is the inherent value for this round and any argument that does not also uphold justice does not truly affirm or negate this resolution. The fundamentals of orderly society are based upon the justice system. Without a criminal justice system, anarchy ensues. Justice is best easily accomplished with variations dependent on culture and societal structure.

:: Value Criterion ::

>My value criterion is independence. Independence establishes the differences between different societies of the world; even within countries. Independence in the legal system is particularly important given the diversity of countries and that what is acceptable in one may not be acceptable in another. Independence promotes justice in that justice can be best molded to fit any given society through promoting it.

:: Contention 1 ::

>My first contention is that submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality. Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. This ties right in with utilitarianism; the best way to support as many people as possible is to protect the innocent before prosecuting the guilty. After all, the United States court system goes by the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty."

:: Contention 2 ::

>My second contention is that the United States submitting itself to an International Criminal Court devalues its own existence. The United States Constitution was made for the purposes of protecting the citizens of the nation first and foremost, but also the nation itself. By allowing for an International Criminal Court of greater power and influence than its own, the United States is essentially a part of a larger country. Its Constitution is essentially null because all higher power goes to the court system which can openly prosecute United States citizens. The laws of the International Criminal Court then take precedence over the laws of the United States and endanger the basic existence of the United States.

:: Contention 3 ::

>My third contention is that the International Criminal Court is not properly restricted, endangering society. As of the present, the International Criminal Court has the ability to prosecute such crimes as murder, rape, etc. These crimes are generally on a smaller, less globalized scale and are best dealt with by the proper authorities within the country of the crime. Globalizing these acts classified as crimes against humanity would demote independence which is ultimately needed in a search for societal prosperity.

:: Conclusion ::

>In conclusion, the stipulation of this resolution is whether or not the United States should become a part of larger court system which, in addition to its grotesque area of jurisdiction, would have precedence over nations themselves. The resolution is correctly negated because a submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court would be detrimental to the justice system. If the United States is to prosper the inclination should certainly be to negate the resolution.

>I will now move on to my opponent's case.

>I firstly contend that my observation is of greater validity than that of my respected opponent due to the fact that the International Criminal Court is the only existing court fitting the description given in the resolution. Additionally, when it is assumed that we are speaking of a hypothetical court neither the affirmative nor the negative can make a truly concrete argument. Therefore, I contend that the International Criminal Court is the court referred to in the resolution.

>My opponent values morality. The negative agrees that morality is most certainly a valid value but disagrees with the use of the value by the affirmative. Morality and justice are strongly tied, and by having morality justice is then possible. Morals are what allows civilization to function, and civilization functions best with a justice system. Civilizations, however, are (as stated in my own value criterion) unique. His value criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is best achieved with independence and diversity, not by generalizing the parts of the world.

>My opponent's first contention cites the current system of the fulfilling of human rights in the United States. He states that it is inadequate. What my opponent neglects to realize is that to globalize the same system would not in any way way help the United States. It would just make the United States citizens subject to a government which they have not agreed to. It would put United States citizens under international law, and would devalue the United States.

>Before attacking my opponent's second contention, I would like to inform him that for future reference in Lincoln Douglas debate, sub-points are only to be used if you have two or more of them. If you only have one sub-point, if should be lumped in with the body of the contention. Just a suggestion, I hope it does not affect the voting.

With that said, I will now address my opponent's second contention. This contention states that an International (Criminal) Court could better protect human rights. I am inclined to disagree. The International Criminal Court can prosecute for the following:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

Sub-division of (b) includes such crimes as murder and rape. The International Criminal Court does a WORSE job of protecting these rights due to the differences between cultures in their different countries.

My opponent's sub-point A refers to the International Criminal Court, indicating contradiction on my opponent's part. The model of the International Criminal Court SHOULD be used. Other than this, my opponent's entire point is side information and is not relevant at all to submission to the International Criminal Court.

>I await my opponent's response and wish him luck.

>By the way, apologies for technical difficulties in my quotations.
Debate Round No. 1
baseketballer

Pro

baseketballer forfeited this round.
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46

Con

>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. Sadly, given that he has not responded to any of my arguments, I must conclude that he drops not only all of my arguments, but all of his own.

My opponent was online 7 hours ago (as I write this) and had a 24 hour time period to respond. I thus conclude that he had the ability to rebut, but chose not to.

<<<***MY OPPONENT, BASKETBALLER, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS THUS FAR IN THIS DEBATE.***>>>
Debate Round No. 2
baseketballer

Pro

baseketballer forfeited this round.
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46

Con

>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round.

<<<***MY OPPONENT, BASKETBALLER, HAS DROPPED ALL ARGUMENTS IN THIS DEBATE.***>>>

I hence urge that voting be in favor of myself, CON. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BuergerMan16 2 years ago
BuergerMan16
Can both of you please paste the sources he used, I am writing an essay for school and need 6 sources.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
told you so
Posted by baseketballer 8 years ago
baseketballer
My bad Roy I did not notice that time was up..if we could I would love to continue it...and I did copy and paste good observation
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
fo-shizzle, Is your comment to me? If so, I don't understand. What are you talking about?
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
You copied and pasted that from someone else. thats messed up
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Are you going to follow through with this debate or forfeit as you did with the ANWR debate? It wastes my time if you are not serious.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 ChopStyxNryce 8 years ago
ChopStyxNryce
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 sword_of_lead 8 years ago
sword_of_lead
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by BrianErickson 8 years ago
BrianErickson
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 aurora1616 8 years ago
aurora1616
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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 FeatherintheWind 8 years ago
FeatherintheWind
baseketballerViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46Tied
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