I know this is long, but can you read some of this and tell me if it's good so far? It's LD debate AFF case.?
Affirmative (The resolution isn't very good for morality.) and keep in mind this is my first LD case that I have written.
“The world court, human rights, international law, and crimes against humanity are all new terms that are part of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal, and common moral justice to all peoples” (that is from the NationMaster.com online encyclopedia). I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; resolved, that the United States should submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
I would first like to define the major terms regarding this debate: Jurisdiction will be defined as it is in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, which is “the power, right, or authority to interpret, apply, and declare the law.” And crimes against humanity are defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum as they, “are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. ...murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.”
In this debate I will be valuing justice, defined in Plato’s Republic as “to every man his dues.”
My first contention is that submitting to a international court system would be a positive step for the United States to take. The national court that is around today is the International Criminal Court, or ICC, in which 108 countries have joined in about 7 years.
Sub-point A is that international sovereignty is not hurt if we submit to this court. The ICC is not where all crimes against humanity cases immediately go to. As the website for the court states, they only enter in as a last resort matter; they do not act if, “a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine.” This means that unless formal proceedings were used to shied a person from criminal responsibility, the ICC does not enter in on the matter. This shows that it is used to stop any fraudulency in cases and will in turn increase the legitimacy of cases because such fraudulent behavior will decrease. Also, the resolution states that it will only submit to prosecutions against humanity, the ICC is designed for that purpose as well as for genocide and war crimes. But any other court following similar guidelines followed by the ICC but only prosecutes crimes against humanity would be a feasibly option. And due to the definition I provided for crimes against humanity, the court will be able to suppress large outbreaks of murder, rape, and the various crimes I mentioned before.
The second contention that I would like to present is that joining such a court would increase global morality. If the United States joined forces with multiple countries for an international court, we would be coming together for the greater good of the world. A slightly smaller-scale example would be Hurricane Katrina: when Louisiana had that devastating disaster, the other states did not sit back and watch, they helped by sending food, clothing, and money to the wrecked citizens. Now the we need to help prevent crimes against humanity not only in our country, but in others. The more countries that join in such a court, the more powerful it could become, while all of the countries sticking together to make sure the court stays at a reasonable level as to no become excessively powerful.
My Sub-point B is that the court will promote equal protection of rights. Robert Grimsley (Emeritus Professor at the University of Bristol), in his book Jean-Jacques Rousseau, pg. 101, states, “No individual will be required to submit to conditions which are not also applicable to everyone else. Justice demands that all the members of the community enjoy equal rights.” The court brings justice to the global community, in that all who are tried have equal rights that are applicable to all. The more countries that join, the further global justice can be strengthened. Foreign relations would, in turn, improve with the various countries working together.
My third sub-point is that joining the court would support Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. Rousseau believed that people collectively band together in order to increase liberty. This is exactly what submitting to an international court will do: it promote liberty by halting fraud and crimes against humanity. It will give people more freedom to live their lives with less fear of the world. (I will continue from here)
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I think that what you've written so far is clear and concise. There were a couple of misspellings, otherwise it's wonderfully written. The only thing that I would reconsider is the comparison of aid to Katrina victims to an international court system. I don't think that these two things are comparable. Great job!
- Anonymous4 years ago
i like to jot down additionally, and that i excel at it is what all human beings says so i assume so... Haha yet besides approximately yours it is fairly solid coming from somebody that gets appraisal each of the time for his writing you got to be conscious of yours is robust.