Breaking News: LD — Int’l Courts; PF — Alt. Fuel
posted by Bietz on December 1st, 2008
RIPON, Wis. — The NFL has released the January/February resolution for LD and the January resolution for Public Forum. They read:
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. (Lincoln-Douglas Debate)
Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. (Public Forum Debate)
Popularity: 5%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 24.27.38.35
December 1st, 2008 06:19
Sweet. I’m excited.
Posted from: 70.88.115.3
December 1st, 2008 06:24
i like the ld topic, not so much the pf one though
Posted from: 208.125.7.2
December 1st, 2008 06:28
Score.
Posted from: 204.169.115.103
December 1st, 2008 06:29
this is an international crime to ld.
ew.
Posted from: 209.215.171.12
December 1st, 2008 06:33
Could have been worse
Posted from: 67.168.31.114
December 1st, 2008 06:37
Disgusting.
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
December 1st, 2008 06:41
Shit. This really sucks… At least on first glance.
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
December 1st, 2008 06:49
For the LD topic -
I guess I’m not sure what it means. I like the topic area, but what is going to be debated? Here are some general questions:
1. What does “submit” mean?
2. Does the ICC work whereby you join it and then you are always under the jurisdiction of it?
3. Are there opt-outs?
4. Does voting affirmative mean the US (or any country for that matter) take action against a country who is committing crimes against humanity?
5. Does an international criminal court ONLY prosecute crimes against humanity?
6. Since the resolution isn’t specific to THE ICC, can the affirmative just make one up?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 1st, 2008 06:59
The Bietz Court
Thats my AC
Posted from: 64.72.67.162
December 1st, 2008 07:15
*cough* better than marriage and testing.
guess my psychicness didnt work
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 1st, 2008 07:18
>1. What does “submit” mean?
I am sure this is well covered in international law :), but it would be to accept the limitation of sovereignty inherent in accepting jurisdiction of a court.
>2. Does the ICC work whereby you join it and then you are always under the jurisdiction of it?
Well, whatever court, yes, you’re in, you’re there.
>3. Are there opt-outs? Optouts from treaties (and this would have to be done by treaty) do take place.
>4. Does voting affirmative mean the US (or any country for that matter) take action against a country who is committing crimes against humanity?
Hmmm. Interesting. It would depend on if the jurisdiction of the court was exclusive or not.
>5. Does an international criminal court ONLY prosecute crimes against humanity?
Well, the terms of the resolution would suggest such a limitation.
>6. Since the resolution isn’t specific to THE ICC, can the affirmative just make one up?
Why not?
This should be a fun set of debates.
BC
Posted from: 70.138.99.19
December 1st, 2008 07:19
none of bietz’s questions matter when there is plenty of SKEPTICISM to be run
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 1st, 2008 07:19
None of the foregoing suggests why the US ought to join, of course, which is the gravamen of this debate.
BC
Posted from: 63.246.171.199
December 1st, 2008 07:28
Dear VBD,
There seems to be a typo in your spelling of the topic. Isn’t it spelled “Resolved: United States law ought not recognize marriage”?
Posted from: 147.70.32.3
December 1st, 2008 07:31
Sounds good!
Posted from: 166.102.136.7
December 1st, 2008 07:43
Isn’t there supposed to be a little picture that represents the topic?
Maybe the figure of Justice holding the balance?
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
December 1st, 2008 08:30
So, why should the U.S. submit to an international court?
Posted from: 71.139.11.48
December 1st, 2008 08:44
big surprise
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
December 1st, 2008 09:12
I’d warn people not to just assume the topic is an “ICC topic.”
The topic refers to “an” international criminal court, not “the.”
That means… that the aff is not locked into defending the ICC and the whole entirety of the Rome Statute, etc etc. An aff can be topical and still say that the ICC is silly. People would be well advised to actually make sure their ICC files/cards link to general problems of submission to international legal courts, and not just the ills of the ICC.
Of course many people will be lazy and ignore what I’m saying, and just foolishly and blindly use ICC cards without a link story, but hopefully this comment helps out those who actually are debating still.
Posted from: 198.202.202.20
December 1st, 2008 09:29
whoaaaa are people not going to be able to say justice/morality dont exist on this topic?
there goes about 85% of the country’s strat.
Posted from: 198.202.202.20
December 1st, 2008 09:30
oh wait nvm, im sure there will be some great neg args about how justice doesnt exist so they shouldnt submit to a court.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 1st, 2008 09:56
To my mind the ICC is simply an implementation example, as well as being an issue providing some support for one’s argumentation (on both sides). One is not locked into defending or attacking that institution, I should think.
BC
Posted from: 70.138.99.19
December 1st, 2008 10:16
morality doesn’t exist, so there can be no crimes against humanity, so the US can’t submit to something that prosecutes things that don’t exist
voilà
Posted from: 70.138.99.19
December 1st, 2008 10:18
on a serious note, you get an automatic 25 if you run skepticism on this topic
Posted from: 168.212.159.11
December 1st, 2008 10:21
this sucks.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 1st, 2008 10:22
If aff runs that the US can opt-out, my guess is that they would lose any advantages they would be claiming.
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 1st, 2008 11:18
Nice topic.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 1st, 2008 12:53
>morality doesn’t exist, so there can be no crimes against humanity, so the US can’t submit to something that prosecutes things that don’t exist
Even if morality doesn’t exist, a CAH can exist if the nations of the world agree that action X is a CAH. At that point it would be possible to submit to a court with jurisdiction to here such claims.
That morality doesn’t exist is just one more of the current annoyances floating around in the LD memetic pool.
BC
Posted from: 70.184.29.2
December 1st, 2008 12:58
I agree with Bill Cooper. I don’t believe it would be wise to tangle with the burden of disproving morallity, at least not for this topic.
Posted from: 151.198.226.187
December 1st, 2008 13:06
POMOPOMOTHEORYTHOERYPOMO
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 1st, 2008 13:55
Why does the resolution have to say the word “justice” for people to run morality DNE? Doesn’t the resolution question what the U.S. should do, hence if moral obligations don’t exist it can’t be affirmed (or negated, depending on how you view presumption)?
I’m not saying skepticism is an advisable strategy, but I think people should recognize that any prescriptive resolution can be disproven by a skeptical argument, whether or not the term “justice” or “morality” is directly used. If you want to construct resolutions that preclude skepticism, start writing topics like “Resolved; The United States submits to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.”
In other words, I don’t know why eliminating skepticism is a such a big concern, or why people seek artificial ways to eliminate it.
All of this said, I think the topic is pretty good. Definitely way better than the last two.
Posted from: 67.165.107.165
December 1st, 2008 14:06
+1 to Bietz: this topic is terribly vexed by its wording. Affs will run a bunch of ICC stuff then shift out of specific d/as by saying “Wait no I’m not actually advocating the ICC! That’s just an example!”. Affs will say the word “an” lets them fiat any international court with any character they want. Negs will exploit the topic vagueness and say affs can’t assume it will be the ICC.
The simple solution is that people should just treat this as an ICC topic and ignore the rest of the wording. I am surprised that topic wasn’t just re-used.
Also, Ken is right about skepticism. This topic does nothing to frame it out. The word “ought” implies that there are facts about what the US ought to do, which brings in all the usual worries about the fact/value distinction, referential theory of meaning, relativism, projection, and whatever other skeptical args people use.
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
December 1st, 2008 14:54
This topic would be amazing if properly worded. At first glance the “an international court” seems to imply a specific body, but obviously nothing is specified. I look forward to a bunch of awful T debates.
Seriously please just run ratify ICC and defend it.
Posted from: 76.117.189.67
December 1st, 2008 15:10
The submission issue didn’t come up as a major issue at UNT but that might be different on the national circuit. Most debates ended with both sides conceding some conception of limited sovereignty but not non-existent sovereignty on the part of the US.
“an” international court was not a very large issue either. Most negatives I saw or read took shots at the Rome Statute or the ICC specifically but made links in case between the specific evidence to a general conception of both the Statute and the Court.
Also, there were a lot of authors that wrote about the existence of an international court in general and whether one , regardless of what is was about or who was running it, should exist and how effective it would be. The thing about it is that most of that literature is in BOOKS not PDF’s.
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 15:23
I will be very upset if anyone runs a Fem K of “humanity”
Posted from: 96.244.54.105
December 1st, 2008 16:46
nick, how would humanity meaning all people be susceptible to a feminist k
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 16:54
huMANity instead of something like huMYNity
I envision the argument in two ways:
1) as a standard K
2) as PIK (kind of like the “person” PIK on the corporations topic)
I’m not saying its a good argument, rather, just suggesting its possible.
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 1st, 2008 18:30
Just warning everyone right now, Edina is going to be interpreting the phrase “crimes against humanity” as “nations that sanction marriage” and run cases for the marriage topic.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 1st, 2008 18:49
good shit
Posted from: 173.96.51.59
December 1st, 2008 19:58
@ 38
right on!
Posted from: 68.107.118.63
December 1st, 2008 20:05
It seems to me such a feminist K (one that denounces usage of humanity), would be flawed from the start, due to a misunderstanding of etymologies. While the word man (from the Norse “mann”) did originally mean a person of either gender, and woman did indeed derive from wif (a female, also from Norse) + mann, the word “human” comes from a completely different etymological source: the Latin “humus” (not to be confused with “hummus,” the delicious chickpea sauce), which means “earth.” Insofar as the origin of “human” is completely gender-neutral and isolated from the origins of “man” and “woman,” I don’t understand how the kritik would function.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 20:09
@38 WRONG! It has to mean Vigilantism.
@41, Of course. If you run into it, destroy it.
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 20:21
@41 - trust me, I’m not defending the K - a friend suggested it and I gagged
Posted from: 75.141.207.53
December 1st, 2008 22:02
PF = Lolz
Posted from: 69.233.83.47
December 2nd, 2008 02:46
Written 2 essays on various ICCs
3rd Week VBI
Sex+Sex+Sex+Sex=This Topic
Posted from: 218.78.225.45
December 2nd, 2008 04:36
let’s compare the topic with the old topic “The U.S. should submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court”
Reasons why old topic is better than new topic:
1. avoids “ought”, which is much harder to argue has no moral or value-related content
2. is specific to one court, so prevents the problems related to affs shifting out of legit ICC D/as and negs saying ICC good is insufficient
3. avoids making the “Courts do/don’t actually solve for human rights” debate explicit in the resolution and a necessary burden for most affs
4. avoids saying “crimes against humanity”, which opens a Pandora’s box of super-shity kritiks.
5. avoids the possibility of genocide good cases and other such crappy arguments
6. offers more stable aff ground because aff debaters have the Rome Statute to refer to
Reasons why this res is better than the old one:
1. it’s avoid having a res that says “should”, which is irretrievably policy oriented. Good job NFL community on choosing the version of this topic that will keep the hellspawn demons of policy debate away from our value debates!
I agree that the choice of this wording over the other one sucks. But seriously, if you think this topic is terrible, remember the past 4 years’ jan/feb topic.
We had:
1. church and state, which had the atrocious “best served” clause in it
2. eminent domain, which was absurdly aff-biased
3. corporations topic, which featured some of the most repetitive debates ever had, on top of some hilariously terrible arguments (remember how people ran the tautologies argument at TOC??? And won?)
4. Nuke weapons, which was equal if not worse in terms of annoying phrasing.
Posted from: 66.193.5.121
December 2nd, 2008 08:26
The old wording of this topic was extremely popular among certain circles. It was debated at virtually every major camp, and then was not voted in. With the new wording a topic that a large number of people have felt is an important and extremely rich subject for debate is finally being debated. I am sure there are tradeoffs involved in terms of how the wording has changed, and I am sure there will be many issues given the way it is currently worded. But anyone who honestly believes that is not the case with any topic is fooling themselves. There were many issues with the specification of the ICC. For one, neg counterplan ground was virtually unlimited (adopt the Rome statue with 1 minor adjustment, alternative courts rather than the ICC, have the US be willing to refer cases to the ICC under specific circumstances, but not join as a member, etc). There were several other issues with the old wording of the topic that I could outline here, but quite frankly I think that would be a waste of time. A sophisticated analysis of the topic and a sound understanding of theroy should be more than sufficent to allow ample opportunity for thoughtful debaters to be successful on either side of this resolution.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
December 2nd, 2008 11:02
I liked the old wording better and advocated for it. The new topic shifts the infinite CP ground that the negative would have to have research for to the affirmative where they can now imagine any international court they desire.
I agree with those who say treat this as the old ICC topic and we’ll be in for good debates. Treat it as a way to avoid debating the ICC or any other concrete example and you’re doing a disservice to yourself and the Community.
As a side note, anyone who attempts to shift out of disadvantages w/ remarkably absurd “an” extensions should be prepared to get some terrible speaks in front of me.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 2nd, 2008 14:44
Or, treat it as an LD resolution, and debate the morality of the U.S. handing over some of its sovereignty in exchange for certain aspects justice, as the resolution mandates.
Posted from: 218.78.227.191
December 5th, 2008 00:10
I’m with Dan on the Cp issue, but RJ is right, debating which topic is better is a waste of time.
I think a productive discussion would be what other courts than the ICC are designed to prosecute CAH.
There’s the ICTY, which handles stuff for the former Yugoslav republics. The ICTR does the same for Rwanda. Seems like the UNSec Council has to approve these ad-hoc tribunals. I’ve heard of a similar arrangement in Sierra Leone but i think they’re slightly different.
Regional forums like ASEAN and the EU have human rights committees and such but im not sure they’re “international” in the proper sense of the word.
What kinds of alternatives to the ICC can you think of?
Is there a court that the US could create that would occupy a different role than the ICC but sitll be topical?
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
December 5th, 2008 00:59
Following Alan’s point…here are some other substantial questions the topic raises that do not require assuming that the aff has to defend the ICC (I won’t even go into all the problems with the Rome Statute that aren’t essential to someone defending the resolution as stated)…
Should the US subject its own wartime decisions to an outside body for criminal prosecution? Is it worth the risk to have other countries decide the fate of US soldiers, generals, etc?
Should US citizens be subject to international judgement for war crimes when one nation may consider these same actions as legally acceptable? (i.e. Iraq)
Can some notion of “impartial justice” ever be achieved by an international court given the perhaps inevitable leadership role the US would have to play?
Is legal prosecution a morally desirable response to war criminals, or should we use different models, i.e. forgive-and-forget or truth and reconciliation?
None of the previous questions require pointing to the ICC , although the problems/benefits of the ICC may play a role as evidence. However, I don’t think an affirmative should lose just even if the ICC may be a terrible organization that doesn’t do much. There may still be a moral duty to
submit to the jurisdiction of some international court given
an AC that proves that a.) we should be willing to allow our own citizens/soldiers punished for war crimes and b.)
that we would allow outside countries to have a say over whether or not to do so.
Defending the Rome Statute or the specifics of how the ICC does it is NOT necessary to defend international jurisdiction over war crimes. There may be other models out there, or there may not, but the moral question would still be relevant even if the ICC never came into existence. Heck, it was a relevant ethical question even before Nuremberg happened…
Just because many may want an ICC topic stated explicitly, does not mean that an aff can’t get up, run a very topical aff case and do so without being held responsible to the (many) flaws of one particular way of affirming…. there are other ways with or without a particular body to point to as evidence.
Now this argument has limits. If aff’s try to do this to turn their position/advocacy into a moving target that’s one thing, but that seems just as lazy to me as a neg that
may try to beat an aff by just saying the ICC may be a poor organization.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
December 5th, 2008 01:03
Probably a more clear way to put it is by example. I can affirm the topic before looking at particular organizations.
i.e. I can say “We ought to alleviate poverty.” without
signing onto a particular policy of poverty alleviation.
Similarly, we can affirm the topic, and then decide that the ICC is a pointless option for doing so (i.e. we can say that the ICC doesn’t go far enough in endorsing the action mandated by the resolution..)
Posted from: 128.113.197.83
December 8th, 2008 14:32
I agree with Bhill in how to interpret this topic
but for those who want to make it about the ICC/have other views
I think that if the NC has evidence that indicts an ICC spec or court spec problem, “an” doesn’t solve absent the aff presenting evidence why and how these problems could be solved.