Three issues against North Korea.

It should be said that while both of us undoubtedly went far off topic from the beginning, at the least I did address my own original issues in my last argument. It was simply a principle-based argument rather than one based on technical issues. To simplify my arguments a little, I will address your points as paragraphs and full sentences so we don't have to continue to refer back to previous rounds. Now, as I have stated many times, any six nation talks and negotiations mean dealing with North Korea. Let's consider again, say we choose to negotiate with them on human rights issues first. What possible incentive would North Korea have to deal with us on this? But this is the real world, and we both know that the six nations will discuss, albeit with minor talks on other issues, nuclear disarmament. North Korea can gain relaxation of sanctions and UN condemnations and the threat of war, because we, the US and its allies, want to feel safe. We're protecting ourselves. We'll make whatever deal with North Korea to end their disarmament so that we won't have to worry. We won't care if North Korea continues to abuse its own citizens in perpetuity all the while we can continue to be at peace with them. In any case, there is no need for a peace treaty for the purpose of discussions. If that is what North Korea chooses to ask in return, it is not something we should give them. As I have said and you have agreed, a peace treaty is a symbol of cooperation and an end to dispute with the many issues we claim to have against them. Now about my second resolution. While you claim that I have strayed from them, you forget one thing. ""No international court can intervene unless North Korea becomes a signatory to either of them, which there is no sign of." Then why did you propose it?" If you'll remember I proposed that despite any legal restrictions or regulations, (resolution 3), an international court should intervene. That is, even if jurisdictional restrictions bar North Korea from having to appear in any international court, I affirm that such restrictions should be violated. My argument is not "let's go attack North Korea with no hesitation", and a denial of diplomatic relations and a refusal to stand by while they violate the very fundamentals of humanity is NOT war-mongering. I simply believe that knowing that we cannot negotiate with North Korea to end their inhumane practices, we should do something about and for God's sake, we set up these international organs so that we could stop situations like this. Is the UN and the ICC not good for anything? We shouldn't have to beg them to do something. So, the UN has rules. Evidently, they aren't working. As for the Rome Statute. Now that I understand your main argument against the use of a charge of crimes against humanity, I can discuss the problem. While you claim that it is too impossible to prove that such crimes were ever sanctioned by the state (NK), you forget several points. Firstly, resolution 3 again speak for itself. It is common knowledge, and the general opinion of the UN and its member states that North Korea is responsible for these crimes. Secondly, a case in any court is proved or disproved by a trial. At the least, an indictment and a trial is warranted just to see if a conviction can be achieved. Thirdly, defectors have much evidence as to North Korea's responsibility for crimes against humanity. They have some documented proof, off the top of my head I remember from the documentary "Access to Evil" a defector who smuggled from North Korea documents pertaining to the use of human experimentation. Furthermore, several defectors have come from fairly high ranks and inner circles in North Korea and know of the government's responsibility, e.g. Hwang Jang Yop. Through such defectors, we know, for instance, that Kim Jong-Il ordered the kidnapping of certain people from South Korea, perhaps most notably film directors and actors. And finally, [http://www.amicc.org...] ICC rules of evidence are somewhat less strict than that of civilian courts in say, the USA. That particular source tells us that hearsay evidence is generally admissible. This further widens the scope of testimony that can be given by defectors. ""I never proposed a war." But you do now." No, I do not. I do believe that having exhausted all non-military avenues available to us for fixing the problem, we should consider a military solution, but overall I think this should not be necessary if the UN takes some harder action against North Korea. The situation, by the way, is that if we sign a peace treaty, we will most certainly have less leverage to negotiate, if that were even possible, on human rights, and we know that if we managed to disarm North Korea by way of a peace treaty followed by negotiations, not the US nor North Korea will bother with human rights. Lastly, round 4. Reasoning can be based on principles or morals, which is warranted when it comes to North Korea (especially when I addressed my resolutions). Since this is round 5 I will conclude. If it were you suffering what North Koreans have to suffer, you too would want something to be done, it is undeniable. A solution isn't easy, but it is possible. In situations like this we may find it difficult to be selfless. But it is that selflessness that is demanded of us by the values we preach, and by our instinctual sense of humanity. We know what the truth of the matter is. What humane society could stand idly by while such inconceivable horrors continue every day? The UN was primarily set up to prevent the same evil of WWII, the Holocaust and horrific tyranny, from repeating itself. How can it fail to act, (not only in North Korea), when state sponsored evil, or even evil simply ignored by states who fail to fix things, thrives? The UN and in fact the world has a duty to ensure that all people are given rights set out in the UDHR. They have a obligation to save fellow human beings from terror. The UN has a job to do. Given all these reasons, and additionally Con's occasional personal attacks and sloppy argument, I strongly urge you, reader, to vote Pro. I also urge you to think about human rights issues in the DPRK, and other authoritarian states, and ask yourself what you can do to help. I think that is all, so I look forward to a satisfactory end to this debate.