LD international Court Resolution

It's been tons of fun and I feel totally more comfortable with the topic now =). The statements in quotations are Metz's and text below is my rebuttal. Late-breaking definition: International Court- A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) I apologize for the extremely late definition, but finding a definition not specific to a court was tough. I got this one from another debate between "Heedmyfeed" and "fresnoinvasion". I understand that this is late for a definition, and if you wish to discard it, do so at your discretion. Remember that this definition is not slanted aff/neg and comes from a cited source. Metz's definition is uncited. Alright. First I'll address this issue with hybrid courts not being international. If you read my Etelle Higonnet quote, you notice that she says "Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities. ". In the end, hybrid courts are different from international courts. My opponent says that because these courts are composed of more than one country they are international. Let me better explain the hybrid court system. Furthermore, hybrid courts do not transcend national boundaries, their decisions remain in context within a nation. A hybrid court decision in Canada doesn't affect laws or decisions in Botswana. Unlike courts like the ICC, hybrid courts are not international. If you wish to discard this argument because of the late definition, remember that the Etelle quote shouldn't be discarded (I have offense here regardless of the definition debate). Next - on my case being directed at the ICC. All you really have to do is replace "ICC" with international courts. You'll find the logic in my second and third contentions works with any court you can come up with. My third contention was actually based on evidence against international courts which I titled against the ICC. My case highlights problems with international courts, and then specifies certain deficiencies within the ICC. On to Metz's attack where he says my contention is policy. There is nothing wrong with saying that Hybrid Courts are better and we would make a better decision by submitting to them. What my third contention says is simply this: Hybrid Courts are more effective than international courts, and better achieve cosmopolitanism than international courts. That's perfectly LD. If you truly wish to discard any arguments like that, Metz's case which is so pro-ICC, discard his case which talks about joining the ICC. That's a 'plan' for sure! Anyway, back to "LD". "While I defend the ICC itself the Premise is valid in other courts. .. " Hmmmm. .. This sounds like policy. He's talking about the ICC but the premise is valid with other courts (When I said that about hybrids it was apparently policy). I covered the concept of multinational courts. Regardless of how international courts are made, they face cultural and linguistic barriers. They apply law that is not familiar to the citizens of the country (imagine the U. S. performing a trial under Belgium's system of laws, it would be ridiculous (not to insult Belgium)). HYBRID COURTS ARE IN A FAMILY OF THEIR OWN! "Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities. " "While there may be obstacles . .. " There is no way that we can gloss over such problems in a trial. A more streamlined efficient trial, like a hybrid one, will definitely protect human rights and enhance cosmopolitanism far better than a four year international trial. We cannot look past this kind of thing! If a court is tied up for nearly two decades, that's two decades worth of trials they need to catch up on! That kind of slow court is unable to prosecute many cases due to sluggishness. We cannot accept a judicial system this flawed. Don't let him breeze by on this - it is a MAJOR flaw. "IF you read through the rome statue. .. " The U. S. has enough enemies abroad to stitch together a court with certain unfavorable judges. While one abuse of power is extending jurisdiction, another is bad sentencing. My opponent completely fails to address this. What if judges are slanted towards or against the defendant, and sentence them too easily or too much? There are no higher or equal powers that can prevent this from happening. "HYBRID COURTS CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE NATION. .. " HYBRID COURTS ARE ULTIMATELY DIFFERENT! They are a completely new kind of court, and NOT international! Yes, everything created has some flaws, but some things have so many flaws or such great flaws that we do not use them. Hybrid courts suffer far fewer flaws than their international counterparts, and are far better. There is no reason to submit to an international court when you can submit to a hybrid court. We need to show advisability here. It is not advisable to submit to the lesser choice or the more flawed choice. "As I covered many times, any court that is not composed of a single nation" Etelle Higonnet classifies them as ultimately different from other judicial bodies. "This is an interesting statement, the thing is that cosmopolitanism is looking at Supra-Statist politics. .. " The best way to consider people as humans is to accept the fact that societies differ. For example, suicide is frowned upon is western culture, but Hari Kiri was a viable option for the samurais of Japan. When applying justice, we need to consider the local populations laws. That isn't saying we cannot have overarching norms. Of course we can establish that some things, like genocide, are intrinsically wrong. But we need to look at local laws as well as international laws. Hybrids do this, international courts don't. Under hybrid courts, we consider people as humans and citizens. "What My opponent tries to do is instigate a counterplan. .. " I'm showing that there are more "advisable" options, under his definition of ought. We better serve human rights with a more efficient court. I show how the Neg better meets the value and criterion, which is how LD is run. "Saying that we should submit to a hybrid court is outside the resolution for a neg argument. .. " I'm saying that hybrid courts are a better alternative. Immediately that shows that the neg can better fulfill the value and value criterion, and is more advisable. "My opponent says they are not beneficial due to language barriers. .. " When more countries join, we see more languages, and therefore more confusion. It makes things more difficult! There are other ways to punish 'genocidaires' than international courts, like hybrid courts. "The simple fact is, the more countries to join the ICC the more Legitimate is will become. .. " The ICC has flaws, which I have already listed. It doesn't, just like other international courts, overcome cultural and linguistic barriers. It applies laws unfamiliar to the citizens. Because Metz seems to show more support for the ICC in this contention, these ICC-specific attacks are perfectly legit. Furthermore, the ICC doesn't have protections that U. S. courts do. No guaranteed protection from double jeopardy, no right to speedy trial, and no trial by jury. My Summary Hybrid courts are not international. They are completely different from other judicial systems. My opponent seems to default to this "counterplan" argument. However, we need to show what is "advisable" based on the definition of ought HE provided. I am working under his definition here! My arguments show that it is not advisable to submit to international courts, there are better methods of justice, and better alternatives. Furthermore, after Round 1, Metz doesn't really specify how he meets the value and criterion, where I do. Because I show this, I ultimately win the debate, because the goal in LD is to achieve the value(s) better than your opponent. I hope you've enjoyed this debate ad I urge a Neg Ballot