| Viewing Single Post From: LD topics | |
|---|---|
| +Reaver | Jan 5 2009, 06:19 PM |
|
Troll
![]()
|
Love LD Debate. Currently doing PFD, however. To argue the Pro, however: The United States should understand the lesson of World War I and World War II: a balance of power is important. Lest we all submit to foreign powers - such as German land grabs in the 1930s - we shall all disappear. Allowing an international court strictly to enforce crimes against humanity allows for a balance of power because, as a nation, we should be watched to make sure we're not comitting crimes against humanity while trying to assert ourselves as a global power. Furthermore, if we have an international court designed to target crimes against humanity problems which arise about human living conditions will be easily recognized and much easier to handle. The gendocide in Sudan today, the terror under Saddam Hussein, and other acts of barbarism against ethnic and relgious groups could've been avoided had we implemented this court at an earlier date. A focused set of eyes allows for a vigorous attempt of solving these issues. Askio stresses the idea that it violates United States interests, but we need to establish a balance of power. As a nation we have a history of instituting unfair laws which smother the human rights of others - slavery and segregation for example - thus we must remove our own interests from judging crimes against humanity. Should they cross, we will be powerless to correct a great wrong. Even if the United States hasn't comitted a crime against humanity, what is to say an event like Japanese Iternment won't happen again? Lastly, crimes against humanity aren't always against United States law. Segregation was legal. My comments about your case? Avoid arguing law. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
![]() |
|
| LD topics · Debate Forum | |





12:09 AM Nov 28






