Jump to content
pixiestix11

The United States should prosecute crimes against humanity

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I'd like to hear a legit argument for why it's bad or stupid or what have you. Sean and I (we're teammates, btw) decided to bring it into LD for this topic mainly because of affs that just say "ICC is super awesome" but then never say why U.S. joining is uniquely good or key to anything. But it also makes sense on heg/soft power/etc cases because those advantages don't make the resolution uniquely a good thing. For example, we could pull out of Iraq and get the same soft power advantage, or something like that.

 

1. On the heg thing, that's what specific evidence is for. You'd be surprised how much ev there is for icc key to soft power in policy campfiles as a2 soft power.

 

2. I guess i the same way that you could theoretically justify reading a spec, the same is true for J. Sure, there are affs that use this to their advantage, but it's very rare that this issue isn't tackled in affs to begin with. I also feel if you really want to go down that road, spending the time it took you to read J making "alts solve" arguments or "icc solves now" arguments would be a lot more strategic. Additionally, despite my love for reading theory as a time suck (although forcing ppl to defend at the bare minimum the outline of a theoretical court or granting that disads to the ICC would link is actually fair), i feel theory in general is a waste of time if you actually plan on going for it without a really solid abuse story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. On the heg thing, that's what specific evidence is for. You'd be surprised how much ev there is for icc key to soft power in policy campfiles as a2 soft power.

 

2. I guess i the same way that you could theoretically justify reading a spec, the same is true for J. Sure, there are affs that use this to their advantage, but it's very rare that this issue isn't tackled in affs to begin with. I also feel if you really want to go down that road, spending the time it took you to read J making "alts solve" arguments or "icc solves now" arguments would be a lot more strategic. Additionally, despite my love for reading theory as a time suck (although forcing ppl to defend at the bare minimum the outline of a theoretical court or granting that disads to the ICC would link is actually fair), i feel theory in general is a waste of time if you actually plan on going for it without a really solid abuse story.

 

1. In the case of really good evidence, we wouldn't read it.

 

2. J is really nothing like a-spec. A-spec is just this crazy argument that people have come up with that has absolutely no resolutional basis. The resolution doesn't concern through what branch the U.S. should join the ICC.

 

J, on the other hand, is all about the rez. It says that the aff has failed to uphold its prima facie burden to affirm the entire resolution. It's essentially a jurisdiction voter (although we don't call it that). The judge is charged with either affirming or negating the rez, but by the affirmative's advocacy doesn't affirm the whole rez, which means the judge must vote neg on face. It's not an abuse-type theory. It's like running T - the point of T isn't abuse, it's the prima facie burden of the aff to uphold the rez. It just makes sense. In addition, meeting J is probably going to make any aff better because it will be more specific, have more nuanced evidence, and be harder to actually argue against.

 

In addition, we actually go for it, it's not just a time suck. Finally, i think it's probably more coherent and more persuasive than "alts solve" because it makes it really neat and harder to argue against. I don't know if this changed your view at all, but that's my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...