I'll go backwards on awnsering these awnsers most of which really, dont awnser the argument they circle around it...
A) "an" implies 1, ie the aff will defend a specific court
An does imply a single court but it excludes to mention a single court
designed is past tense, implying the court's existence
Designed in present tense past tense is the U.S. ought have + tense is irrellivent at the point where a specific court isn't mentioned we can assume there is no specific court that meets what the resolution is intending a debate about
C) Even if you're right, you're arguing that the aff is parametricized without a warrant why whole rez affirming is good/necessary.
Resolution dosn't require paramiters, + sience we arn't really supposed to make policies and set paramiters in LD and sience they dont define a party its COMPLEATLY fair assumption that aff advocacy does not have specific paramiters. + I'ts not like these blocks are my case... the "why whole rez affirming is good/necessary" has nothing to do with the block.
1. not a reason why the aff can't defend the ICC
Correct, but it is a reason why the affirmitive isn't limited to the ICC
2. ICJ violates "Prosecute" and "Criminal Court". It also technically violates "submit to the jurisdiction of" because the ICJ claims jurisdiction over all UN members. You can't "join" the ICJ, you can only join the UN and thus be under ICJ jurisdiction. (as a preempt, just because the USFG says the ICJ doesn't have jursidiction to prosecute the US doesn't make it so).
I admit ICJ is for time suck moving to IACJ and IACHR
3. IACJ is regional, not international. Like previously established, it's fairly well established in the topic literature that regional courts (ie courts limited to certain nations) are distinct from international courts.
Latin root inter = between nations, an INTER national court is between nations. Please prove that this court is not between nations then we will talk about it not being another example
1. doesn't make the ICC irrelevant.
I said this so people dont run ICC bad therefore neg the res
2. No warrant for why the court's efficacy isn't up for debate, or why this can't be policy, or why the neg must argue the converse of the resolution (ie why CPs aren't legit).
Courts efficancy isn't up for debate unless the affirmitive is forced to provide advocacy, and LD can be policy like under 2 circumstances 1. The affirmitive runs a plan 2. the judge accepts it. IF the affirmitive choses to run a advocacy plan of a specific court which the aff dosn't have to do because this isn't policy debate where the AFF is supposed to write a plan. Also the affirmitive "plan" so to speak is affirming the resolution, its not nessisarily a policy only thing for neg to run CP's the neg can still do that and not provide an actor sucha s the ICC for example neg CP: U.S. ought to submit to an international court that is evaluated by the U.N. previous to submission for the purpose of eliminating potential dangers.
1. Again, no warrant why the lack of certainty in terms of the validity of arguments somehow limits the topic (isn't that the point of debate, that claims about hte topic are DEBATABLE?)
The argument is that the neg is limiting topic by narrowing evidence base. This argument meshes with 3rd point of an efficancy debate is irrellivent, so we shouldn't apply evidence thats ICC spec to every single court
2. still not a reason the ICC is bad/why the aff has to defend all courts.
Its compleatly illogical to say sort of NAFTA bad = ALL TRADE AGREEMENTS BAD. they improve over time, just because one is bad dosn't mean others are. Unless you prove that the AFF has to advocate the ICC spec the ICC bad arguments shouldn't matter
3. Your claim isn't even true. I've read probably over 150 articles on the topic, and the closest articles to your interpretation say their claims are inherent to all courts, especially the ICC.
If you go up and say you've read 150 articals on why other peoples claims apply to all courts... your opponant will probably laugh and ask you why you didn't read 1 of those 150 articals, also no legitimate source or author that dosn't have an ego the size of the universe, is going to say that the ICC is bad and their word means all courts are bad.
ICC is a single type of courts, formed by treaty theres also courts formed by larger bodies that oversee processes in those larger bodies jurisdiction, theres lots of different courts and lots of potential for other courts and again, you still have to prove the affirmitive must advocate ICC for this argument to work.
and, in addition, you still have no abuse story.
Abuse is overapplication of evidence ie, nafta bad = trade agreements bad, with no warrants and forcing affirmitive advocacy is abusive, and forcing a effectivity of the courts eliminates aff ground and puts the neg on the offencive.
If you can read ICC good cards, they can read ICC bad cards. By reading evidence for the ICC specifically in the AC, you're tying yourself to defending the ICC in the ways you've presented it. If you then get up in the 1AR and spike out of the links to the ICC bad arguments because you don't actually defend the ICC, you've put an incredible time skew on the neg debater.
First, im not going to read ICC good cards, I dont have to advocate a court thats part of the point. I would read cards saying intl courts effective or somthing like that no ICC spec evidence, neg evidence shouldn't rely on destroying the idea that the ICC is effective, it can say intl courts inneffective and warrant it, if they find cards that say that, but not ICC.
Also I never thought I would hear someone say "you've put an incredible time skew on the neg debate." seriously........ your saying neg has a time skew...... dont... just dont.....
The ICJ isn't a court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
As for the inter-American courts, I would argue that any truly international court would have to be open to all states, not have geographical prerequisites. I suppose that technically (grammatically) they make sense but that's not a reason why defending the ICC is abusive.
ICJ = time suck I know, my argument would be grammer inter-national between nations so 2 nations is between nations its gramaticly compleatly with the resolution and forcing a defence of the ICC is abusive because it ignores this potential court or other courts.
It more or less is a policy topic, if that's how you're looking at it. There's no way to determine whether joining an ICC is a good thing "in a vacuum," we have to look to what happens in the real world when we join it. If you're looking to solely an ideals-based debate, then the only real ground the neg has is like, multilateralism bad. I would argue that's a lot less fair for debate than specifying the ICC, which is much more predictable. I wouldn't say you can't make an argument for not specifying; if you want to be vague from the outset and talk about the general benefits an ICC, that's your call. But I don't think you'll be able to win that specifying the ICC is abusive.
Just because it looks like a policy topic dosn't mean we have to run plans in the Aff and identify, an actor, an specific action, and an advocacy for that action. We affirm the plan we are given we can make it policy if we make our own plans but if you did that you wouldn't be running these blocks.
Specifying the ICC means that the neg side essentially drops the affirmitive goal solvancy and attacks the link saying resolution will not do those things because AN INTERNATIONAL court bad. The reason this is abuse is because the only way they can attack the link is to replace the words An international court with ICC then find ICC bad and say you don't solve, if they found international courts bad evidence and said you dont solve, TOTALLY different case.
No, there is probably a lot more evidence written about the ICC than the theory of international courts in general. Besides, evidence about the actual ICC will inherently be better because it's not just pure conjecturing, it's based on empirical results.
Maybe you can win on empirical results for ICC dosn't prosicute that well but then aff can say U.S. key to effectivness of ICC which I have like 10 cards for, that argument is easy to win on aff, at that point all you have is ICC is corrupt, which is not empirically proven in fact theres no evidence suggesting that at all, nobody is saying the ICC is corrupt at all really. Find a card that says that please. Thats theorizing to say ICC could violate nat security or somthing like that. And on top of that aff dosn't have to advocate ICC so even if you beat every point on this block I can still read U.S. is key to legit, then you got no empiricly proved arguments on the flow.
Looking foward to more awnsers to awnser.