 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Dylan Quote: |
Originally Posted by mandiejo ok, i've been off for a while and don't have time right now to respond to all arguments, so i'll make it short: they don't deserve POW stat. because under the geneva convention, int.'l law, they don't qualify. second, they are under enemy conbatant status because that is the only thing they do qualify as. these people are not american citizens, therefore our civil liberties do not apply. they are under our jurisdiction and int.'l law states that in times of conflict people can be detained indefinitely. now i'm done with debate for the year because i'm not going to districts but i have the affirmative case on it, saying everything you guys say. so i'd like to see some negative arguments because nobody we ran it against could come up with any. i'm not going to argue it anymore because we ran it a lot this year, i'd like to see some other people's takes on it. thanks guys, it's interesting to read. | I would like to start off by stating that you should drop formal and/or official debate style for this message board. I'm not familiar with your format, and the format I'm used to is waaay too structured to work on a message board. Also, if you're using this board to help your debates, well, you shouldn't tell us that. It's kind of lame, no offense, to go to a message board for help on a school or club assignment in most cases. You should read people who are waaay smarter than anyone here. Your school library probably carriesa series of books called "Opposing Viewpoints" that have essays and speeches by those people.
I'm no fan of terrorists, nor should any other American. The only reason they don't qualify under international law is because the Bush administration says so, and I don't think the Bush administration dictates international law. International law applies to these people.
Now, here's where I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I actually agree with George W. Bush on something: Democracy and freedom should be spread throughout the world, and are the optimum form of government. I may not agree with the man's methods, but I agree with the idea. Basically, I believe that civil liberties are not just American rights, they are human rights that every human being should have the right to enjoy.
Now you're picking and choosing. First, you say that international law doesn't apply to these people because they don't deserve it. Then, you use international law to justify detaining them indefinitely. Pick one! You can't just pick the things you like, and ignore or discredit the things that you don't. It's hypocritical. | i'm not using any style, i'd just like to see some negative argumentation, that's all. no specific attacks on harms, inherency, workability, solvency, or d/a's, just maybe a negative viewpoint? and i'm not using it to help my debates, because that resolution is done for the year as am i, no more tourneys. i don't need help, i just want to see what some of you guys think. second, the BA isn't changing int.'l law. geneva convention is int.'l law, and it applies here, the BA didn't write the geneva convention laws. i'm trying to say that int.'l law applies to these people only in relation to their status, because under that law the only thing they qualify for is enemy combatant and enemy combatants don't have due process rights. now is there absolutely anyone who sees the negative point of view?!?!? |