Instigator / Con
Points: 21

International Law

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
bsh1
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 16
Description
--Topic--
International law does not exist.
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Con must waive in R1 and Pro must waive in R5.
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Con waives; Pro's Case
R2. Con's Case; Pro generic Rebuttal
R3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal
R4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary
R5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro waives
Round 1
Published:
Thanks to Carbon for accepting. Per the rules, I waive the first round.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
I await my opponent's argument.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
Alas, my opponent has forfeited twice now. I ask voters, per the rules stated in the description, to vote Con.
Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
Vote Con. Thanks!
Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
C'est la vie.

Please Vote Con!
Forfeited
Added:
--> @carbon-14
You only have about half a day to post an argument.
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @bsh1
In that case, I will accept.
Contender
#10
Added:
True.
#9
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
I suppose, but I do note in the short summary that I am arguing against Bolton's view.
Instigator
#8
Added:
I was just thinking the way you had it worded it looked like you were arguing against international law
#7
Added:
--> @bsh1
Yeah it’ll be interesting to follow.
#6
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
It doesn't really matter how its framed. Burdens would be equal. I am just interested in someone defending Bolton's position as the status quo.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @bsh1
Just a thought - it may be better for you to frame this in he positive and have you take the pro position.
#4
Added:
--> @carbon-14
It's about whether international law exists. Bolton argues that what we call international law is not actually "law" as law is properly defined.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @bsh1
I do not fully understand what this argument is about. Is it about whether international law exists or not, or whether international law is good or bad?
Contender
#2
Added:
Bumparoo
Instigator
#1
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
ff
gotta fill in the rest of the characters
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Here to service his modship himself, Kaiser bsh1.
FF by Pro = No arguments made = automatically any argument Con made is more than 0 unless Con self-imploded but Con did not self-implode because Con is his heighness Kaiser bsh1.