International Law
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
--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
Full forfeit.
ff
gotta fill in the rest of the characters
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.
I completely disagree with the fact that international law is not law as such. Sometimes it seems to me. That person who says this just doesn't know what international law is. If you don't know, read: https://lawrina.com/us-law/federal/codes/title-33/chapter-33/sec-1912/.
You only have about half a day to post an argument.
In that case, I will accept.
True.
I suppose, but I do note in the short summary that I am arguing against Bolton's view.
I was just thinking the way you had it worded it looked like you were arguing against international law
Yeah it’ll be interesting to follow.
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.
Just a thought - it may be better for you to frame this in he positive and have you take the pro position.
It's about whether international law exists. Bolton argues that what we call international law is not actually "law" as law is properly defined.
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?
Bumparoo