(미완성)Adjudicator Feedback Series 62/75 > 영어토론방

http://debatewise.org/debates/1051

Motion : LEADERS OF COUNTRIES THAT USE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RENDITION SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES

Defending: Pakistan, Opposing: Estonia

Decision by Adjudicator: colm

First of all apologies for the late adjudication. That’s what I get for using an ISP who decides to take on illegal file-sharers and without first protecting their system from DNS attacks.

The first thing that struck me about this debate (and some others that I have read) is that that there is a lack of structure. One very simple rule of thumb to structuring a speech, articles, chapter etc is to 1. Tell them what you are going to say. 2. Say it. 3. Tell them what you said. We’re getting stage 2 and 3 but are lacking good introductions.

The proposition defined the motion as leaders are responsible and should be held accountable and punished. Unfortunately after that we really got a debate about the legality of extraordinary rendition. The role of leaders was largely ignored.

They cite the cases of Siddiui, Hicks, Nasr, and Boumediene which really just amounted outlining a number of allegations about their detention with little argumentation to link them to the motion. They also cite a number of conventions, laws and covenants again with little argumentation (a fact picked up by the opposition).

On balance at the end of the Prop case I believe they have provided evidence (although perhaps not the argumentation) that Extraordinary rendition is technically a war crime in certain circumstances but other than reference to Hitler and the Nuremburg trials there is little attempt to prove that leaders of countries should be held responsible.

The Opposition raise three questions that the proposition failed to answer. I have to agree that the proposition failed to answer the second one which is “why are leaders of the country responsible?”. This is a key question

The opposition also argue that they can’t be expected to defend torture and point out that the prop have not addressed cases of extraordinary rendition where the prisoner received a fair trial and treatment after rendition. They point out that there would be difficulty in proving explicit authorisation, that the action may be conducted by “rogue elements” acting against polity or that the leader may be badly advised in approving rendition. They argue that there may be conditions where extraordinary rendition is a proportional response to a threat and is therefore not a war crime. Also that the harm caused by rendition may be minor compared by the threat posed. Also they highlight the difference between taking acts of war against a state and a “non-state actor”.

On balance I feel the proposition may have proven that war crimes have been committed in certain cases. However I also agree with the opposition that they do not prove that every case of extraordinary rendition is a war crime. If this was a debate purely on extraordinary rendition being a war crime it would have been an interesting debate to judge/

However the debate as set out in the motion and in the definition was not only about extraordinary rendition being a war crime. The key part was that leaders of nations should be held responsible. I don’t believe the proposition proved, or even sufficiently argued, this.

Therefore I vote for the Opposition.

Decision by Adjudicator: Beth

To begin with a couple of observations on the style of the debate, I would first note that although impassioned interaction between the teams is to be encouraged, teams need to tread carefully. In particular, some of the proposition's references to the opposition's style came across as ruder than they perhaps intended.

A further general point is the interaction of the opposition with the proposition contributions. Whilst very good refutation was often evident, some points went unaddressed. Though the opposition team did assert that rebuttal to one point also applied to a further six points in the debate, addressing each point directly, however briefly, would have seemed a stronger attack. That said, a significant proportion of the proposition material was directly from sources, as opposed to their own argumentation. Though support from sources is important in bolstering arguments, it did sometimes feel that the source eclipsed the arguments from the proposition side, leaving the opposition less to grapple with.

To turn to the content of the debate, the proposition's case was impeded from the outset by a lack of clarity in terms of the definition and context. Their analysis and contributions did not support the burden they had to discharge; proving why a leader of a country using extra-territorial rendition should be tried as a war criminal. Whilst the proposition gave very strong support for the notion that extra-territorial rendition is bad, they never demonstrated why it should be deemed a war crime, and why an individual leader should be held culpable. Though they made a laudable effort to substantiate their contributions with conventions and statutes, these often sat uneasily with each other due to their different characters as, for instance, an international treaty versus a US domestic Act.

The opposition strongly attacked these areas of weakness and gave a very convincing summary of the debate which crystallised the flaws with the proposition’s case. They also endeavoured to make the legality of the act of rendition the locus of debate, challenging the proposition logic of rendition always being an evil by addressing the nature of fair trials and legal proofs. This is why my vote for the debate goes to the opposition team.

<번역자: 이민섭 - 작업 중>

Motion : LEADERS OF COUNTRIES THAT USE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL RENDITION SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES

Defending: Pakistan, Opposing: Estonia

Decision by Adjudicator: colm

First of all apologies for the late adjudication. That’s what I get for using an ISP who decides to take on illegal file-sharers and without first protecting their system from DNS attacks.

The first thing that struck me about this debate (and some others that I have read) is that that there is a lack of structure. One very simple rule of thumb to structuring a speech, articles, chapter etc is to 1. Tell them what you are going to say. 2. Say it. 3. Tell them what you said. We’re getting stage 2 and 3 but are lacking good introductions.

The proposition defined the motion as leaders are responsible and should be held accountable and punished. Unfortunately after that we really got a debate about the legality of extraordinary rendition. The role of leaders was largely ignored.

They cite the cases of Siddiui, Hicks, Nasr, and Boumediene which really just amounted outlining a number of allegations about their detention with little argumentation to link them to the motion. They also cite a number of conventions, laws and covenants again with little argumentation (a fact picked up by the opposition).

On balance at the end of the Prop case I believe they have provided evidence (although perhaps not the argumentation) that Extraordinary rendition is technically a war crime in certain circumstances but other than reference to Hitler and the Nuremburg trials there is little attempt to prove that leaders of countries should be held responsible.

The Opposition raise three questions that the proposition failed to answer. I have to agree that the proposition failed to answer the second one which is “why are leaders of the country responsible?”. This is a key question

The opposition also argue that they can’t be expected to defend torture and point out that the prop have not addressed cases of extraordinary rendition where the prisoner received a fair trial and treatment after rendition. They point out that there would be difficulty in proving explicit authorisation, that the action may be conducted by “rogue elements” acting against polity or that the leader may be badly advised in approving rendition. They argue that there may be conditions where extraordinary rendition is a proportional response to a threat and is therefore not a war crime. Also that the harm caused by rendition may be minor compared by the threat posed. Also they highlight the difference between taking acts of war against a state and a “non-state actor”.

On balance I feel the proposition may have proven that war crimes have been committed in certain cases. However I also agree with the opposition that they do not prove that every case of extraordinary rendition is a war crime. If this was a debate purely on extraordinary rendition being a war crime it would have been an interesting debate to judge/

However the debate as set out in the motion and in the definition was not only about extraordinary rendition being a war crime. The key part was that leaders of nations should be held responsible. I don’t believe the proposition proved, or even sufficiently argued, this.

Therefore I vote for the Opposition.

Decision by Adjudicator: Beth

To begin with a couple of observations on the style of the debate, I would first note that although impassioned interaction between the teams is to be encouraged, teams need to tread carefully. In particular, some of the proposition's references to the opposition's style came across as ruder than they perhaps intended.

A further general point is the interaction of the opposition with the proposition contributions. Whilst very good refutation was often evident, some points went unaddressed. Though the opposition team did assert that rebuttal to one point also applied to a further six points in the debate, addressing each point directly, however briefly, would have seemed a stronger attack. That said, a significant proportion of the proposition material was directly from sources, as opposed to their own argumentation. Though support from sources is important in bolstering arguments, it did sometimes feel that the source eclipsed the arguments from the proposition side, leaving the opposition less to grapple with.

To turn to the content of the debate, the proposition's case was impeded from the outset by a lack of clarity in terms of the definition and context. Their analysis and contributions did not support the burden they had to discharge; proving why a leader of a country using extra-territorial rendition should be tried as a war criminal. Whilst the proposition gave very strong support for the notion that extra-territorial rendition is bad, they never demonstrated why it should be deemed a war crime, and why an individual leader should be held culpable. Though they made a laudable effort to substantiate their contributions with conventions and statutes, these often sat uneasily with each other due to their different characters as, for instance, an international treaty versus a US domestic Act.

The opposition strongly attacked these areas of weakness and gave a very convincing summary of the debate which crystallised the flaws with the proposition’s case. They also endeavoured to make the legality of the act of rendition the locus of debate, challenging the proposition logic of rendition always being an evil by addressing the nature of fair trials and legal proofs. This is why my vote for the debate goes to the opposition team.