EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That diplomatic immunity laws should be repealed

0 points
7 points
HowardHoward (CON)
Since my opponent has forfeited, I will present a short, concise arguments for the negative case.
Diplomatic Immunity laws exist in order to protect diplomats and and allow for better international communication between nations. 
Repealing diplomatic immunity law destroys hostile nations' ability to reliably trust each others' not murdering or punishing diplomats. Nations have different laws, and diplomats may not follow same customs.
While some may abuse diplomatic immunity to commit explicit crimes, these cases can be considered for repeal of diplomatic immunity, In fact, it is often the case that diplomats who commit harsh crimes have their diplomatic immunity taken away by their home nations. Taking away diplomatic immunity altogether is not the solution.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-30 14:16:21
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Well that's nifty. Sad that pro forfeited.
Posted 2015-02-03 12:48:30
Then pro would win
Posted 2015-01-31 14:04:19
Howard - quick tip:

If a debate has two consecutive forfeits, the debate ends immediately. If you feel like your opponent won't come back, you can just let the debate end at any point by not posting a round.
Posted 2015-01-31 12:11:31
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-02-03 18:24:18
ZeusYodaJudge: ZeusYoda
Win awarded to: Howard
Aww wat a debate gone to waste.. I vote CON because PRO forfeited a favourable side.. gosh! :(

Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall. That would have been my argument for PRO! :)
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2015-02-03 21:54:45
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Howard
2015-02-03 23:02:42
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Howard
Not submitting an argument is an obvious loss.
CON's case was was also pretty clean and tidy. Diplomats facilitate close international ties between nations, and Diplomatic laws protect them from both accidental infringements due to unfamiliarity with the host country's laws, and from being targeted as a criminal by a hostile host nation.
He also addressed the obvious PRO attack of an abuse of diplomatic immunity by pointing out that it can, and has, be waived by the diplomat's home country on a case by case basis.

PRO: make a case. Disappointing, since this was a cool resolution!

CON: you handled this pretty well. There wasn't really much you could do here. With no argument from PRO in a two round debate, it was clear you were going to win, and so you didn't need to construct a water tight case.

If I was to make one critique, it would be that some of your sentence structure didn't read well.
The middle section about the impact of repealing diplomatic laws was especially confusing. I had to read it several times just to make sure I was reading it right.

It's minor feedback because you probably put the bare minimum of effort into it... Understandably.
It was a very good way to handle a fairly annoying first round by your opponent. Well done for that. Hopefully the next one is better!

1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2015-02-04 12:12:59
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: Howard

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29