2025哈佛&斯坦福、NHSDLC冬季邀請賽辯題公布！

新年第一天首先祝大家元旦快樂(le) ！今天還有一件大事那就是為(wei) 大家揭曉期待良久的NHSDLC冬季邀請賽同2025哈佛/斯坦福年度邀請賽PF辯題！

參與(yu) 冬季辯題競猜的獲獎名單也將在今天揭曉，大家一定要看到最後喲~

兩(liang) 個(ge) 備選辯題在國外官方網站公布後，共計收到2370張投票，包括486名教練和1884名學生。

經統計，以65%教練投票和56%學生投票勝出的2025年哈佛/斯坦福年度邀請賽辯題也是本次NHSDLC冬季邀請賽辯題就是————

Resolved: The United States should accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

美國應加入《國際刑事法院羅馬規約》。

美國是否加入《國際刑事法院羅馬規約》的爭(zheng) 議主要籠統地集中在國家主權與(yu) 國際合作之間的平衡問題上。一方麵，美國擔心加入該規約會(hui) 削弱其主權，尤其是在軍(jun) 事行動和外交政策上可能受到國際司法機構的製約。而另一方麵，美國加入規約可能會(hui) 增強國際刑事法院的權威性，促進全球法治和人權保護。

美國在全球治理中究竟扮演著怎樣的角色，它對國際法和多邊合作又持有何種的態度，期待大家能夠抽絲(si) 剝繭、條分理析，在冬季賽中拿出精彩的表現！

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

辯題背景

- 2025冬季辯題 -

The debate over whether the United States should accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) revolves around several core arguments. Pro teams will argue that U.S. participation in the Rome Statute would increase accountability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. By acceding to the ICC, the U.S. would join over 120 other nations in a commitment to end impunity and reinforce international norms against genocide and war crimes. With a firm U.S. commitment to the Rome Statue, fear of ICC punishment may deter future cases of genocide. Pro teams can also argue that U.S. involvement would improve the ICC's legitimacy and give the U.S. an opportunity to shape the development of international law.

Arguments against U.S. accession to the Rome Statute include national sovereignty and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions against the U.S. and its allies. Con teams will argue that the ICC operates independently of the U.S. judicial systems and expose citizens to unjust trials based on biased interpretations of international law. The court would become a tool for adversaries seeking to challenge U.S. foreign policy decisions. Con teams may also examine the impact that accession would have on relations with Israel or NATO and the benefit of those alliances to the U.S.

Final focus speeches will likely weigh the benefits of international law and prevention of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity against the harms of constraining the U.S. freedom of action and hegemony, and the relationship between the U.S. and its allies. In order to win the weighing debate, pro and con teams will try to turn or solve their opponents impacts with their own. For example, if the pro proves international law accomplishes the same benefits to allies as non-accession, then its independent impact could function as a tie breaker. Inevitability debates and draw-back arguments could fulfill a similar purpose: if unipolarity or re-engagement in an international conflict will happen no matter what, then the pursuit of U.S. national interest arguably should come first.

今年的冬季辯題就是 #1 號辯題

你猜對了嗎！

最後，2025冬季PF辯題發布計劃已新鮮出爐，大家記得按時查收資料包喲，冬季賽，我們(men) 不見不散！