2025哈佛&斯坦福、NHSDLC冬季邀请赛辩题公布！

新年第一天首先祝大家元旦快乐！今天还有一件大事那就是为大家揭晓期待良久的NHSDLC冬季邀请赛同2025哈佛/斯坦福年度邀请赛PF辩题！

参与冬季辩题竞猜的获奖名单也将在今天揭晓，大家一定要看到最后哟~

两个备选辩题在国外官方网站公布后，共计收到2370张投票，包括486名教练和1884名学生。

经统计，以65%教练投票和56%学生投票胜出的2025年哈佛/斯坦福年度邀请赛辩题也是本次NHSDLC冬季邀请赛辩题就是————

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

美国应加入《国际刑事法院罗马规约》。

美国是否加入《国际刑事法院罗马规约》的争议主要笼统地集中在国家主权与国际合作之间的平衡问题上。一方面，美国担心加入该规约会削弱其主权，尤其是在军事行动和外交政策上可能受到国际司法机构的制约。而另一方面，美国加入规约可能会增强国际刑事法院的权威性，促进全球法治和人权保护。

美国在全球治理中究竟扮演着怎样的角色，它对国际法和多边合作又持有何种的态度，期待大家能够抽丝剥茧、条分理析，在冬季赛中拿出精彩的表现！

TOPIC INTRODUCTION

辩题背景

- 2025冬季辩题 -

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.

今年的冬季辩题就是 #1 号辩题

你猜对了吗！

最后，2025冬季PF辩题发布计划已新鲜出炉，大家记得按时查收资料包哟，冬季赛，我们不见不散！