The United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against hum

I just wanted to begin by thanking my opponent for this topic, and such a wonderful debate. However, I do believe his responses are lacking in certain important aspects, and from those important parts, I am going to show why a negative ballot is preferable to an affirmative ballot. Lets begin with my opponents case: Framework: V. So my opponent believes that International Justice is not the same as Justice. His warrant is that in submitting to the ICC, we strengthen our own legal system, since we increase justice. He then lists a snowball effect. Problems: 1. He has no direct link from strengthening our own legal system to increasing justice. Increasing international justice through the ICC will not strengthen our own legal system. In fact, it weakens our own legal system, since our courts will not be prosecuting crimes that they normally would have been, without the ICC interfering. So my opponents argument doesn't stand, and we can still accept both our values. Just thought I'd make that clear. C: 1. It is self explanatory why giving up sovereignty and humanitarian interaction is bad. It's in my case. Look to my argument where robbing people of their sovereignty is a crime against humanity. Instant refutation. Thank you. If you don't buy that, here's another reason: We need national sovereignty to submit. Look to my Cohen card, where it shows how sovereignty is a relationship between the citizens and the government. Without the government having sovereignty, it is not serving the people. That is obviously wrong. Also, giving up our ability to help others is obviously bad. I don't see where my opponent is coming from, and neither should the judge. 2. My opponent claims I have no evidence. Look to my Petersen card. And I quote: respect for state sovereignty assured state leaders that efforts could be shifted from an emphasis on interstate protection to intrastate nation building. Without sovereignty, we will have to emphasize interstate protection, and we will not be able to participate in intrastate nation building. My evidence is right there! If you don't have any international respect for your sovereignty, then you will not be able to help anyone, as you will be worrying about interstate issues, and attacks from foreign threats. Boom. Refuted. 3. Again. Our own justice system is capable of dealing with heinous crimes. He provides no evidence of how our own justice system is inadequate for prosecuting crimes. C1: SubA: Wait one moment... My opponent just said he didn't have to prove that an international court prevents crimes. If that is true, then I win. His whole case is supposed to show how the ICC will stop CAH. He just admitted that it might not. Thank you *Bows and leaves* *Comes back in* And if you don't buy that, here I go. SubB: Ok, so my opponents only real refutation is that I don't have a warrant for why sovereignty is needed to enforce justice. He obviously has not read my Cohen and Petersen cards. They outline exactly why sovereignty is needed. Cohen says that if you don't have sovereignty, you can't serve the people, which is the governments job. My Petersen Card explains how without sovereignty, you run the risk of foreign threats, which is a threat to justice, since CAH are inevitably going to happen through a foreign threat. (Look to 9/11) SubC: Ok, So the ICC is supposed to prosecute these things. So is our justice system. Our justice system is designed to be a check on everyone else's power. My opponent has not shown any evidence of how our justice system is inadequate to deal with such crimes. If you mass murder, you will be brought to justice under our system. If you own people as slaves, you will be dealt with under our system. My opponents argument falls. I win this argument again. Also, my opponent has not provided any impacts on how the ICC will stop such things. Recap of my opponents C1: I have refuted all of it, and he has no impacts. I win this argument. C2: 1. I agree, we should increase our international power. But giving up our power to a higher court, which we have no power over, is not the way to increase our power. Rather, it will decrease our power. So I achieve my opponents aims better than his own argument. 2. Um... I have shown clearly that joining an international court actually reduces our international power, since we will be answering to someone higher than us. We have no say over what they do, and they can prosecute us at their will. We actually can't look to this argument. C3: 1. Terrorism being a crime against humanity is not an impact as to why we should join an international court. 2. Same thing. 3. Prosecuting is not the same thing as stopping. One more reason to vote Con. Really, all my refutations to all his arguments can be found in my response to his first contention. He has not a single impact. Therefore, if anything, presumption goes negative. Look to my first paragraph, in my first speech. My case: Framework: V. I already discussed this. To save characters, I'll be brief. 1. Look. Justice is justice is justice. Justice is giving each their due. So international justice is giving each their due, internationally. Same thing... 2. We are actually losing our hegemony if we have to submit to a higher court. We won't be very effective, as we will have lost all our sovereignty. We also will have to be constantly looking over our shoulders to make sure that everything we do is ok, and our military will become weakened. If we have to go through one more bureaucracy in order to do one action, that just slows us down, making us weaker. 3. That's great. You are going for justice. But the ICC isn't the best way. My opponent still hasn't shown how the ICC will stop anything. C: 1. Um... Without sovereignty, you run the risk of having to worry about interstate issues. Petersen card. Without any democratic sovereignty, we can't uphold anything, since we have no power. 2. Internal sovereignty in the US IS democratic sovereignty. 3. Wait. So you want me to show how no humanitarian interaction is bad? That's what you are advocating. Please get your case straight. You are trying to get the US to cooperate with everyone and help each other achieve justice. If there is not humanitarian interaction, then no international community will come out and help each other, as everyone is worried about everyone else. Look to Petersen. C1: SubA: I have no warrant? Look to Morris. The ICC is just one more bureaucratic level we have to go through, and has the unique ability to undermine any state sovereignty. This point stands. SubB: Wait. So my opponent is now asking for an impact on society. OK: Without sovereignty, we have no interstate nation building. We can't help each other. The world is at a stand still because no one trusts one another. Done. And you actually have no impacts. So we can't look to your arguments. Ok, so I have 1000 characters left. I'll use them to summarize the debate: Framework: Justice/International Justice. We are both going for the same thing here, giving each their due. No voting issue here. Criterion's: Protecting Dem. Sovereignty/ Protecting Human Rights. My opponent doesn't really argue his criterion, but realize that without any democratic sovereignty, we can't protect human rights. So my criterion is a necessary object for his criteria, so we should look to mine first, as it matters more in this round, as we must first get sovereignty before anything. Contentions: My opponent has not provided any impacts, and he in fact has said that he doesn't need to provide impacts. So I win all his contentions. Also, many of them can be turned to my case, since his second contention actually helps my case, as joining the ICC undermines US values. All my contentions stand, as my opponent has not seen my warrants and my impacts, and has decided to claim that there are none. Therefore, I win on the contention level. Please don't f