Resolved: is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate Response to rape

However, I believe that they have posted a different line of argumentation. None of the definitions apply to resolution we are debating and neither does any of the argumentation. However, I will still respond to their argumentation, disregarding the previous resolution above. For the debaters who are reading this, it will basically be straight-refutation all the way down. Let us start on the standards. First, I would argue that there is a huge disconnect between the value and the criterion for my opponent. The only justification for why sovereignty impacts to morality would be if we drastically had to change our moral duties. However, the only justification for why this change would occur would be because other countries would change them. This doesn't talk about the ICC, as it is a community of courts that uphold moral values that would be similar to those of the "Declaration of Independence. " Second, I challenge my opponent to show why national sovereignty is always a good thing. If we should value sovereignty over anything else, what gives the U. S. the right to invade other countries and set up what we believe to be the "correct moral duties. " It is completely disingenuous to say that we can do it to other countries, yet we cannot submit ourselves to a ICC. Onto the contention level. First, use the second argument against the standard to turn Contention 1. We cannot change other countries national identities and deny other countries the ability to do the same to us. Thus, we must submit to an ICC otherwise we do not fit under "moral codes" which he values. Second, There is no warrant to how American principles will be harmed. Morris states that decisions would hurt U. S. interests. First of all this is bad on a general level because we do not know how. Even more, it warrants nothing because Morris never says that this destroys American principles, but just our interests, which are completely different things. Sometimes, we use drone attacks to achieve our "interests" but at the same time we take away the freedom of life to others, violating our "principles. " This disconnect shows how there is no reason from this first contention to vote Neg. Contention 2. Lack of checks is even worse when we talk about the U. S. working outside other's norms. The fact is that the U. S. does not always do things the "moral" way. We kill in order to achieve our own ends sometimes. For these things we must be checked. However, an ICC would not be made up of just international judges, but would also be checked by American judges as well. This makes a check possible. Even more, we see that as we show to the international community that we are willing to be accountable, this lack of checks will not hurt us as the neg claims. Contention 3. The fact that it has no deterrence is non-unique. He doesn't increase deterrence by not joining the ICC. There is no neg offense off this last point. Overall, we see that we have to join the ICC because of the fact that above he states that we should value sovereignty, not just U. S. sovereignty. The only way to be reciprocal to the violations of sovereignty that we commit is to join the ICC. This means that under his criterion, we still must vote negative. This is even without a negative case. Turns down the NC means that you vote for the Aff.