Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Observation One: Definitions Submit-to yield oneself to the power or authority of another Value-Global Security-Global Security consists of the measures taken by nations to ensure mutual survival and safety. Without global security the world would be in a chaotic state in which war would be everywhere. This would ultimately lead to the human race's extinction and thus it is necessary for diplomacy to take place to ensure this value is upheld. Both sides of the resolution are ultimately arguing which option will maintain global security best so it is only logical to value it. Criterion- U.S. Hegemony A hegemon is defined as a power that is capable of defeating any other nations opposing it in a time of war. It has a powerful political influence over other nations. It is not a pure power dominance, but the nation also has social interactions with other nations, unlike an empire. We must negate the resolution because right now the US is considered a hegemon. The U.S. can accomplish anything that an International Court designed to prosecute Crimes Against Humanity can with more success and faster, and having the ability to stop these crimes before they begin with deterrence. Not even China will engage the U.S. because of its power. The negative upholds Global Security better because the U.S. can accomplish what the court would set out to do, faster, and more successfully. This value and criterion is fair because when we uphold my criterion the U.S. can be the peace-keeping force of the world, so we attain a state of global security since the world is safer. Contention One: United States hegemony has substantial benefits to international relations A)The US becoming a power in world politics has prevented many conflicts from beginning, and helped to bring numerous other conflicts to an end. If the United States were to withdraw its powers as a peace-keeper conflicts would erupt in areas such as Taiwan and China. China would attack Taiwan should America withdraw its support and opt-out of its mutual-protection treaty with Taiwan. Without America's active intervention brutal civil wars like the one in Somalia will propagate throughout the world, and genocides such as the one in Rwanda will continue, and others similar to it will even occur. Thayer '06 "Even Beijing is intimidated by the U.S. and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. So it is likely to refrain from testing the U.S. directly for the foreseeable future because Chinaï¿½€™s power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. hegemony creates." This card provides sufficient proof that the U.S. has the influence to stop conflicts with other nations such as China. B)The Consequences resulting from the US withdrawing its power as a hegemon would be dire. The US withdrawing its power as a hegemont would have the effect of abolishing the police force of a large city. With no peace-keeping force in place there would be no organized society and people would lose trust in one another. Society would fall back to that of the state of nature. Which is what one must avoid to ensure global security; you cannot acquire global security in a world where no nation is willing to trust another. When we negate the resolution the US utilizes its powers as a hegemon to not only stop crimes against humanity, but to prevent others from occurring because other nations will not oppose the U.S.'s strength. Contention Two: The U.S. Utilizing its influence as a hegemony accomplishes the task of attaining Global Security better than an International Court. Schmitt ˜06 "The U.S. and the West face a new threat- WMDs in the hands of terrorists-and, whether we like it or not, no power other than the U.S. has the capacity or can provide the decisive leadership required to handle this and other critical global security issues. With the absence of American primacy, international order would quickly return to disorder." This card provides sufficient proof that the U.S. is the sole power capable of stopping terrorism and other global threats which an international court proposed by the resolution would be aimed at combating. The U.S. has the largest military budget in the world, its military forces provide more than enough power to find and bring any offenders to justice that the Aff would promote prosecuting in an international court. The Aff proposes putting the U.S. in a court designed to prosecute these crimes, bringing the U.S. to the same international level as other nations, international politics are in a state of anarchy without a form of government, and because a court would put all of these nations on equal standing it would not change much of anything. There has to be an authority in power over the smaller nations to ensure that conduct is peaceful between them. In conclusion you must vote for the negative on the grounds that a vote for the affirmative is a vote for degrading society to the State of Nature. Since both sides of the resolution are ultimately striving for global security the affirmative fails to deliver as the State of Nature is a state in which no man will trust another, and violence will erupt. No long-term cooperation can occur in this state. Therefore the negative achieves global security on a much greater scale because it utilizes the United States' status as a hegemon and its influence on other nations to police the world, ensuring no violent conflicts erupt. On to my opponent's case. My opponent values moral obligation, while we are "morally obligated to stop crimes against humanity" the negative provides substantial proof that we need to negate to do so. When we affirm we bring the U.S. down from the level of influence it has, as it will be on the same field as other nations. When we negate we allow the U.S. to use its influence to not only stop crimes against humanity, but to keep them from occurring to begin with as referenced by both my Scheffer '06 and Schmitt '06 cards. My opponents' criterion is the Declaration of Independence. Once again I can prove that the U.S. exercising its hegemony can accomplish exactly what the aff wishes to accomplish, faster and more efficiently through the use of the influience U.S. hegemony provides. Contention 1: My opponent believes that the U.S. is morally obligated to eliminate crimes against humanity. I agree to the fact that the U.S. should eliminate crimes against humanity, however when we affirm the resolution we do not achieve this. My Subpoint B on contention 2 states that the U.S. losing its power as a hegemon has the effect of removing the police force from a large city. We cause more problems when we affirm because the U.S. loses its hegemony, which gives us the power to stop conflicts even before they begin. This same argument applies to my opponent's subpoint A. Regarding my opponent's subpoint B, if the U.S. is required to make the court effective, then there's no changes made. Right now the U.S. is the leading superpower, if this is the case then when we affirm the only difference is that the U.S. has less influence, which as I have proven is detrimental to international society. My opponent lacks a warrant for his C) so the point is moot. The U.S. is capable of stopping Crimes Against Humanity without joining the court. Contention 2: If the U.S. action is necessary to prevent atrocities, then you must negate! A vote for the affirmative would simply be using the U.S. in the same way the neg proposes, but the U.S. would lose its status as a hegemon because it'd be on the same regulations as other nations. The U.S.'s defense budget is what gives it its power. So in conclusion you must vote for the negative as a vote for the aff is a vote for degrading international relations into a state of anarchy.