The united states ought to join the ICC

OK first I'm going to refute my opponent's case, then further my own. My opponent values Humanity. He values Humans. However, he is not for protecting human rights. I quote: " 2.no reason to uphold- The aff simply says that we wouldn't want to prosecute crimes against them if they weren't important... yeah... we shouldn't be..." What? My opponent values humanity, but doesn't want to protect them by prosecuting crimes against them? This is absurd, AND contradictory. His value flows into my case. My opponent's criterion is a categorical imperative, spoken by Kant. This reasoning is completely faulty. It basically says we ought to act by "what should be" universal maxims, being applicable in every case. Consider for a moment, a murderer comes into your house. He tells you to tell him where your family is so he can murder them. Do you tell him the truth, just because lying is wrong? OF COURSE NOT. The Categorical Imperative is absurd. His criterion also falls. So, my opponent has no value, and no criterion. His case has nothing to go on. This should be enough to win the debate once I prove my case. You may skip this next part of the debate if you want for sake of time, but I will refute each of his contentions individually for you skeptics out there. Cont 1:Punishment violates Humanity This is ridiculous! My opponent says we shouldn't punish crimes against humanity? How are we valuing humanity if we don't protect them? This, again, is contradictory. There must be punishment, or society would be condoning rimes, and devolve into chaos and despair. Contention 1, NEGATED. Cont 2:Affirming is wrong Well, this is very vague. In his sub-points he says why negating is "right" but not why affirming is wrong. I will soon show you, again, why affirming is right. I have already shown you why negating is wrong. I have already destroyed his case, and need not waste your time doing so again. So, now on to my case. He tries to attack my value by saying I don't define it adequately. This definition was taken from Webster's Dictionary. However, he previously said he agrees with my definitions. (Please note, he contradicts himself throughout the case) If he wants to offer a more "adequate" definition, go ahead. He tries to attack my criterion by saying that it too is undefined. So here we go, some example of human rights are life, liberty, property, the enjoyment of the fruits of our own labor, and the pursuit of happiness. I thought these were well understood, but I guess not. If my opponent does not agree with my criterion, he would be saying that humans ought not be protected. This would be contradictory, so my opponent must agree. He attempts to attack my Contention 1 with this statement: "Cross apply my case again, as well as my 2 point under the value. This shows that justice is actually hurt my submission." Well, I have already shut down his ENTIRE case, so we can't cross-apply his points. As for the second sentence, what are you saying? It would hurt your submission? Please identify this in your next speech. Contention 1, UPHELD. He tries to counter my Contention 2 with this: "On this one, cross apply my 4 point under the criterion debate. Courts violate these rights." Again, he can't attack my case with his, since he doesn't have one. As for the courts violate rights, does he have any examples? Absolutely not. He has NO evidence. Contention 2, UPHELD. So, the Affirmative is standing on a solid case, backed by an agreeable value and criterion. The Negative has fallen completely, having NO structure, and NO evidence. "Resolved, the United States ought to join the ICC" Affirmed.