The US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute CAH.

I will begin by attacking my opponent's case and then rebuilding my own. The first fallacy that my opponent presents is his definition of crimes against humanity. Simply put, there can be only one true definition of this due to the fact of a world wide agreement on the issue. The UN and the Geneva Convention (both approved by 100% of all nations in existence) have defined CAH as I have in my case. This is known as the Nuremberg definition of Crimes Against Humanity, referring to the Nazi Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Next are his observations of the resolution. I accept the first that he places on both himself and myself. I agree with the second because I will prove the resolution wrong (as is my burden) and that the US has no benefit from joining an international court and that there are benefits from not doing so. The third, however, the third is incorrect. While the ICC will be refereed to many times in this debate, the debate is not limited to the ICC because the resolution does not specify as such. My opponent's value was that of proper US policy which he doesn't define but instead says that must be valued above all else in this debate. I refute this by saying that we cannot value this. The proper US policy is what is questionable in this debate. We are deciding whether or not joining the ICC or any other international court is proper policy. So my opponent has provide you with a questionable value in this debate. My opponent's criterion in this debate is protecting Americans which he gives no explanation of. Since I prove in my case that not joining the ICC or any other international court is what's best for Americans, his criterion works better for my case rather than his. My opponents first contention states this: Submitting to the ICC Helps Protect Americans. The ICC's bias and ineffective frame and standard procedure does not provide for the protection of Americans. His first sub-point basically states that the ICC is hostile towards citizens of nations from outside its sphere of influence and that we must therefore join it for its protection. This is the horrible logic that allowed tyrants like Hitler to gain power. If the ICC has an unfair amount of control over other nations then this is cause for its destruction not its uplifting. This idea of appeasement rather than doing what's right is how Hitler was able to gain so much power in Europe and allowed him to start World War II. His second sub-point states that the ICC has a tendency to move more in favor of a member nation than in favor of a non-member nation. If such bias policy has been applied to the ICC then again I must say that this is reason to stop the ICC rather than join it. I will now rebuild my own case. He attacked my value by saying that I do not define human rights. I refute this by saying that it is a general term that shouldn't require a definition, but since my opponent requires it here it is: "...all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -Declaration of Independence- There is your definition. There is no arguing that this isn't the proper definition seeing as it is one of our most sacred documents as a nation. By not joining the ICC or any other international court these rights are valued and therefore Americans are protected as my opponent's criterion states. He attacked my criterion by saying that I didn't link it to the resolution and that it fits his case better than mine. I did link it to the resolution in my definition of the word ought: to be bound in duty or by MORAL OBLIGATION. My opponent has failed to put two and two together and link it on his own. Now as to the fallacy that it works better for his case, I addressed the fact that his case (contention) actually showed how the US shouldn't join so as to protect all mankind rather than joining so my criterion works better for my case in all actuality. He attacked my first sub-point by saying that we should join the ICC so as to create a check on it. This is impossible. Doing so would mean controlling the ICC and not submitting to it and therefore doesn't apply to the resolution. Remember that we don't join excessively powerful institutions but instead stop them. He attacked my second sub-point by saying he has shown how it's member states are its check and I have already shown how this check isn't effective and that joining won't fix its fallacies. My opponent mis-interpreted my second contention. I didn't imply that we should allow the government on trial a say in its verdict, but instead state that the international court cannot properly include the culture in the affected area in said verdict. Since my opponent didn't provide a proper attack, this contention flows through. My opponent fails to see the key aspects of a hybrid court form my third contention. A hybrid court is temporary and therefore cannot be submitted to on an international basis but only when it applies to the US. Therefore since "the affirmative is not against hybrid courts" he agrees unconditionally with my case thereby losing this debate. In conclusion I offer the following observation: My opponent has not met the burden of proof that he has placed upon himself and in all actuality assists me in meeting the burden of proof that he set on me and that I have then won this debate on his grounds. This concludes my input for this debate. I strongly urge a negative vote. Thank You.