LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

In response to my opponents tangible court idea - Yes it does not mention a specific court and agree one should not base ones arguments about one court, but I reserve the right to site examples from current or past international courts in order as long as they can be applied generally My opponent sites no source for these definitions My problem with the 1 is the court does not need to me a majority nor will it ever have to me. Does my opponent even know how many countries that is? But the other two definitions are fair and I agree. In respocne to his definition of "crimes against humanity," It doesn't matter what the exact definition is all this is fair. A crime against humanity is a crime committed against a group for a reason such as, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. that is what is important V- Although the resolution says "the United States" this does not mean that we should look so domestic impact over global. Global impact is still the big picture in this debate. If we look to my opponents value, we could be living in a world were as long as treat citizens with justice, nothing else matters, a world where we could kill every no citizen who might work against the US because in the negative world, they don't matter and don't deserve justice. This is why the value of Human Rights is a superior value for the round because values the rights of all people. VC-Unfortunately, because the proper value fro the round is justice, constitutionality is not a proper weighing mechanism, but that point aside, my opponent makes a fatal mistake in choosing constitutionality as his value criterion because he forgets that the constitution is not perfect. Even the framers of the constitution agreed that the document was flawed, and that the government of the United States would be flawed, and so they instated a liberating policy to allow something called amendments to the constitution, which my opponents looks to many times in his speech. For this reason, the vale criterion of constitutionally is not a value criterion because even the framers agreed it was flawed, and it has the ability to be changed. Contention 1- Cross apply my arguments about the Constitution here. The US law system was created to insure justice, if the United States cannot uphold justice and ensure human rights, by justly prosecuting its criminals, we must amend the Constitution and look to an international court. for the second half of this point, he has no warrant my opponent makes numerous attacks against my case stating I have no evidence, but in this part he makes extreme claims without a warrant to back up his points, there for they are negligible. Contention 2- Agreeing with my opponents observation about this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the itself, this point is void. In addition he has no warrant. Contention 3-Here he quotes the Constitution, but has no impact for his statement, so to this I respond, I agree the constitution does indeed say that. But even if he were to apply an impact, again, cross apply my arguments for Constitutional amendments to ensure justice and human rights. Contention 4-Again, cross apply my arguments, but still, the document does not state the President CAN'T surrender power, especially when it is to preserve Human Rights and Justice,. I have already responded to his attacks against my definitions My opponent makes one argument against my case and that is that President Obama is changing these violations. My first response to this is; does this mean we should allow human rights violations to continue for 4-8 years and wait for a change in administrations? Who says this changed administration is actually going to stop the violations, just because Obama did does not mean it will always happen or ever happen again. Third, what is to stop another President from reinstating the violations? And finally, look back to President Bush's first 10 month in office, his approval ratings were up and he passed a series of good policies, which is until 9/11. It is impossible to tell what someone is going to do with their 4-8 years in office in the first week.