LD Jan/Feb Resolution: U.S. Submitting to an International Court

NEG/AFF Definition of Ought: My opponents warrant actually reinforces the Neg Argument. If the word ought is "used to express Obligation" that does not imply morality, but rather what we are bound to do. It never mentions morals, to put the resolution with a substitute for ought "the United States is Obligated to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute Crimes Against Humanity. A better definition of Ought would be"Used to express advisability" (Merriam Webster) as it buts the mutual burden for each side to prove what is more advisable as opposed to Obligation which cannot be decided due to the fact that the U.S is governed by Popular sovereignty. Value: My opponent defines his value as giving each his due, this does not ensure national security. If we take this Justice from a domestic Point of view as my opponents says it is subservient to National Security. National Security is an extension of safety, which is the core of all value, without my value we cease to have the United States and people cannot even think about having their due. Criterion: Well lets see, we invade Iraq, Afghanistan, there are still crimes. And yes the U.S will be less peaceful without a Court system but this fails to show why joining the ICC would do anything, weakening our local courts, would cause peace to fail, which would beb unjust under the AFF. peace is very vauge, and cannot be quantified thus is an inferior criterion. C1. 1. My opponent missed the point of this attack, I was building off of my contention 1 that U.S soldiers may be punished for things that are not ordinarily prosecutable, such as collateral damage to buildings or even the environment, so the ICC would force prosecution and Hurt the U.S national sovereignty, and its National Security which would then come back to hurt the Citizens. 2. Cross Apply from above for the first part. Second, Again if there is no need then it is not Pragmatic, the U.S courts are more solid than a national court, because International Law is new and untested, any flaw in U.S law would be reflected tenfold in International Law. C2. 1. I have already addressed this but I would like to add that even if we assumed a Moral question, I have shown that the U.S has moral responsibilities to its Citizens not the World, this was not addressed and dropped. Furthermore I would like to point out my Criterion, Pragmatism is a moral philosophy, the Issues of national Security and sovereignty are addressed very heavily by Hobbes in the Leviathan. As well as by other Social Contract Philosophers. 2. I provided the example of the U.N courts, that are specialized to the events and thus more effective than the ICC, also the theory of universal jurisdiction which Briton exercised in the Capture of Pinochet. The ICC has not achieved what any of these courts have and is newer, thus will not be as effective. 3. how do we know their Moral Obligations? Where do morals come from? Society. The first Obligation of every Government is its social contract. Thus these countries felt it would been unduly violating their contract and did not submit. They Value the Negatives because they outweigh as I have shown. 4. So why do we have a Moral Obligation to Join? if it can perform without us, and it will not help us, why join? 5. "hat have not joined yet but will out of fear of the U.S." They will then leave the court if the U.S joins because they will see it as a U.S Imperialist Pawn. We have no soft power, this is evident, our power is Hard, we are disliked in the middle east, we have alot of Major disagreements with our allies even. This COURT WILL BE ABUSED. I warrant this is my contention 1. NEG: Value: Justice, may lead to a feeling of security, but does not in fact create security. We FELT Safe before pearl Harbor, We FELT safe before 9/11. We need to protect National Security so that we CAN be safe. National Security outweighs Justice clearly. Criterion: "Quoting philosophers is stupid" REALLY NOW? this is LD it is a philosophical debate, MORALS are philosophical. Also I am Using the Idea of William James, not saying I am right because he said so. Yes you can pretend you are divine but that doesn't mean others will agree AND you need to warrant it, William James Warrants Pragmatism. My Opponent conceded my value saying "I agree that the United States should make decisions based on pragmatic reasons" Pragmatism is a MORAL theory, Moral theories need not be metaphysical to evaluate morals. Pragmatism is as Valid a Moral Idea as Deontology or Consequentialism. My Burden Still stands as well. C1. A. This Attack is a strawman Fallacy, The court is self determinant so it can decide if it wants to take over jurisdiction. Countries can File referrals for any number of actions by the U.S because the Rome Statute is Very Vague, as I hit in my subpoint B. Also the U.S court system is not on the verge of collapsing and has Never even come close, the Surviva of the courts is parallel to the survival of the U.S itself, if our courts fail it will be because the U.S is destroyed because of a lack of National Security. B. My opponents Cross-application does not refute. If we cannot have a Military to defend ourselves we will be destroyed. This is simple Logic, this contention is unrefuted and Still Stands. C2. This is Assuming the ICC would be more efficient that the worlds Military Organizations or the U.N. which Logically it is not, also statistically it i not capturing only 4/12 of criminals it has sent warrants after. The Fact is that Military power is a more effective determinant than a court, AND is more efficient at capturing criminals. Under the ICC this would be forbidden and we would lose from even the current deterrent value. C3 This Card does not contradict, it simply states the U.S has this role and Joining the ICC would destroy that stability that the U.S offers. Also to U.S intervention in other countries does not deny its realist duties to its people. So this is within the Realist aspect of my case and their is no contradiction. The ICC destroys U.S military power, lowers deterrence, and is an outlet for abuse three unique impacts of a court that are not seen in U.S intervention. This Intervention is more effective/efficient and respects realist duties. essentially my opponent dropped this argument, by pointing out a Strawman contradiction so I will give you the impacts again. We join the ICC we pull Aid and Support out of those 100+ countries destabilizing hundreds of regions causing disastrous effects on the World. This alone outweighs the Entirety of the AFF case. Key Issues: 1. Criterion: No attacks on realist Pragmatism, this flows through, The Aff Burden then becomes to Prove that Affirming has the Best Practical Consequences for the U.S. Remember Regardless of weather of not this is a purely moral debate, Pragmatism and realism are BOTH MORAL THEORIES and are just as relevant as any argument in this debate. 2. Harms: Outlet for Abuse, This threatens the security of the American People and American itself. Flows NEG Reduces Military power, This Reduces Not Only U.S Hegemony but decreases our National Security and the Ability to help out in foreign conflicts, which would as I addressed in C3 be disastrous for the world and would end up causing Massive Global Destabilization. 3. Deterrence: I have Proven the Court has No deterrence and would in fact lessen any current deterrence, proving it not Pragmatic.