The US ought to submit to jurisdiction of a world court designed to prosecute CAH.

I will first state my own case, and then move on to attack my opponent's. Resolved: "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." As I will show you, the idea of an international court would not be beneficial to the United States. Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court, I must negate. As a quick observation before I enter my case: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first. In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions: Ought – Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary) Submit – TO GIVE IN: To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary) Jurisdiction – The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary) International Court – A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) My value for this round will be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US should uphold justice, as it is what we strive for. My value criterion will be upholding a moral obligation to our citizens. This is just because a country must first establish rights for its own citizens, before trying to help others. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court. The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. This is unconstitutional, and hypocritical. This hypocrisy is unjust, and does not uphold our moral obligation. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. US citizens have a right to a public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, the standard time leading to a hearing is 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a fair and speedy trial. Again, this would be hypocritical, and unconstitutional. Contention 2: Counter plan. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens. It holds ALL benefits of an international court, but while still adhering to our constitution and protecting our citizen's rights. There are NO benefits of the ICC, or any other international court, that are not exercised in the ATCA. As I have shown, an international court would not fare well for the United States. We must uphold justice, protect our citizen's rights, and adhere to our constitution. Because an international court in unconstitutional, I stand in absolute negation of today's resolution. Now to my opponent's case. --HIS VALUE AND CRITERION-- My opponent values international justice. While this can be important, it misses the mark for this resolution. The resolution speaks specifically about the United States. If it said: "that a democratic society ought to submit..." or something to that effect, then international justice would be fine. This is not the case, and we must look to uphold the UNITED STATE'S citizens' justice. His criterion does the same thing. It is too broad for this debate. Protecting human rights, great. For this topic, we must protect US citizens' rights first. --HIS CONTENTION 1-- My opponent goes to great lengths to tell you something very obvious, that crimes against humanity are not just. I cannot argue against this, as it is an obvious statement. Of course they are wrong. The aim of this debate, is to show how to JUSTLY punish these crimes, not provide a broad statement about them. --HIS CONTENTION 2-- He says here that not submitting would undermine US values. This is faulty logic. How would we be upholding our values if we contradict the very document that our country was based on? How is that sticking to our values? How is that just? WE MUST stay true to our values, my opponent simply misunderstands them. So, my opponent's value and criterion have proved faulty. Therefore, you must look to which case better upholds my value, justice, and my criterion, the rights of our citizens. Whichever side does this the best should win the debate. The affirmative offers to contradict American values, and forfeit the rights of our citizens. Is that just? Is that protecting the citizens' rights? The negative offers strong values, and protection of our rights. Is that just? Is that protecting our rights? Leaving you with those thoughts, I conclude my portion of this round. Thank you.