The united states ought to join the ICC

First, I would like everyone who is planning to vote on this round to look at the comments, and specifically to my comment. Basically, I was unable to respond on time because I was not notified it was my turn until I had forfeited the round ( I have pictures to prove this). Because of this, I urge you to consider my following arguments. I will start with the value debate, move to the criterion debate, to contentions and then to voting issues: Value: 1.) PULL ACROSS EVERYTHING I SAID. Seriously, none of my arguments against his value were touched, because of this alone we MUST look to humanity as the value for this round. On the definition argument, I'm not arguing that his definition shouldn't be used, but that justice, defined as he defines is cannot judge anything because it simply says that what we are doing is moral is because it's moral, which doesn't actually tell us why it's moral. (look to my argument) 2.) Humanity- Each person is his/her own character, people cannot be used as a means to an end. As I will prove further on, punishment DOES use people, and therefore, using the value of humanity you can ONLY vote neg. 3.) Even if you look to Justice, you still MUST negate Look to my 3 point under his criterion which was left untouched, neg better upholds justice. I will also answer his ad hom attack / claimed contradiction here as well: < > This was saying we SHOULDN'T PUNISH THE CRIMES not that we shouldn't look to humanity. Criterion: 1.) Pull my 2-5 points (dropped) on his criterion, even if you buy his argument, which I will get to shortly, you must look to the categorical imperative simply because: HR(human rights) aff provides no reason to uphold HR, HR doesn't provide a moral framework, negating better upholds HR, and because the categorical imperative it better. Also, pull across my B point under my criterion; you cannot know if human rights are protected until you've already committed the action, therefore can not know until too late. 2.) Categorical Imperative IS legitimate In the aff's example, we see a killer coming into your house and asking where your family is. The aff claims that you should lie. This is wrong. YOU SHOULD TELL THE TRUTH. If everyone were to act in a way that assumed lying was ok, no one would trust anyone, and everyone would assume that you were lying. This would mean that you couldn't possibly promise anything because it wouldn't mean anything. Also, by justifying lying, you are basing the morality of your actions on the morality of others, you are assuming that the killer wants to kill your family. And somehow that the immorality of his actions will affect your morality. Simply, you cannot know what people are going to do; therefore you CANNOT judge morality by the actions of others, only the actions you commit. After looking at this, the only case standing (and the only case standing before I said anything) is the neg. he has no value an criterion, and, as I will show, the main argument behind my case still stands. Furthermore, both my opponent's value and criterion stand on the neg (look to dropped value and crit arguments) , and therefore, as long as I can prove that I can uphold my case, you must vote neg. So, "for the skeptics out there", I will now move to the contentions. Neg- Contention 1) 1.)LOOK AT MY DEFINITION PLEASE! (humanity == "Each person is his/her own person, people cannot be used as means to an end") I do not contradict myself, and my opponent is simply articulating fictions. My first contention states that we should act on the maxim that we ought to value humanity (not use people as ends). I then show how courts use people as ends. The actual arguments here are not argued, all forms of "Justice" use people as means to an end, and are therefore immoral. 2.)Punishment is immoral I'm sure all of you judges understand this, but, the favorability of the outcomes of an action have nothing to do with the immorality of it. (Cross apply my B point under my criterion, we can't actually know the ends until it's too late) If you look to the very beginning of my last "speech", just after my RA, you will see that I defined the term "Prudent". "Prudence is defined as: Enlightened Self Interest, not duty. Such an action could conform outwardly with duty, but isnt actually acting out of duty.–Immanuel Kant" The punishment of criminals MIGHT be prudent, but this does not make it moral. Contention 2) 1.)This is not vague This contention simply explains how, through the categorical imperative, that punishment is wrong. To simplify: Because we are acting on the maxim "we ought to value humanity", (which, through my B point is shown to be beneficial when universally upheld) using people as means to an end (See contention 1) is shown to be immoral. By showing that it is beneficial when universal, the categorical imperative also gives us a duty to act on that maxim. AFF case: Contention 1) 1.)CASE Again, cross apply case (much of which was dropped), basically, justice (moral rightness as defined by the aff), is not upheld by aff because affirming is immoral. Also, my intended statement was justice is hurt BY submission, it was a mis-type. Contention 2) 1.)My argument here is very simply the 4 point under the criterion debate in my last speech. This point was completely dropped, and it states that human rights are violated by affirming. 2 reasons: A)Humanity is an intrinsic right (people shouldn't be used as means to an end), and this is violated by affirming. B)Human rights as defined by aff are violated. (life liberty persuit of happiness) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have much of a life or much liberty spending my life in prison. Furthermore, it clearly makes it very difficult to pursue happiness/property. Basically, human rights by any definition, are violated by the ICC, therefore, you cannot affirm. Voters: 1.)Dropped arguments are extensive enough to judge round A.) Almost every argument that I made on the value or criterion was simply left untouched. Because of this, the aff value and criterion not only fall, but flow to the neg. you can ONLY look to the neg value and criterion to judge the round. B.) My contentions were untouched. His best argument against my contentions was simply a misunderstanding of my main argument. He applies the argument to practically everything I said, yet, I do not contradict myself simply because of my definition of humanity, which my opponent apparently failed to read. 2.)Value Debate We must look to humanity simply because justice has no actual definition (using aff definition). It makes the unwarranted claim that affirming is moral because it's moral. 3.)Criterion Debate We must look to the categorical imperative to judge this round. This is because the affirmative criterion fails to provide a moral framework (doesn't tell us right from wrong), and because the affirmative violates their own criterion. 4.)Resolutional Analysis Look to the very top of my case. Read the RA. The affirmative does not provide a moral obligation which, using his definitions, he must in order to even be considered for the ballot. I however, even without the burden, do provide a moral obligation not to join, because of this you must negate. Because my RA was untouched, and because humanity and the categorical imperative have been shown to be superior, you must negate the resolution: the US should join the ICC.