This House would Rather be in than Out.

Let's start with the value analysis. You can extend the observation at the top of the case that explains that I am allowed to present a value because I am the proposition, and because values promote debate education. Insofar as my opponent has dropped this observation, as well as the value and the value criterion of Justice and the preservation of natural rights, we must view this round in terms of the filters that I have provided. Impacts that do not link to the preservation of natural rights are irrelevant to this round because they do not link back to the overarching standard that has not been challenged. Thus, both sides must attempt to prove that they better uphold natural rights. Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to prove that his counter plan better upholds natural rights than the affirmative case, so you can affirm due to the fact that his impacts are irrelevant. Next, look to the observation in which he claims that I must prove that the court will actually deter crimes against humanity. The main problem with this analysis is that the resolution stipulates that the court is designed to do this, so we must already presume that the court does so. The issue is whether the United States should join such a court, and not how the court should function, meaning that the observation is irrelevant. Moreover, even if you disregard this, the court would prevent crimes by creating a system of accountability that currently does not exist in the international arena. This would force leaders to protect their people rather than initiating genocides against them because a higher actor could punish the rogue states. In contention 1, I explained that joining the court would force the United States to display a greater commitment to human rights and would show the world that we are willing to dismantle our outdated image as imperialists and thus would reduce the ability of terrorist networks to manipulate and recruit members of target populations. His only response to this is that they could change their selling point. This response is fallacious for two reasons. First, it is entirely unwarranted; he has given you no analysis as to what the new selling point could be and how it would be more effective than the current one. It is just something that he asserts. He has also provided you with no examples, so there is no empirical evidence that terrorist networks could just change their tactics. Second, the target population only becomes conducive to joining terrorist networks when they are harmed by U.S. imperialism and because they believe that they are not receiving their human rights. Steven Coll explained in a well-known article in the New Yorker that terrorist recruitment has increased 5-fold in the last year simply because the United States rejected a human rights approach to Afghanistan and favored a counterterrorism approach that harmed innocent members of the population instead of the networks themselves. So, even if the networks change their "selling point", members of the populace are less likely to be persuaded if the United States were to improve its image by joining the international court. Thus, you can extend the first contention about terrorism because my opponent has no substantive response to it. He next critiques the language of rights that I use in my case. To create a fair debate, I think that natural rights should be defined as those set in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since almost every nation in the world has signed it and has thus agreed to its standards. This solves his interpretation about the language of rights and also shows that in the status quo, the United States does not protect all of the rights that it must guard, both for domestic residents and for people abroad. Please extend contention 2 about promoting state accountability because it was completely dropped in today's debate. This is important because if the United States legitimizes the court by joining it, then the court could act as an external check on state abuse of power and thus minimizes violations of rights in all nations. This means that joining the court achieves Justice, so you affirm. He then attempts to turn my analysis about imperialism to use against contention 3, and claims that states could simply change their justifications for abuse. First, please cross-apply my analysis on contention 1 about how this is just and unwarranted assertion. Then cross-apply the analysis about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how that mitigates the rights critique that he uses. Third, look to the fact that rights must be prioritized. For example, a serial killer cannot use his right to liberty to slaughter five innocent children because the right to life is a prerequisite for every other right and is thus protected before the other rights are guarded. This solves his "Saudi Arabia" analysis because we must work to safeguard specific rights, like a woman's right to liberty, over the "right to family" that he proposes is important; in the case of rights conflict, some must be prioritized over others. Finally, even if states change their reasons for committing tyranny, that does not mitigate the fact that they will be isolated and that the rest of the world will place more pressure on them to reform. My opponent claims that this is imperialistic, but that does not matter because a dictator/government's right to rule is secondary to the protection of natural rights for the people. Thus, you can extend the third contention about the global cascade to protect human rights. Because the pressure would force other nations to change, by joining the court and renouncing human rights abuses, the United States preserves natural rights and thus achieves Justice. Lastly, let's look at the counterplan that my opponent offers, namely creating an international debate league. The first problem with this analysis is that such a league already exists in the form of the United Nations, which is completely ineffective. This means that his counterplan is nothing more than the status quo. Second, even if he clarifies that he meant something else, there is no reason that we simply cannot join both the international court and craft an international political debate league. He has not proven that the two plans are mutually exclusive, so I am going to perm his counterplan and advocate taking both actions. Thus, I solve both the negative case and the affirmative case. Finally, such a league would not be enough to prevent human rights atrocities because it would have no ability to mobilize against rogue states and condemn their leaders for their actions; it would only create an arena in which politicians would meet and debate each other without taking any action. This means that the counterplan will never be able to protect natural rights on its own, and thus is not just unless done in conjunction with the affirmative case. This means that you should vote affirmative because the negative has failed to uphold the basic standards of the round. Thus, I strongly urge an affirmation of today's resolution.