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

In this round I will first attack my opponent's case and then defend my own. My opponent began with a quick observation. While not a part of his case It is still necessary that I refute it so as to provide a clear and concise argument. He stated, "The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world." By isolating the priority of one nation over that of the rest my opponent denies the remainder of the citizens of the world their HUMAN RIGHT to the benefits that America could provide by submitting to a world court. This is better refuted using the idea of cosmopolitanism which states that any and all capable entities in the world share the top priority of protecting humanity as a whole rather than their isolated group. I will further incorporate this ideology into my debate as I go. My opponents value criterion was that of moral obligation and I negate it using the above argument against his observation. My opponents first contention was this, "US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court." I refute it using two arguments. 1. If the US were to join the ICC or any other International Court, the US, as its most powerful member, would be able to change the negative attributes of said court so as to provide for a fair trial by jury. (ie: the UN, if the US leaves the UN then UN fails, therefore US has most political leverage in international situations) 2. My opponent says that a fair and speedy trial is not provided by the ICC as dictated by the US Constitution, but since when has the US perfected its own court system. A federal offence trial will take at most 25 years to play out by the time the appeals circuit has been exhausted. If the US can't provide a trial that fits its own legal parameters then a new court system needs to be sought out. My opponent's second contention was that of a "counter plan", referring to the Alien Torts Claims Act. While this allows international criminals to be tried in the US under international law, it is obviously ineffective. The US refuses to abide by international law and prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in our own nation. This is seen in the treatment of prisoners at The Guantanamo Bay prison facility at which the prisoners are not being given their promised fair and speedy trial. Because the US cannot abide by international law without submitting to the ICC or any other court then the US must submit so as to ensure the protection of human rights. I will now begin defending my own case. He attacked my value and criterion by saying that because they address the issue on an international scale that they do not apply to this debate. He is dead wrong. He says, "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." By excluding the US from said "democratic societies" then my opponent must then be convinced that the United States is not a democratic society which is a very fool-hardy thing to believe. The US founders themselves upheld the idea that all humanity was more important than the citizens of a single nation and this is seen in their backing of Lockian theory which states that "ALL men are created EQUAL and are endowed by their creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So my opponent is incorrect to say that the US government has a responsibility to its citizens over the rest of humanity. He attacked my first contention by saying that it didn't further my debate but only expounded upon a pre-established fact: that crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice. To further imbue this argument with relevance so as to discard my opponent's attack I will simply offer a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers. "No man or group of people is just who sits by as the destruction of justice plays out in a nation different than their own. If there is only justice anywhere if there is first justice everywhere." This means that until we submit to a world court and join the fight against crimes against humanity we might as well be committing those very crimes, even if we must purge ourselves of those very crimes. My first contention establishes that crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice everywhere, including America, where, as my opponent agrees, we have a responsibility to preserve justice. My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that joining the international court would undermine US Constitutional values. In response I bring up that I have provided substantial evidence that this is not true. Furthermore I have proved in the same arguments that refusing to join said court would undermine our US Constitutional values. My opponent ends his attack by saying that the case that upholds "his" value and "his" criterion more is the victor. While I disagree, I offer the following observation: I have in my rebuttal and attack shown how my case upholds both his value and criterion and my value and criterion better than his. Thus by his own established standards my case is the clear cut winner of today's debate. Thank you.