LD Jan-Feb resolution

I affirm. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I would like to provide the following definitions international court the current day ICC. This definition is the basis of my case and is the only way to interpret this value other courts that currently exist that are international and specialize in crimes against humanity. Also the ICC is the only court at this time the US would think of submitting to. Thirdly if we can use hypothetical courts I could make one up just as quickly as my opponent which would make this debate unpredictable and abusive. Ought obligate to. Submit to subject to. Jurisdiction the right or authority to interpret and apply the law. Crimes Against Humanity defined as Murder, extermination, enslavement deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population. My value in this debate is human rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human because everyone need them. This value relates to the resolution because without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature and the united states is a country that supports human rights and the ICC was created to attempt to equalize human rights even further. Human Rights are mainly those taken by Crimes against Humanity thus prosecuting crimes against humanity better secures universal human rights. My Value Criterion is societal welfare societal welfare is the benefit to all societies and helps us thrive.. I provide one burden for the negative case since we have to chose whether or not to join the ICC my opponent must prove that we gain more by not joining the ICC 1st Contention By having the US join the ICC we will end up having more alliances because the US will have more soft power. With the US as a member of the ICC we will have more allies in the ICC and will have fewer terrorist events happening to the US. Secondly we are becoming multilateral now meaning we are slowly losing our power in our country and we will end up needing the allies that we gain in the ICC. Lastly article 98 is an important article regarding use of our militia. It states that we will not provide support of our militia to any member of the ICC but when we become a member of the ICC that article will basically become nullified allowing us to provide others with military support gaining us more allies. 2nd Contention International courts are beneficial entities. An Article done for the International Studies Association Found that "states with a recent history of violence, in the 1990-2005 period ratify the ICC Statute more often that not if they emerge from civil conflicts. This result validates ad hoc observation that in a number of states, transitional regimes charged with ending a cycle of recent internal conflict have found it prudent to join the ICC, precisely because it offers an international bulwark against a return to routine political violence." Also there are situations in which America would have need of an international criminal court. A federal indictment Charged five former employees of Blackwater Worldwide, hired by the State Department to provide protection services in Baghdad, with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter, and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a violent crime after firing on Civilian targets and causing the death of 17 Iraqi citizens and seriously injuring 20 more. According to investigations done by the FBI, the Iraqi government and the Pentagon the attacks were unwarranted. However it turned out that these guards could not be prosecuted due to a legal loophole. Joining an International Criminal court would have ensured punishment for the intentional killing of innocent civilians. As can be seen international courts can be extremely beneficial to members and to those hurt by these "crimes against Humanity" and Joining one would further global interests to protect human rights. Human Rights would be better protected under an international court. There is a major difference between an international court and one that is country-specific – the global authority of the international court. Even the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. states that "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness." I Note that it does not say "that all persons who were born in the United States are created equal," but that "all persons are created equal." This certainly shows the global issue of the protection of human rights. Certainly a national court cannot adequately process a global issue. Considering the global issue of crimes against humanity, it seems obvious that the most fair, accurate and unbiased judgment would come from a conglomerate of nations. It is only just that a global issue be addressed globally. How can it be just that a criminal against humanity in one nation receive several years in a prison, yet another criminal who has committed the same crime in another country be issued the death penalty? It is only just that these issues be addressed nationally, where human rights would be better protected. Rather than on separate bases where sentences would differ for the same crime As you can see human rights are the paramount value and my value criterion is the only possible way to see that human rights are given to everyone OK my opponents value of military strength does not moralize his actions Hitler had military strength but he was in no way moral and LD is morals debate His value criterion of consequentialism. since my opponent fails to define this i define it as believing the overall outcome should be greater than its consequence as defined by Merriam Webster's this is the same as utilitarianism which is in no way moral because util (utilitarianism) is what allowed Hiroshima Nagasaki to happen we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents to keep the Us safe which was in no way moral Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC will cut our military strength because the court has rulings over our military and operations. ( The ICC will have no say over what we do with our army but they have say about how they are tried and they do it better and in an even more precise way) Contention 2: An international court has a very low military strength to enforce their jurisdiction. (Of course the an international court has low military power others who are a part of an international court are there to enforce the jurisdiction and are free to use their military as they please) Contention 3: Only military actions can effectively stop crimes against humanity. (this is simply untrue military strength was in Hitlers beliefs and he had one of the strongest militaries alive and yet he fell military strength waxes and wanes while judicial strength stays consistent. As you can see i have efectively taken out his value Value criterion and his contentions so i urge an affirmative vote i am now open for Cross ex