The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity

I'll go NC, then AC V- Peace VC- Maintaining Hegemony --> I have 3 responses: First, he never makes an warrants why this value structure does the following: a. Provide a weighing mechanism for the round b. Provide a link to the resolution c. Therefore, you can immediately drop his V/VC Second, I would argue that his value structure is inconsistent between the V and VC. Peace is achieved with consent of the whole global community, bot from the dominance of one country over another, i.e. hegemony. For example, the US is forming a hegemony in the Middle East, but there is obviously no peace. Third, I would argue that it provides no solvency, and thus should be rejected. I.e. his value structure provides no benefit and solutions. Ob. 1 "One important goal of the U.S. is to get as close to a democracy as we can. Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent." --> Inconsistent with proposed value structure. He claims "Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent." If that is true then you are going against your VC of Maintaining Hegemony. Contention I: By forcing the U.S. to inevitably destroy itself to benefit all, you are causing chaos among nations in general. a)Submitting to an international court would cause another document to be valued higher than the constitution, which devalues the existence of the U.S. --> I have 3 responses: First, again, he makes no warrants as to why his premise is true. Second, valuing a document higher would not lead to the destruction of the US. Third, I would argue that it is not valuing a document higher because joining doesn't violate our national jurisdiction. According to the Rome Statute, joining the Court System does not violate national sovereignty, rather it is a mechanism designed to prosecute those that violate a countries own dignity. For example, the court system would have been able to prosecute those that lead the genocide in Rwanda. They have the right to violate sovereignty based on the fact that those crimes against humanity warrant that violation. b)When 1 hegemony is gone, another needs to rise. The 2 contenders being China and Russia would end up fighting for the new position. --> I have 3 responses: First, again, no warrants as to why his premise is true. Second, simply joining won't undermine US hegemony. Furthermore, joining does not give any reason that Russia and China would fight for that hegemony. Third, even if you don't buy my 2nd response, I would argue that the fight between Russia and China would ultimately hurt them both, ergo they would not have the ability to make hegemony. [AC] I affirm: The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity For clarity I offer the following definitions: 1. Ought: should 2. Jurisdiction: area of law 3. Crimes against humanity: crimes down on a systematic and widespread area, e.g. genocide For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1. The resolution is a contextualized as a realistic resolution rather then an idealistic one, because it states the US. 2. The function of this court is to prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity. The affirmative values Justice, which can be defined as giving each their due. This is an appropriate value because the obligation of a court system is to distribute justice to wrongdoers. This value is achieved by the criterion of Promoting a Safer Society. The link between the two are clear. The court distributes justice, and convicts wrongdoers, which in-turn makes a safer society. This has two impacts: First, the resolution gives two evaluative statements. 1. The US ought to submit, and 2. prosecute crimes agaisnt humanity. The value structure impacts because the Us ought to submit, if it promotes safety by prosecuting crimes agaisnt humanity. Second, ought implies an obligation, and an obligation of a court system is to promote safety within society. Contention I: Legitimacy By submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, the US is granted legitimate use of law enforcement to promote the court. For example, the US has no right to intervene in Darfur because it has no legitimate backing to use force. According to the Rome statute, a country can have legitimate authority to sue military force in which it will be sued to capture and bring the criminal to the court for prosecution. Therefore, if the US joins the court, it now has legitimacy behind it to intervene because it would be able to enforce the laws of the international community, and thus bring the leaders of the genocide to the court. In-case turn: The negative wants to promote peace by maintaining hegemony. However, use my contention as a turn agaisnt his case because I am the one giving the US legitimate backing to use force. For these reasons you can affirm.