Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

I will basically to signpost, just go down my opponents previous post. The MLK quote was merely serving as an introduction to my case, so it is fine that you say it does not apply in this debate. However, going over the crimes against humanity definition, you seemed to have misinterpreted this. It specifically says "against any civilian population". Civilian is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as "one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force". Therefore, those soldiers that die during the war are not part of the civilian population. The United States during war does not intentionally target the civilian population, so this definition is in fact unbiased and does not hurt me. My opponent merely misunderstood the definition. Next, my opponent agrees with my value and value criterion, so there is no issue here. Onto my first contention. My opponent drops the point that the United States have done a horrible job punishing crimes against humanity in the past. Instead, they have decided to violate freedoms and liberties of people without due process. This is seen through the example of Japanese internment and in recent history with waterboarding. Since my opponent has dropped this point, we must extend the fact the United States is not an effective prosecutor in cases of crimes against humanity. Therefore, the United States cannot protect freedoms and liberties and achieve justice in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent cannot achieve the value structure in this debate since he dropped this point. Therefore, this is one reason you must vote aff. The only attack he did make against my first contention is that the United States would dictate policy in the international court since it is a hegemony. However, my opponent fails to realize two major facts. First of all, the fact that the international court cannot make laws, instead it can only merely perform prosecution, so no policies can be set by the international court. Second, that in the international court no country can "lead" the court. Every country has an equal say in this court. He failed to read the quote by Madeline Morris (J. D. ) in my constructive. This states that the international court is controlled by a large number of states, and this prevents abuses being perpetrated in the interests of one state or a small group of states. This quote is from a specialist in international law and completely refutes this point. It was already made available in my constructive. Therefore, no abuses can occur in favor of the United States, or any country for that matter. This completely refutes the argument he makes against this contention. Therefore, this international court, by not having abuses, will better protect freedoms and liberties than the United States. Therefore, affirmative again better upholds the value structure. Moving on to my contention two you can see he makes a similar argument. He states again that the United States will push its' policies in favor of the United States, and that the countries in it currently have no pull. However, cross apply my counter arguments I made in response to his first contention attacks. This shows that each country has equal pull in making decisions in this court, which prevents abuses. Second, that this court cannot create laws, merely prosecute, so it can't create U. S. favorable policies. Therefore, my opponents attack is again refuted. Continuing on with my second contention, my opponent fails to attack the fact that the international court has sufficient legal safeguards. Therefore, you can flow that through for the round, and accept the fact it has these safeguards. Since it provides this safeguards, it will protect freedoms and liberties and in turn achieve justice. Now moving on to my opponents case. His contention one stated that the ICC is horrible. He says that they fail to act with the situation in Rwanda, and are failing in punishing the United States. He goes on and says they are a bunch of random countries that mean nothing. However, this can easily be refuted. First of all, the ICC has no military, nor does it have the power to perform actions of the military. The ICC and the idea of an international court is a judicial power. This means that it can only serve as a forum of prosecution of these crimes. For example, if the United States signed onto the ICC before the Iraq invasion, and when the U. S. invaded and eventually found Saddam Hussein, he would prosecuted in the international court. They would not be prosecuted by the United States. So, this means that they prosecute those who have been suspected of committing crimes against humanity. They are not an executive branch, and cannot perform military engagements to invade countries and prosecute those who they suspect. They merely serve as a forum of prosecution. Next, with his United States argument that they should in jail, has already been refuted. You must cross apply my definition argument, and that a C. A. H classifies as a mass civilian murder that was intentional. Therefore, this refutes his first contention. The ICC and other international courts serve as a place where impartial and non-biased prosecution is supposed to be found. This is good, because many countries felt after the Saddam Hussein trials, that it was very biased against him. Instead, if they submitted to an international court, all the nations would have a stake, and would provide impartial prosecution. This impacts to the fact that this would better protect freedoms and liberties, and in turn produce Justice. Next, moving onto my opponents contention 2, he says it would mold the status-quo of the USA. However, I have already disproved this earlier. This is because the United States cannot mold it. Each country has an equal stake in the prosecution of these offenders. Next, no policies can be made by this court, only prosecutions can take place. You can cross-apply the Madeline Norris quote, which shows that it will in fact prevent abuses in the favor of one country, or a group of countries. Therefore, the United States would not be able to mold the court. If the United States joined the court, they would be more accountable to provide for non-biased prosecutions. In fact, the court would mold the United States for the better. This impacts to the standards, because an international court would better protect freedoms and liberties as shown through my contention 1 subpoint b. This would in turn lead to Justice.