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

Same, just line by line. Some of it might be messy or repetitive due to how some of the arguments are fundamentally the same. Ok, the quote is dropped then. I will concede that a crime against humanity is "murder or an inhumane act against a civilian". Although I concede that the USfg should not be locked up in jail for killing soldiers, the definition still works against the affirmative. A "crime against humanity" is any inhumane act against a civilian. This inhumane act does not need to be on the governmental level, but on an individual level. By my opponents own definition places the foundation that a "crime against humanity" is anything bad that is "inhumane" against a civilian. As you can see, this definition is so very broad. There are hundreds of definitions of "inhumane", what does inhumane entail? Leaving one starving? A hate crime? Tripping someone when walking down the street can be classified as inhumane because the word itself is "not-humane". Dictionary.com says "humane" is defined as "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals". Now I am not trying to stick the affirmative with having to prove every "not compassionate" act should be tried, but my point is simple. Inhumane acts occur all the time, every crime in the US can be defined as "inhumane"- even by his own definition. This would cause for the United States to have to give up its autonomous judicial system for even domestic crimes. We will have a world "standard" for what is a crime, and how to deal with that specific crime. Doing this on an international level strips every country of its own identity. Countries that have one predominant religious system will have to change their laws in order to conform to what the new "international" order says is ok. Even if the USA is not what chooses the punishment, the independence of the country is still taken. At this point, when the USA loses its individuality and merely conforms to a world order you cannot vote for the affirmative team. All of the laws worldwide will have to conform to what the "consensus" says is ok. Religions are different, some religions call for huge punishments on little crimes such as stealing. Succumbing to the international judicial system will violate those countries values, and strip us of our individualism. The first thing my opponent is going to say is that "I am not advocating other countries to come into it also" but at his arguments base, he is. His value criterion can only be accessed when the entire world is "Equal" onto the "equal" judicial system. So although he is not directly advocating for other countries to join, he cannot access his value or value criterion until he can prove why it is good for every country to be a part of the system. On his first contention- Yes, I agree that the US has not done a great job of punishing crimes against humanity. However, the policy that is needed is not one of giving up our individuality and succumbing to an international order if anything is to be done, we should change America at the individual level, not give in to other people standards. First- He says they cant make laws, only prosecute Second- No one country can lead the court Only providing two answers to this argument was a fatal flaw by the affirmative team. I concede they can only prosecute, but the way in which they prosecute will be based on western philosophy. The second point he makes is the last leg he stands on and really the only standing defense in the round. When I believe that you should have already made your decision based on the fact America will have no individual say and it will violate other countries religions, I will still defeat this to leave absolutely no doubt in your mind. However, even if I do not, the previous arguments are still enough to vote on. Onto his second point. (Pretty much the rest of the debate grouped) At this point he is standing behind the quote of Madeline Morris to defeat the logic that I presented. The problem is that the Morris quote does not even apply in a world post plan. She says that not one country has control, but you have to look to the fact that the countries involved now are just random countries with absolutely no pull in the world so of course 1 country does not have any more pull than another. When the hegemon United States of America steps in they will mold the decisions based on the United States values and nothing will change at all. He can say that safeguards are put in, but you have to look to the fact that the United States will be the ones catching the criminals, they will feel as if they have more pull then the other countries because they actually caused for the capture of the criminal. The record of the ICC is pretty horrible, they have only put out warrants for 12 arrests and only a couple have actually been tried. The United States will see that and think "we are the one arresting everyone, we should try them based on what we say" and then status-quo still happens. So if the United States, and the world, followed suit we would see no variation in the realm of judicial systems. This is bad. When you take this away religious standards are not met, and a country has no independence. Independent countries are needed in America because this stimulates competition between them all and moves society as a whole forward. Seeing that the affirmative calls for every country to be the same in their ethics calls for an immediate vote for the negative. When every single attack against a citizen must be taken to the international court, you have no alternative but to vote for the negative. Thank you affirmative debater, I am thankful this debate has been kept on friendly terms and has remained very competitive. Thank you