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

I will quickly defend my own case, and then move on to attack my opponent's. --MY OBSERVATION-- He attacks this by saying that if we go by my observation that we would be denying the citizens of the rest of the world their rights. First of all, I was only stating the facts, where is the document saying we will protect the world? There is none. Where is the document saying we will protect our citizens? Oops, its in our constitution. So you see, this point cannot be argued, for it is fact. --MY VALUE-- My opponent does not attack my value. Therefore, he agrees that the value for the debate will be justice. You must now look to which case better upholds justice, as we both agree upon it. --MY VALUE CRITERION-- As he attacked my value using the attack on my observation, I will defend my value using my defense on my observation. --MY FIRST CONTENTION-- He tries to attack this by saying that the US could change the ICC so that it would be just. This simply does not fly. Since when have our enemies agreed to our standards? Since when have countries like Iran, Syria, and Libya agreed with the United States? (Yes, all of these countries are a part of the ICC) http://www.iccnow.org... This idea that we could change it is not only unlikely, but impossible. He also attacks contention one with the statement :"...but since when has the US perfected its own court system?" Did you catch the contradiction there? First he says that the US could change the court to our standards, and then goes on to say that our standards are flawed! I cannot refute his attacks since they contradict each other, making no sense. --MY SECOND CONTENTION-- He attacks this by saying: "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. " There are two problems with this attack. First off, we recently shut down GITMO, if you haven't noticed. Second, there is no evidence that GITMO actually violated any laws. Lets talk about my opponent's "prisoners." The prisoners happen to be radical terrorists, thought to have been associated with the 9/11 attacks, and others. BY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, they are not entitled to traditional rights. These rights apply to a regular, uniformed militia, NOT radical terrorists, who are NOT uniformed, and who do NOT abide by the rules of war. His attack here clearly falls. With my case still upright, I will now further attack my opponent's. --HIS VALUE AND CRITERION-- We have already established that we must go by my value for this debate. However, for you skeptics out there, I will further attack his value/criterion. He makes his defense simply by saying that I do not include the United States as a democratic society. He is "dead wrong." I never said this. The whole point of my previous attack was to show just how specific this resolution is. "United States" is specific, while "democratic society" is not. See the difference? My opponent fails to actually defend against my attacks, but merely points out what he thought to be an error in my grammar. Please see my previous attacks on his value/criterion. --HIS FIRST CONTENTION-- I don't see why my opponent insists upon this argument. YES, crimes against humanity are a threat to justice. We get it. This does not actually further your case, but states a well known fact. --HIS SECOND CONTENTION-- My attacks on this still stand, as I have defended my evidence. (Please see my previous defenses on my case) His contention two also falls. In conclusion, you must realize that my case better provides for justice, and protecting our citizens. My entire case still stands, while my opponent's has fallen. I offer a final challenge that my opponent MUST answer in order to win this debate. (In addition to attacking my case and defending his own) 1-Prove why submitting to the ICC would not violate our citizens' rights, and would not violate our constitution. Please tell me how. I await your answer. Ending on that note, I conclude round two of the debate. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org...