The United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against hum

AFF Definitions: he turns my "to submit" definition saying that we are at there mercy: 1. The U.S. knows what the Court does when they sign the treaty to submit to it. 2. The only power that the ICC will have is the power to prosecute crimes against humanity. V: Both agree on a justice-based value, but my value is slightly different. My value is international justice, which is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Justice is better achieved through my case because in submitting to an international court, such as the ICC, the U.S. is strengthening its legal system by increasing justice, which eventually leads to a better society, because by deterring heinous crimes, the U.S. is maintaining is global hegemonic status. C: My opponent says that we are giving up humanitarian interaction by giving up sovereignty: 1. He never makes it clear why giving up sovereignty and humanitarian interaction is bad, so you cannot look to this argument. 2. He doesn't have any evidence of how sovereignty is given up or how humanitarian intervention is given up. He gives claims, but they are unwarranted and unimpacted, therefore you cannot look to them. 3: I protect human rights by protecting our society against heinous crimes, and I prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join the ICC. C1 Sub Point A: My opponent said that I don't tell how an international court prevents these crimes, but I don't have to. My claim talks about how crimes against humanity harm justice. My opponent has obviously missed the last sentence of my evidence, which specifically states: "If there is ever hope to end such crimes, they must be addressed by the law on an international scale." This shows that the world is in desperate need of justice on an international scale i.e. my value; therefore, extend this point across the flow. Sub Point B: My opponent doesn't believe that justice is not served through the ICC, but it is because the ICC's job is to prosecute those guilty of crimes against humanity, which serves as a clear tool for enforcing justice, and eventually, deterring future crimes against humanity-refer to my Lin card. Also, he tries to turn this by saying that sovereignty is needed to enforce justice, but doesn't give a warrant for this so pay no attention to this argument. Sub Point C: My opponent says that we already have a legal system capable of dealing with mentioned crimes, but the crimes mentioned included: violating human rights and making war on ethnic and other groups in that leader's country; this links to the ICC because all of these are considered crimes against humanity, which the ICC is designed to prosecute, not our current legal system. Thus I have achieved my burden. C2 1: My opponent says that the U.S. will not be able to change the court to match their beliefs, but this is irrelevant because the U.S. doesn't have to. All I am proving with this argument is that strengthening international is a core value of the U.S., and that not submitting to an international court would undermine that. 2: My opponent shows no evidence of how joining an international court would undermine values, and I show clear evidence of how it does, you have to look to my 2nd contention. C3 My opponent says I'm unwarranted and unimpacted: 1: My warrant is clearly in the Banchik card (it clearly says how terrorism is a crime against humanity). 2: My impact is in my evidence (it talks about the severity of terrorism). 3: Because the ICC can prosecute terrorism, this is just one more reason to vote pro. NEG Framework: V: Justice My value of international justice is better because: 1: The resolution is questioning submitting to an INTERNATIONAL court, not just a court; therefore, you look to an international conception of justice rather than vaguely "justice." 2: The U.S. joining an international court is strengthening the U.S. in terms of its hegemonic status. The actor enforcing this international justice is the U.S. and all of the signatories of the ICC. 3: Justice is better achieved through my case because in submitting to an international court, such as the ICC, the U.S. is strengthening its legal system by increasing justice, which eventually leads to a better society, because heinous crimes such as terrorism are effectively prosecuted through the ICC. C: Protection of democratic sovereignty 1: My opponent shows no clear reason of how protecting sovereignty upholds his value of justice, and because a criterion is meant to uphold your value, you cannot look to his framework. 2: My opponent's card on internal sovereignty contradicts his criterion because internal sovereignty is different from his criterion of protecting democratic sovereignty, so this is another reason you cannot look to his framework. 3: My opponent doesn't explain how not encouraging human interaction is a bad thing. He just says how sovereignty enables it. 4: He has no warrant for how the presence of human interaction is the key to preventing crimes against humanity, which is the basis of his argument; therefore, you cannot look to this framework. C1: The ICC (or any international court) destroys democratic sovereignty. Sub Point A: This whole argument must be looked past, because he has no evidence for any part of his warrant. My opponent is expecting me and the voting poll to know that all of this is true about the ICC, and that's unfair, so this whole sub point is void. Sub Point B: It ruins sovereignty ("supposedly"). So what? My opponent doesn't say how this is bad, and we cannot assume that it's bad or good without an impact to society; therefore this sub point is also void. Because I have a basic framework (claim, warrant, evidence, impact) all throughout my contentions, you must disregard his and look to mine in this debate. Overview I've started off by winning the value debate, I've taken out his criterion, I've taken out his entire framework, and proven why you cannot look to his contention and must look to mine. So I urge an affirmative ballot, thank you for your time.