Resolved: The United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute CAH

I will start by defending my own case then move on to attack my opponents. My opponent attacks my value of justice by saying that I use a circular reasoning which is fallacy in itself and that his negative argument better upholds the definition of justice. He goes on to say he will offer up his own definition of justice and attack my value, but he never really gives you a clear cut reason why my value should fall and flow to the negative side therefore he must agree, in part, with my value. My opponent attacks my criterion by saying that in my right to life argument I made it seem as though you could kill someone and not be guilty because of my definition of individual rights. I say we have the right to life and I mean that we have the right until death takes it away. In saying this I mean that only death itself and no one or nothing else can take the right to life away. My opponent attacks my first contention by saying that I don't state why an international court is important in human rights. He also agrees with me that protecting human rights is important. An international court serves as another check and balance on the government to prevent anyone from committing crimes against humanity. By doing this it is protecting human rights and thereby upholding my contention. My opponent attacks my second contention by saying that I once again do not prove how not submitting would violate the right to a chance in life. He also once again agrees with my argument that a chance in life is important. By not submitting we are allowing government agencies, like the president who can exonerate himself, go unchecked. This is serving as another check and balance to our government like anything else. My opponent attacks my third contention by saying I give no warrant to why we must submit. I must counter by saying that we must submit in order to exact justice and protect the rights of each individual. This should be warrant enough, the protection of rights and morals and the administration of justice should be warrant enough to make us join this international court. In his value, my opponent defines justice as "the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right." He then goes on to say that any actions taken by the US should uphold justice. If we are upholding something "morally right" as his definition states then why are we not joining an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity? It isn't just to allow these things to go on and in not joining we do allow crimes against humanity to continue occuring. Because of these things his value falls. In his value criterion, my opponent states that we must uphold a moral obligation to our citizens. Do we not have an obligation to our citizens to make sure that their government is not committing crimes against humanity? Yes, we do. Because of this it is impossible for my opponent to tell you that we are not making the moral descision by joining an international court. In contention I, my opponent states that citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court. It has been proven that as the years progress, the rights granted by international courts are improving. My opponent cites the ICC in his case. I will tell you that the ICC now allows its defendants to confront their accuser. The ICC also follows the statute of Rome which states that you are guaranteed a speedy trial. In contention 2, my opponent tries to use the ATCA as an alternative. Sure the ATCA allows citizens to be tried on US soil under international law, but this is not the point of this debate. If we were debating over whether it was morally correct to try US citizens outside of the US then this would apply. But we are debating about the fact that we should add an international court as another check and balance to prevent our governement and our citizens from committing crimes against humanity. My opponent states that there are no benefits of an international court or the ICC which are not excercised in the ATCA. From the statement I have just made about the international court serving as another check and balance to exact justice, I think we can all see that my opponent is completly wrong about his entire contention 2.