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

I will begin by quickly defending my own case, and then move on to my opponent's. My opponent attacks my value saying that if we don't submit, we will not be just because we wouldn't prosecute crimes against humanity. I have nothing elaborate to say about this, except that it is 100% false. We DO prosecute crimes against humanity, and we do constitutionally. (See ATCA, which I will defend shortly) Because we prosecute these atrocious crimes justly, and constitutionally, the negative case provides for justice. My opponent mis-understands my criterion. I am saying that if we join an international court, our citizens will lose rights. Again, this is unconstitutional. How are we protecting our citizens' rights if we give them away so flagrantly? My opponent says that rights granted by international courts are improving. This may be the case, but is not good enough. Even if we were to give away JUST ONE of our rights, we would be unconstitutional, and hypocritical. How is a country just if we do not adhere to the very document our country was based on? My opponent says my contention two is irrelevant, and completely wrong. I don't see where my opponent is coming from. It is completely relevant, because it provides a safe alternative to any international court. We don't need an international court. He says we do for the checks and balances. WE HAVE OUR OWN CHECKS AND BALANCES. We have established our own, which we believe to be just. Who are we to let any other country put checks on us? With my case still standing firmly, I now attack my opponent's case. As a quick observation, my opponent does not respond to my point that international courts (such as the ICC) are unconstitutional. This means he must agree. Please keep this in mind while you are reviewing his case. I attacked his value previously, and he says "I didn't give a clear cut reason why his value should fall..." Here's one for you: If we adhere to an international court, we would be doing injustice to our citizens BY TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS! How is that for clear cut? My opponent also mis-understands my attack on his criterion. He only tries to defend the little note in parentheses. Here is my attack: We undermine individual rights if we adhere to an international court. This is contradictory to my opponent's case, and DOES flow into mine. With both his value and criterion destroyed, his case has NO foundation. His case means nothing, and needs no further attacks. But, for the sake of the onlooker's clarification on who won this debate, I will continue to attack his contentions. I have already attacked my opponent's contentions. He tried to defend his first one (which is THE SAME THING AS HIS CRITERION) by saying that an international court provides for a check and balance. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER CHECK. The US has created checks and balances that we believe to be just. How dare any other country or court try to hold down the great nation of the United States with another "check". He defends his second contention the exact same way. We don't need another check! We would be giving up our national sovereignty to others in order to achieve something we already have: Just, constitutional protection of our citizens' rights. In an attempt to defend his third contention, my opponent gives a "warrant" which says that an international court protects rights of the individual. I think my opponent mis-understands the word warrant. It means cold, hard evidence, not a pie-in-the-sky idea. He gives NO evidence to counter my own. Therefore, his contention three also falls. So, the affirmative has NO value, NO criterion, and NO case. Because the negative has all of these, backed by the United States Constitution, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.