LD Jan/Feb Resolution: U.S. Submitting to an International Court

I will begin by addressing my opponent's arguments against my case. As for my observation regarding the definition of "ought," I submit the following warrant, a definition of the word itself from Merrian-Webster: "used to express obligation," and the same source defines obligation as "something what is bound to do." Therefore, the word "ought" need not be interpreted or used practically, as it is (in this case) what the U.S. is bound to do, not necessarily what they "should" do in a personal sense Since no arguments are made against the ICC as the court for this debate, please consider that point extended for all arguments. Moving on to my value, the interpretation of justice given is one that can be taken from a domestic point of view and need not be looked at internationally. Therefore, MY VALUE IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR MY OPPONENT'S VALUE TO EXIST. As defined by the domestic interpretation of justice given, domestic justice leads to national security as it creates peace, enabling a society to be safe and stable. Criterion: No warrants are given for the U.S. not being peaceful. Second of all, even if the U.S. is not 100% peaceful, I stand by my argument that it would be less peaceful (there would be more conflict) if there was no justice. C1: 1)There is no saying that the "U.S. may not want to prosecute." What does this mean? Does it mean that one or two sections of the government are covering up for a soldier's misconduct? Or that a select few in the U.S. don't want to prosecute? In that case, the ICC is needed to prosecute IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE U.S. 2)I am not saying we should subject soldiers to anything if the courts are fully able. It's what would happen if they are later incapable that concerns me and my case. If that doesn't happen, there is no need for the ICC and no interference from them. Everyone wins. C2: 1)The resolution is only concerned with moral responsibility, as evident from my interpretation of the word "ought." 2)What is your warrant for saying that there are "enough safeguards in place"? 3)Untrue to your point on the hegemonic countries. Although they may see negatives from a "we-don't-want-to-give-up-any-power" point of view doesn't mean that they don't see positives from a "peace-for-the-world" point of view. It simply means they value the negatives over the positives, which defies their moral obligations, and therefore they OUGHT NOT do. 4)It is not dependent, but there is certainly no arguing that U.S. participation would not help. 5)What about countries that have not joined yet but will out of fear of the U.S.? Or the U.S.'s allies. You say that we have NO soft power, but I see no warrant. Moving on to my opponent's case: Value: I like your value. Unfortunately, mine is better. Justice leads to a feeling of national (and international) security by creating a more peaceful society. VC: Quoting philosophers is stupid. It is not a warrant because philosophers have pretty much said anything and everything. It does not mean they are correct. I offer the following example: from the same philosopher (William James): "If you want a quality, act as if you already had it." So now if I pretend I'm divine, I am? Hippolyte Taine says, "I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior." Please note that both quotes offered are by philosophers. Secondly, I agree that the United States should make decisions based on pragmatic reasons. True. But that is not what the resolution says. It asks if they "ought" (look at my definition) submit, not if practically they should. C1: Extend argument regarding values (mine precedes his, and therefore must be preserved first) Okay, the U.S.'s enemies cannot abuse the court unless there is something wrong with the U.S. court systems. Keep them working fine, and nothing happens. If the court system is on the verge of collapsing, any attempt to save it is worthwhile. C2: If you let criminals go free, how do you preserve the deterrence value? That would be counter-productive, especially if the story made its way to the public. So any check on that (such as submitting to the ICC) is an attempt on preserving the effect of deterrence. Not the other way around. C3: I saved the motherload for last. Let me use a card from your case: "the United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security." I'm sorry – did you just include that in your case? Your entire argument against my second contention (which I almost conceded) was that the U.S. must think of its realistic duties to the people first. Then why is this quote in here? My opponent offers a blatant contradiction in his case by including this card. Either drop the contention and apologize for using the card or forfeit. Assuming that my opponent forfeits C3, I win the international debate (in terms of impacts on the global community) as he has no contentions referring to it. So, to sum up my major points: 1) My entire argument (linking to my value of justice) must chronologically occur before my opponent's argument of national security. Justice is needed to create security. 2) The U.S. must succumb to the ICC's jurisdiction to ensure the failure of attemps by a select few to cover up crimes against humanity. This also ensures the stability of the court system through the deterrence effect. I urge you to affirm. :)