Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

>NC then AC --Observation-- 1. Was conceded. Carry throughout. 2. I recognize that other courts exist, but my opponent refers SPECIFICALLY to the ICC in multiple occasions. For example, his first contention was: "ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity" --Value and Value Criterion-- >Justice is not, as my opponent suggests, an instrument of creating peace. Justice is basically a means of accomplishing giving what is due. This has nothing to do with peace, my opponent just equivocates as he pleases. Justice is, also as neglected by my opponent, not the same everywhere. Cosmopolitanism would globalize this, but do we really want this? What we should want is autonomy, because laws are not universal. For example, let's say society A is America and society B is cannibalistic. Should would make cannibalism illegal in America? Sure. Should we make it illegal in society B, where it is the norm? No, that would be illogical. The ICC tries to standardize what is interpreted differently around the world, a perfect example of why we should have autonomy. This also covers my link, so I move on to the other criterion attacks. His first attack will be turned. Let's see what he says. He says that if judicial autonomy promotes justice, submitting to the ICC does as well. That is false, autonomy means being independent, not being with 108 other countries. Additionally (the turn here), he says that this will offer checks. It will, but the US already has checks set up. The turn here is that the US WOULD NOT have reverse checks back on the ICC's jurisdiction, thus no autonomy. His last attack was that judicial autonomy was negative. I rebut back with my contention 1's sub-point A, when the ICC oversees everything, then POLITICAL PERSECUTIONS AND HUMAN-SHIELDS CAN BE MADE. :: Contention 1 - Submission of the US to the ICC Abuses Utilitarianism :: >My opponent COMPLETELY NEGLECTS the essence of this contention. While I used Hiroshima as an example, it is not the only such abuse of utilitarianism. The atomic bomb, as my (conceded by opponent) statistics indicate, this SAVED LIVES. He offers no reason as to why this is at all negative. This fits under the jurisdiction, it could be considered either a war crime or a CAH. Lastly, whether or not Tibbets was prosecuted, someone who made the right decision would be. A. Use of Human Shields >My rebuttal is simple: the point of the human shields is that the ICC DOES NOT KNOW. It would clearly be secretive, not easy to find out about. :: Contention 2 - US Submission to the ICC Hinders Due Process of Law :: >My opponent, in his rebuttal, provides an article of the Rome Statue in which double jeopardy is mentioned. However, the question is not whether or not it is mentioned, but whether or not it is adequate. According to the Rome Statute, a crime can be tried multiple times IF it is tried under a different type, though it can be the exact same act. For example, war crime v. a crime against humanity. >To his arguments: --Value and Value Criterion-- >My opponent makes one fatal conjecture; peace guarantees prosperity. This is false as countries can be at war and prospering at the same time. The US has done this on multiple occasions. Next, my opponent CONCEDES MY VALUE. He explains "the fact is, although the question may be legal," thus conceding justice as a weighing mechanism. Carry it through the round. Peace cannot way the round until my opponent shows that peace is indeed what the resolution's stipulation is, which he and I both agree that JUSTICE IS. Ironically, my opponent's description of my rebuttal as a strawman is actually a strawman in and of itself. My opponent says that harmonic cosmopolitanism "protect[s] universal human rights and create[s] peace." My questions of whether or not spreading these morals universally is possible is a legitimate question which MY OPPONENT HAS YET TO ANSWER. I offered a legit example and my opponent has no response. I extend. :: Contention 1 - ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity :: >My opponent neglects that the ICC cannot act as a deterrent any more than the US. If the ICC cannot do more than the US, there is not reason to submit. If the ICC DOES do more than the US, it can abuse the US (see my case)... I'll accept my opponent's link, but this is no reason to submit unless we can guarantee that IN THE FUTURE the ICC willbe a deterrent. The ICC does not deter, terrorists will not stop just because a system is in place. This is a faulty reason to submit to anything. :: Contention 2 - US Joining the ICC Would Further Legitimize It :: >Ok, I now understand this contention. What I don't understand is why this matters. Let's say this legitimizes the ICC. So what? Why does that matter? Aren't we out for a different value then legitimacy? If my opponent has not given proper grounds for submission in and of itself, so this is irrelevant. :: Contention 3 - :: A. >My opponent's response is somewhat contingent on due process, which he has not adequately defeated. The ICC is not the most extensive system, the Rome Statute is essentially in and of itself a loophole. Courts stop crimes, but the ICC is not better than any US court. B. >My opponent concedes the ICC is no physical mechanism. We aren't discussing anything else when we talk about peace, so this is essentially dropped. >For these reasons you can negate.