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

As a brief road map, I will first state my own case, and then move on to neutralize my opponent's. Resolved: "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." As I will show you, the idea of an international court would not be beneficial to the United States. Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court, I must negate. As a quick observation before I enter my case: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first. I accept all of my opponent's definitions, except for his definition of justice. I will explain why when I attack his case. My value for this round will also be that of justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US should uphold justice, as it is what we strive for. My value criterion will be upholding a moral, constitutional obligation to our citizens. This is just because a country must first establish rights for its own citizens, before trying to help others. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: US Citizens will lose rights if we adhere to an international court. The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. This is unconstitutional, and hypocritical. This hypocrisy is unjust, and does not uphold our moral obligation. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. US citizens have a right to a public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, the standard time leading to a hearing is 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a fair and speedy trial. Again, this would be hypocritical, and unconstitutional. Contention 2: Counter plan. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens. It holds ALL benefits of an international court, but while still adhering to our constitution and protecting our citizen's rights. There are NO benefits of the ICC, or any other international court, that are not exercised in the ATCA. As I have shown, an international court would not fare well for the United States. We must uphold justice, protect our citizen's rights, and adhere to our constitution. Because an international court in unconstitutional, I stand in absolute negation of today's resolution. Now to attack my opponent's case. First of all, my opponent offers a faulty core value. He uses circular reasoning, which is logical fallacy, to define justice. He says justice can be defined as moral rightness, and moral rightness is a standard of right behavior. I then offer up my own definition. As I will show you, the negative case provides for the most justice. His criterion is upholding individual rights. He defines this as "life, liberty, and property." (I would like to point out that he says we have these rights until death. So...we have the right to life until we die? I can kill someone, and its ok since they are dead? Just like to point this out...) As his first contention is essentially the same as his criterion, please cross-apply my attack on the criterion to his first contention. Now, I agree that rights are important. I am all for protecting them. However, my opponent never shows WHY an international court can protect these. How is it capable? I have given the ATCA, which DOES protect human rights. (It also protects them constitutionally) His criterion and contention one actually flow into the negative case, since the negative better protects individual rights. Now on to his second contention. In his contention two, my opponent says that no one should be denied a chance in life. Again, I agree. My opponent however does not show why not submitting would violate the right to a chance. Once again, the negative honors this value, therefore his contention two also falls. Now to contention three: This contention states, again, that we must uphold rights, and the best way to do this is by submitting to an international court. HE DOES NOT SAY WHY, SIMPLY THAT IT IS. He gives no warrant to this, no evidence, and this contention also falls. I have given the ATCA, whis is proven, and constitutional. Because the negative has a legit core value and criterion, a firm and constitutional case, and the affirmative has none of these, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you.