TheU.S.oughttosubmittothejurisdictionofaninternationalcourtdesignedtoprosecutecrimesagainsthumanity.

I apologize for the clarity, or lack thereof rather. I shall attempt to fix that error within this speech as I begin with the Negative and move on to the Affirmative. V: Realism: By joining the ICC, the power of the US would directly correlate with the power of the ICC. This is comparable to the results of the usage of parallelism in English literature, in which case a group of words are compiled together, and as a result, each is set upon an equal level where they gain more effect and influence, both as a group as well as on the individual level. As for the top of the affirmative case, I was referring to the exposure of crimes against humanity, for as more states join the ICC, more crimes against humanity will have the ability to be exposed. National Security: 1, in the first 1 and a half sentences of this point, the negative concedes that there is the possibility of a situation in which abuses are stopped. 2a, the affirmative is not hindering national security because we would be helping to limit the biopower of other states. 2b we are not hindering national security through harming national sovereignty because the US would retain primary jurisdiction. 3, as a result of 2a, helping to limit the biopower of states on the global scale would help our own citizens and ensure security because we would be limiting the biopower of foreign nations, and therefore, limiting their ability to pursue crimes against humanity against the US. VC: 1, It is not when the ICC thinks that the US is unable to persecute crimes against humanity that the ICC will act: it is when the US refuses to persecute those who commit crimes against humanity. 2, where does it clearly state such a statement? It doesn't. The negative side cannot even provide the words located in the US Constitution because, In fact, it is untrue. For example, look at the Nuremberg trials. In those trials, we submitted to an international court that was very effective in prosecution, and the trials were held in Germany. The sub point B of the Affirmative's previous speech is relevant because it directly links how national sovereignty is not threatened. C1: 1, According to Contention 4 of the Affirmative Case, a jury is present and consists of ALL members of the court. 2a, there is no evidence that the trials held by the ICC are not speedy. 2b, it is necessary to understand that the ICC can still limit biopower and crimes against humanity through deterrance by its mere presence as stated by the Affirmative C2. 2c, the Nuremberg Trials were extremely speedy, and the ICC is simply a continuation of the IMT ideals (24 trials were held in a single year). The ICC is not the first of its kind. The Negative's refutation is a moot point. C2: 1, The ICC is a COURT; it will not tell the US how to fight war on terrorism; it will notify the US of procedures that can be deemed as crimes against humanity, and allows for the limitation of biopower. 2, The negative concedes that Obama has the potential to change the current military procedures, making his original point moot. SBA: 1, The negative concedes the creation of a higher authority power that he would support. 2a, the US Constitution does not say welfare cannot be provided to non-US citizens. 2b, by limiting biopower in foreign nations, we provide welfare for foreigners, and in effect, provide greater welfare and security for ourselves. 3, The negative presents a new argument which can be refuted anyway: Russia has signed the Rome Statute, therefore we would be increasing our ties and decreasing tensions by signing as well. 4, his point concerning assets is unclear and is not comprehendible to my knowledge, but it concerns his national sovereignty criterion, so one can look to my above refutations concerning that. 5, the Affirmative sees nothing wrong with a warranted argument, and believes they are better than unwarranted arguments, and also sees no reason as to why they are worse. Multiple contradictions are present in the negative Case, one such contradiction is that between his choice in cards and their authors; another is that by joining allies, we become part of an alliance. 1, The negative Uganda example is unwarranted, unlike the affirmative Uganda example, and is completely illogical, flawed, and moot. The negative does not answer the burden whatsoever. Affirmative Case and voters: V: Protection of Physiological needs: 1, The affirmative does not value citizens of foreign nations over US citizens. 2, The protection of physiological needs of the citizens of foreign nations will help the protection of the further levels in the hierarchy of needs in accordance with Maslow. 3, At the point that the needs of US citizens are ensured along with the needs of foreign citizens, as a result of the joining of the ICC, the Affirmative must win. Look to the affirmative's above speech to the attack upon the bystander effect and its irrelevancy. By helping others limit biopower, they are protecting themselves. Crimes against humanity will be exposed and stopped. The affirmative does not claim that the Uganda example is just one example; the affirmative claims and warrants that the negative's Uganda example is untrue and "unviable." If the US is under the jurisdiction of the ICC, as my opponent claims, then there is no point in not submitting to it, as the resolution clearly states "submit", and the best way to "submit" is to join because by joining, crimes against humanity are exposed and eliminated through the limitation of biopower, which protects physiological needs. The affirmative case is completely defended as the opponent makes few attacks upon it. The negative CONCEDES the contradiction of unilateral action, which was nearly the negative's entire offense. So let us crystallize what has occurred so far: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity because: C1: Biopower results in crimes against humanity and needs to be stopped C2: International Courts such as the ICC are Effective in stopping crimes against humanity C3: The Court will become stronger and will be able to expose crimes against humanity with the addition of the US C4: The US will be protected as a member of the ICC The negative fails to readdress a plethora of his arguments along the way, including, but not limited to: VC Counter C1 Counter 1 C1 Counter 2 C2 SPA Turn 1 C2 SPA Counter 2 C2 SPA Turn 2 C2 SPA Counter 3 The unilateral offense The Negative Uganda viability