The US ought to submit to jurisdiction of a world court designed to prosecute CAH.

I will first reattack my opponent's case and then rebuild my own. His observation: He states that there is no document saying that the US has no duty to help protect the world against CAH. This is incorrect. The US is a charter member of the United Nations and the UN was instituted to protect the world against such crimes. Its constitution therefore becomes that document that my opponent references. As a pre rebuild to a possible attack on this point is that the UN cannot replace an international court. The UN acts as an international legislative & executive branch. The ICC would stand as the judicial branch in that scheme. Therefore to fulfill our obligations given by the UN we must submit to an International Court designed to prosecute CAH. Another document would be the resolution. Let me prove this by saying that the resolution states "Crimes Against Humanity", since US citizens are a part of humanity these crimes are against them. As my opponents states, the US has an overwhelming responsibility to protect its people and therefore must fight CAH. The best way to do so is as I have shown: submitting to an international court. Forgive me for not seeing his value. It was not separated from his definitions and I missed it completely. I will now address it. I agree with his value, but only with how I define it in my case. Now for his value/criterion. He defended it using the defence on his observation so I therefore attack it as such. He defended his first contention with two points and I will attack in the same way: 1. The US enemies in the ICC (roughly 11.5%) are far outnumbered by our allies (98.5%). Information for this statistic was provided by a phone call to the office of the US Secretary of State and is therefore legitimate. 2. He stated that I contradicted myself on this point. I stated that the COURT SYSTEM was illegitimate. The executive and legislative systems are the ones who handle foreign policy (such as ICC relations), NOT the COURT SYSTEM. Therefore I did not contradict myself. He defended his second contention with two points. I will attack as such: 1. GITMO has not been shutdown and the bill to do such a thing has not even entered Congress. The so called prisoners of war are not being released. Try asking the federal government for your info rather than simply contradicting me. 2. My opponent references a certain human rights law that allows the treatment of the prisoners at GITMO, but does not provide his typical hyperlink to such law. This is because the human rights law that he mentions are those created by the Geneva Convention and those laws are openly violated by GITMO because they make no exception for nationless, lawless, terrorists who are therefore protected from such treatment. Now on to his attacks against my case. He attacked my my Value/Criterion by saying,"The whole point of my previous attack was to show just how specific this resolution is. "United States" is specific, while "democratic society" is not." To this I say that as I have proven in my most recent attack on his observation ("...the resolution states "Crimes Against Humanity", since US citizens are a part of humanity these crimes are against them. As my opponents states, the US has an overwhelming responsibility to protect its people and therefore must fight CAH. The best way to do so is as I have shown: submitting to an international court.") when applied to only the US, it is the responsibility of the US to provide for justice in and out side the US. I have shown how this can be done and that by upholding my value/criterion and submitting to an international court designed to prosecute CAH and my opponent has not addressed this in my value/criterion but has instead attempted to argue petty issues. He attacked my First Contention by saying that it doesn't further my case and by saying that he agrees with it. If my opponent agrees with it then he agrees with the evidence that I provided concerning the typical American agreement with joining the ICC. By agreeing with my sub-point C then he must agree with my case under his own stipulations of putting the US citizens first. He did not provide a new attack on my Second Contention and refuses to negate the evidence that I provided when I rebuilt that, "My opponent attacked my second contention by saying that joining the international court would undermine US Constitutional values. In response I bring up that I have provided substantial evidence that this is not true. Furthermore I have proved in the same arguments that refusing to join said court would undermine our US Constitutional values." Since my opponent didn't address this then his attacks fall through and my second contention stands. As for the sole burden of proof that he provided me with at the end of ROUND 2, I respond by saying this: 1. I have provided solid statistical evidence in my attacks against his case that prove that his said detriments to the Constitution do not in fact exist. 2. I have provided evidence in my case which I have successfully defended that submitting to said court would actually endeavor to protect the constitutional rights of Americans plus the HUMAN RIGHTS of the people of the world given to them by nature and ensured by US approved international law. Thus I have achieved my opponents burden of proof and by his own stipulations win this debate. I further this idea and place a burden of proof on my opponent that he must be able to prove in order to win this debate (along with successfully arguing against and for mine and his case respectively): Prove: My opponent must provide tangible evidence how it is not selfish and discriminatory of the US to put its citizens above those of the rest of the world. Prove: Prove crimes against humanity can be prevented/punished when the whole world (including the US) is not willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the only institution able to prevent/punish them. My opponent cannot win this debate unless he is able to uphold these two stipulations. This concludes my input for this round. I strongly encourage voters to vote for my side of the case.