The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

ATK ON Value: Independence/His reasons "1. Justice is more important than independence because a country can be totally unjust and still uphold his value."-You still dont define what justice is so how is justice more important than independence when you dont give a definite understanding of what justice is.2."This suggests that a country would completely operate on it's on no matter what."-He is no longer attacking my value he is attacking the value of isolationism because The U.S. is independent but it still trades with other countries. He is thinking that im saying that one should cut off all ties with the outside world. 3. Still speaking of isolationism. 4. No it does not. As i said the U.S. is independent and they have gotten involved before. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. 5. Isolationism 6. The bill of rights are moral and they mean what is stated in them not what is interpreted by the supreme court. I can interpret it to mean that i can go out and rip a bears arms off and legally own them and justify because it the way i interpreted the constitution said it was just but that doesn't actually mean that. This doesn't mean anything. 7. No it doesn't that would be isolationism and dont get me started on that. Im going to group his attacks on my V.C. because they all speak of one thing and he's not really attacking my V.C. 1-6 Speaks about again Isolationism therefore those attacks dont count. 7-This attack makes no sense at all and i have no clue what he is saying. To me it doesn't even read like he is talking about the same thing. Attack on 1&2 since grouped together. His reasons why the fail: 1."The United States still has the power to prosecute the offender."-True "The ICC has only tried people who haven't been convicted in their own countries." But they can still try people that have been tried in that country again due to the fact that they saw that the jurisdiction given was given just to bring him to justice. You fail to realize this and you fail to realize that it goes against our constitution. 2. Show me where because from what the Fifth amendment says it objects to it. 3. Im not going to prove why this fails again. 4. It has established justice for this whole country and elaborate more instead of saying it meant justice was slavery, and such because the constitution never mentioned those. To attack his case Value cont.- You didn't define it until now and im not accepting your definition since you should have done that in r1 in your case also i did not say it wasn't a good value i said the manner in which he was using it wasn't valid. His contention 1 cont.- A. I addressed his point on how the us would help the icc by saying that he is talking of going and taking over to make it better which goes against the resolution. B. War crimes count as a C.A.H. there is no difference. Q: Do you know the topic of this debate anymore? C. Apparently he agrees with me Contention 2 cont.- Yes it clearly does. Once again you talk of going in and supposedly submitting to make it better but at the same that requires authority which we will not have so it does. " The US would respect any ICC decision, and prosecute CAH's in countries that do not."- You keep saying that the US will have the jurisdiction to prosecute CAH's when it should be the icc so your saying that we should join and then control it. So as of now My Value and V.C. stand since he failed to attack the right ones my arguments stand since he refuted ones with evidence and agreed with most of them this guy is annoying