resolved:The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst.

>I will state my case first, and then move on to that of my respected opponent. >Thomas Jefferson once said that "[He] consider[ed] trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution. "ï¿½ƒï¿½'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ƒï¿½€šï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ I agree with him, and it is because I believe that Americans are entitled to the rights given to them in the United States Constitution that I negate the resolution: :: Negated :: >The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity >For clarification during this debate, I would like to offer the following definitions: >Crime against humanity: a crime or series of crimes, such as genocide, directed against a large group because of race, religion, country of origin, or other reason unconnected with any individual's responsibility for having committed a criminal act >Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies >Additionally, I would like to offer the following observations: :: Observation :: >The International Criminal Court in the resolution is taken by the negative to refer to the currently existing International Criminal Court which is designed for the same purpose. Additionally, the negative does not agree that United States citizens should not be tried for crimes against humanity, the resolution simply states that the United States should submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. :: Value :: >My value is justice. Due to the wording of the resolution, justice is the inherent value for this round and any argument that does not also uphold justice does not truly affirm or negate this resolution. The fundamentals of orderly society are based upon the justice system. Without a criminal justice system, anarchy ensues. Justice is best easily accomplished with variations dependent on culture and societal structure. :: Value Criterion :: >My value criterion is independence. Independence establishes the differences between different societies of the world; even within countries. Independence in the legal system is particularly important given the diversity of countries and that what is acceptable in one may not be acceptable in another. Independence promotes justice in that justice can be best molded to fit any given society through promoting it. :: Contention 1 :: >My first contention is that submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality. Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. This ties right in with utilitarianism; the best way to support as many people as possible is to protect the innocent before prosecuting the guilty. After all, the United States court system goes by the philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty. " :: Contention 2 :: >My second contention is that the United States submitting itself to an International Criminal Court devalues its own existence. The United States Constitution was made for the purposes of protecting the citizens of the nation first and foremost, but also the nation itself. By allowing for an International Criminal Court of greater power and influence than its own, the United States is essentially a part of a larger country. Its Constitution is essentially null because all higher power goes to the court system which can openly prosecute United States citizens. The laws of the International Criminal Court then take precedence over the laws of the United States and endanger the basic existence of the United States. :: Contention 3 :: >My third contention is that the International Criminal Court is not properly restricted, endangering society. As of the present, the International Criminal Court has the ability to prosecute such crimes as murder, rape, etc. These crimes are generally on a smaller, less globalized scale and are best dealt with by the proper authorities within the country of the crime. Globalizing these acts classified as crimes against humanity would demote independence which is ultimately needed in a search for societal prosperity. :: Conclusion :: >In conclusion, the stipulation of this resolution is whether or not the United States should become a part of larger court system which, in addition to its grotesque area of jurisdiction, would have precedence over nations themselves. The resolution is correctly negated because a submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court would be detrimental to the justice system. If the United States is to prosper the inclination should certainly be to negate the resolution. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. >I firstly contend that my observation is of greater validity than that of my respected opponent due to the fact that the International Criminal Court is the only existing court fitting the description given in the resolution. Additionally, when it is assumed that we are speaking of a hypothetical court neither the affirmative nor the negative can make a truly concrete argument. Therefore, I contend that the International Criminal Court is the court referred to in the resolution. >My opponent values morality. The negative agrees that morality is most certainly a valid value but disagrees with the use of the value by the affirmative. Morality and justice are strongly tied, and by having morality justice is then possible. Morals are what allows civilization to function, and civilization functions best with a justice system. Civilizations, however, are (as stated in my own value criterion) unique. His value criterion is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is best achieved with independence and diversity, not by generalizing the parts of the world. >My opponent's first contention cites the current system of the fulfilling of human rights in the United States. He states that it is inadequate. What my opponent neglects to realize is that to globalize the same system would not in any way way help the United States. It would just make the United States citizens subject to a government which they have not agreed to. It would put United States citizens under international law, and would devalue the United States. >Before attacking my opponent's second contention, I would like to inform him that for future reference in Lincoln Douglas debate, sub-points are only to be used if you have two or more of them. If you only have one sub-point, if should be lumped in with the body of the contention. Just a suggestion, I hope it does not affect the voting. With that said, I will now address my opponent's second contention. This contention states that an International (Criminal) Court could better protect human rights. I am inclined to disagree. The International Criminal Court can prosecute for the following: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression. Sub-division of (b) includes such crimes as murder and rape. The International Criminal Court does a WORSE job of protecting these rights due to the differences between cultures in their different countries. My opponent's sub-point A refers to the International Criminal Court, indicating contradiction on my opponent's part. The model of the International Criminal Court SHOULD be used. Other than this, my opponent's entire point is side information and is not relevant at all to submission to the International Criminal Court. >I await my opponent's response and wish him luck. >By the way, apologies for technical difficulties in my quotations.