Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

I will again just go down the flow. Going back to the definitional debate over a crime against humanity, we must look that it is "an inhumane act against any civilian population. We must look at two things first. First, a population is defined as "the total number of persons inhabiting a country, city, or any district or area. " Therefore, the act cannot occur against one civilian, but against a large amount of persons. Next, my opponent makes the fact that inhumane is defined very loosely. However, we must look at the way this definition of crimes against humanity has been applied over the years. This will set the standard and how we will look at crimes against humanities in the future. In the cases it has been applied it has not been used against such crimes as tripping someone. Instead, it has only been used on large scale atrocities, and has not violated any countries autonomous judicial systems unless it was a large scale atrocities. Therefore, by the way this definition has been it shows that it has only been used when absolutely necessary, and not for tripping someone. Next, moving on to my opponents attack that we will have a world standard, and that it strips a country of its identity. First, you cannot even consider this argument, because it is a new argument. According to LD rules, you cannot create new arguments in rebuttal rounds, that support your case. However, in case you do not buy that, no country will have to change its laws. Instead, they just have to submit an international court which will be more effective according to my contention 1b. As well, against individuality argument, no country can be completely individual. Countries do have to deal with each other, for example in trade, and this is an example of where they have to have a multilateral approach. This multilateral approach is necessary, because the U. S. has not been effective in punishing for these crimes. Therefore, it does not strip this individuality and change laws, but instead advocates a multilateral approach, which will better protections of freedoms and liberties. This would lead to justice. However, with this argument my opponent fails to make any impact to protecting freedoms and liberties and justice. My value criterion does not advocate a worldwide equal judicial system, but instead adequate protection of freedoms and liberties. Therefore, all I have to show is why the U. S. does not provide this adequate protection of freedoms and liberties, which they do not. Also, since the resolution only deals with the U. S. , we must only look at why the United States should join the international court. This leads to my first contention subpoint a, which my opponent concedes and agrees with. This is a key factor in this round because this shows the U. S. fails to protect freedoms and liberties in cases of crimes against humanity. So, my opponent now can have no impacts to the value and value criterion debate. Against this he says that the United States can change at an individual level. However, the fact is that the U. S. has not changed at an individual level. It was a 50 year span between Japanese internment, and the water boarding incident. This again shows why crimes against humanity requires a multilateral approach to prosecute. My opponent dropped my contention one subpoint b and my contention two. This leads you to flow both arguments through for the round. My contention one subpoint b shows that the international court will do an effective job prosecuting, and will do a better job than the U. S. protecting freedoms and liberties. Since my opponent agrees with the value and value criterion structure, this shows that the international court will do a better job than the United States protecting freedoms and liberties, and achieving justice. Therefore, I clearly have better impacts to the structure of the debate. My contention two also shows how it has legal safeguards which provides for this protection of freedoms and liberties, and in turn the achievement of justice. This shows how the affirmative case completely stands, and how the affirmative has better impacted to the structure. Next the neg. He says that the way the court will prosecute will be based on western philosophy. However, this is clearly a flawed argument. He fails to attack the fact that each country has equal say in the international court. This shows that it cannot be based on western philosophy, because each countries opinion holds equal weight. This leads to better prosecution as I have shown in my contention one b. He continues on with this argument, by saying that the only countries in it right now are random countries with no pull, and when the U. S. join it will mold the decisions. However, he again failed to address the fact each country no matter their standing has equal weight and opinions. That Madeline Norris quote illustrates, and applies still if the United States join. He fails to address this fact that their opinions have equal weight. This is true because the courts prosecution is done by judges. The judges represent different nations and their interests. The U. S. judge would have no more say than a judge from any other nation. The reason the international court is around is for impartial prosecution. That is why the U. S. would join. This impartial prosecution would better protect freedoms and liberties and in turn lead to Justice. My opponent still maintains the fact that the ICC has a horrible record. However, he drops the point they have no military or police force to actually arrest people. They only serve as a forum for where one person may be prosecuted. That is their only purposes as a judicial branch. However, if the United States feels like "we are the one arresting everyone, we should try them based on what we say", they cannot do that. They cannot do that because as I have stated early each nations opinions are represented equally. The reason the U. S. would allow the ICC to prosecute is for these impartial prosecutions as I have stated. Therefore, this refutes this point as well. My opponent goes on and restates the fact that the countries have no independence, and each citizen for harming one another would be taken in. However, again these arguments are both flawed. Complete independence is impossible to reach, and this is only requiring a multilateral approach in cases of crimes against humanity. I have shown that with the U. S, in order to protect freedoms and liberties, must have this multilateral approach, which leads to progress. Also, his definition argument has already been shown as flawed. Voter Issues My first voter issue is the fact my opponent dropped my whole case. He agreed with my value and value criterion, agreed with my contention one subpoint a, and dropped the rest. In each of those contentions I made a clear impact back to the value and value criterion. I showed how the U. S. , in cases of crimes against humanity, cannot protect freedoms and liberties. I also showed how the international court will adequately protect freedoms and liberties, and has sufficient safeguards to secure this. All this leads to the value of justice. My second voter is my opponents argument that it violates individuality. This is one of the few arguments my opponent has left. I have successfully defeated this argument with my arguments against it. Also, since it is a new argument you cannot consider it anyways. Finally, it has no impact on the value or value criterion. Therefore, this cannot be considered. My final voter is my opponents U. S. molding argument, and the ICC bad. I have shown how the court provides equal consideration to all nations, so U. S. cannot not mold it in their favor. Also, the ICC can only prosecute, and serves as an impartial forum. Again these arguments have no impacts to the structure. So these arguments have been refuted. Now you can only vote aff.