The Nuremberg Trials

Because my opponent used the previous round to offer his own arguments, I am going to focus this round on a rebuttal rather than constructing my own points further. I accept all of the definitions proposed by my opponent. However, there is one point that I do not accept: "Since the resolution specially addresses the Nuremberg Trials and whether or not it is "just", I believe that this debate should be framed around events that happened during the Second World War. All examples that occurred after the war should therefore not be accepted." I don't see the logic here. The Nuremberg Trials happened after the Second World War, so can the trials themselves not be used as evidence? This seems like an attempt to arbitrarily ignore long term consequences. When examining an event in history, it is important to look at both the short and long term effects. Contention 1: More people suffered from the Nazi regime than benefited from it. This is correct. However, it does not logically follow that "retributive justice" (an oxymoron at best) is justifiable. Was the suffering of the victims of the Nazi regime assuaged by the imprisonment and execution of Nazi leaders? My opponent uses the phrase "received retributive justice" as though it directly benefits the victims of the Nazis. I doubt the sufferings of the Holocaust were greatly reduced by a further injustice. In any case, this "retributive justice" could be used to justify all sorts of atrocities. Surely many people feel that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a just retribution against the United States. The number of people that "received retributive justice" certainly exceeds the number of people who were directly harmed. Does that make it just? Of course not, because majority rule does not determine justice. No logical connection has been established to suggest this. Contention 2: I agree that Germany had neither a right cause nor right intention in waging war. This may have been the stated reason for bringing Germany to trial, but it could not have been the actual reason. How do I know this? Because victorious nations have not been put on trial for the same crimes as Germany. The end result of the trials with regards to Germany may have been reasonable, but that does not make them just. Many of those who committed crimes were not punished. Many wars are fought today without right cause or intention, but I do not see leaders being brought to trial and hanged. Contention 3: This contention does not make sense within my opponent's definition of justice. Is it just that because the Allies committed fewer crimes, they should not be punished? That is not how justice works. It is not "rational" or "fair" or "equitable". Everyone who commits a crime should be tried and punished equally regardless of what side they happened to be on. The point of justice is to have the moral intent to make sure crimes are punished. If crimes are punished based on who was on what side, than there is obviously no moral intent. Conclusion: Whatever my opponent is arguing for, it does not fall within the definition of justice. Justice cannot be measured in degrees because it is about intent. If there was no intent for justice to be served, then no justice was served. If the majority of crimes are punished but some are ignored, it is clearly not justice because it is obviously not based on morality, ethics, or fairness. Simply because something benefits a large number of people does not make it moral, fair, ethical, or rational.