Jan/Feb LD topic

I will first go over my opponent case then my own. His value is peace. If we do join an international court we could only prosecute crimes when a state is unwilling and unable, and also IF they are apart of the court. So we wouldn't be able to get the root of the problem. We as America do better achieve justice, then an international could, for we can going and help those people when and international court could only prosecute crimes as I state if and only if a state is unwilling and unable and also if they are apart of that international court. So his value falls. So if his value falls his value criterion also falls, but I will also give some point why it would have fallen even if the value wouldn't have fallen. He states that we have moral obligations to all people. But we first have moral obligations to our people. So first we need to help ours selves before we can help others, so his VC falls. I agree with some of his definitions but I don't want to get in to a definition debate. With his 1st contention he says it would deter crimes but my 3rd contention states that Military Power has more deterrence value so you must look at which on is stronger, I will go over my third one and how it is stronger latter. On too his second contention he says that we would further legitimize it. By joining the ICC, the U.S. would show the world irresponsibility. If you look at our governmental system with its checks and balances, and the ICC's with unrestrained power, there is no rational reason the U.S. would become part of such an entity. So why should we risk our system to join a court system that is different from us. The U.S. should not legitimize an illegitimate organization whose judicial system is on the other end of the spectrum. While joining the ICC would legitimize it, the U.S. should legitimize an illegitimate organization. Onto my case On my value he says that I don't define But we have moral obligations it is easily defined what is right and wrong we first have moral obligations to our selves before others. So that attack falls so my value flow threw. Onto my VC he says it doesn't uphold my Value. But for us to change our national sovereignty would be morally wrong to our people, for they deserve the same respect from their government. So that attack falls and my Value and VC flow threw For my 1st contention he negates to see that we need to kep how we are so to join we would have to have others ideas that don't work for us so after a while we would change. So his attack falls and it flows threw For my 2nd contention he states I made the mistake of stating the ICC but since there is no international court, the closest thing that there is is the ICC so it would be mostly likely be like the ICC. He also states that If they make accusations most likely they will be turned down. In the chance that a U.S official is actually convicted then we will have to see that, like if a Criminal is convicted, justice was found. Not Abuse. If I know humans like I do they will look for a hole and us that to their advantage. Since this is a huge hole, it would only hurt the US to join it. For their for mine 2nd contention flows threw On my 3rd contention he pretty much goes back on his case So his contention falls and mine flows threw. So the key voting issues is which value holds up and which one protection the US citizens better, his onlys hurts us, when mine would better protect them better. And also I mine has held up all of his argument so mine flow threw when his don't. So vote neg, to protect our selves and our citizens.