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

Ill pretty much address everything as I go along My opponent makes a fatal flaw as of his last speech; he chose to only repeat his previous answers and not address the more in depth analysis I provided. This will prove detrimental to the affirmative team, as you will later see. His definition works against him to the point of his case falling from under him and he failed to even prove how the international court will "protect freedoms and liberties". The entirety of my case is misunderstood by the affirmative team and by the end you will see that the United States of America is the best suited for achieving justice by protecting freedoms and liberties. I will further delve into even deeper analysis of the arguments I have provided, do not mistaken the new analysis for new arguments. I am sure the people who invented LD debate did not wish for the last 2 speeches of the debate round to say the same exact thing, as the affirmative seems to think. As of my last speech I left a gaping hole in the affirmative teams case by pointing out that the definition of "crimes against humanity" is so broad, and the affirmative merely patched it up with a bit of mud. My cannons are firing once again and the mud is not doing much to stop them. He provides a new definition for "population", and this is blatantly a new argument and serves as a moving target. In his first speech it is "crime against humanity" then it is "inhumane act against a civilian" and now it is "inhumane act against an entire population". This is completely abusive to my side of the debate because he keeps changing the definition on what a crime against humanity is. Every one of my speeches is based on the new definition he provides, and to get out of every argument he just goes to change the definition. You can not let the affirmative debater do this in the debate round, its ruining the debate. The affirmative debater should be able to defend the definition given in the first speech, clarifying at most in the next speech, but not in the very last speech of the debate. How is the negative team supposed to maintain a strategy if after every argument made, the affirmative merely changes his definition? It is impossible for the negative team to win if you let the affirmative team stay this abusive. He should have defined what "population" meant in the last speech instead of leaving it up to my interpretation, because I interpreted it as any civilian. It does not make sense for it to be a group of civilians because they would have just said that "a specific group of civilians". A civilian is a part of the civilian population therefore any attack on a civilian must be tried under this court. However, this definition too hurts his case. If we are to take the affirmative teams definition it would read "an inhumane act against the total number of civilians inhabiting an area". Although it is horribly abusive, and grounds to vote against the aff to provide this definition, I will still argue it. By his definition the inhumane act had to have been committed against an entire population. He says that this is how the world has viewed crimes against humanity, but that is not true. He provides no evidence that anywhere in the government that they have ever once looked at a genocide or something of the sort as a crime against humanity and that nothing else is a crime against humanity. You have to look to my interpretation because its the only logical real world interpretation. If humanity is a civilian, anything bad you do to the civilian is a crime against him. He says that the world sees genocide as a crime against humanity but shows no evidence that that is true, or even explains himself. You may personally agree with his interpretation but you have to look to what arguments the debaters here today make. And I am the one with the offense in this round, i have proven that he is not only abusive, but my interpretation is better anyways. Now why it matters. His definition screws him over in the value debate. His value is justice and criterion is "Protection of Freedoms and Liberties". By no means at all does he protect freedoms and liberties. If he would have conceded that he takes every case, he would have. But i go him in a double-bind, and he fell right for the trap. If he would have conceded the court will take every case of crimes against humanity, he would have been protecting PERSONAL freedoms. But he does not. He only protects the freedoms of big groups. Therefore he cannot access his criterion, losing the case. He goes on to concede that the ICC does not have an army and cannot go out and get the criminals that committed the genocide, again he is not protecting personal freedoms at all. They merely make the decision on what punishment they should get, not protecting anyone. No where in his case does he show how they can PROTECT personal freedoms, therefore he cannot access his criterion, but the contrary is true. I, as long as he have proven that the US being a part of the ICC will not protect any personal freedoms. When he himself says that the ICCs job is not to "protect" personal freedoms, and he himself again says that the USA is ill equiped to protect personal freedoms. This is not math where too negatives make a positive. I will concede that neither can protect personal freedoms, and this is detrimental to his case because it proves he cannot solve for his value criterion. I am conceding that the USA will not take over, it just hurts him more because now there is still no "police" to the ICC, proving they PROTECT no one. My case on the other hand solves. When the individual countries pick punishments on their societal norms that is personal, individual justice in their eyes. I hold his same criterion and value and as you can see if the individual country picks the punishment, justice can be sought. The armies of the country can PROTECT these freedoms, and the US and ICC combined cannot. It is imperative that you understand this point. If a policy should be made it should be made changing America, he says that is not possible, but that is only because the policy is not put into place. If we pass new laws IN AMERICA we can not only PROTECT freedoms, but we can deal with punishments accordingly. He harps on the fact that they can prosecute well, but this is not PROTECTING freedoms. It is sitting back, watching women and children be killed in a genocide, waiting only to make a decision of whether the man who caused for it should be shot in the head, hung, or injected with a deadly substance. Countries have armies, and can protect the freedoms. That the ICC cannot. I will concede that America will not take over. They will just be a part of the ICC and feel no moral obligation to stop crimes against humanity because they will not be the ones that will execute the punishment. Why to vote- In a nut shell 1. When a debater can prove that the status-quo is more efficient to solve for the affirmative teams Value and Value Criterion you must vote for him. He has not proven what he said, he has done the exact opposite. He said that the ICC cannot police and has no army. In no way is this "protecting" freedoms, it is just sitting back and deciding their punishment. Although the USA might not make the right decisions sometimes, they are the key to PROTECT freedoms. I solve his own case, vote neg 2. He doesnt answer this because I won the definition debate. My definition is better and his are abusive. You will take the countries individuality because EVERY crime committed to another person must be taken to this court. Thus, losing the countries individuality on decisons. 3. I concede the USA wont take over. I agree they will just sit back and do nothing too. The main issue is definition debate, re-read that over and you can see that I easily win it and turn his case. So many reasons to vote neg, so do it. Thank you affirmative debater, it was a great round