TheU.S.oughttosubmittothejurisdictionofaninternationalcourtdesignedtoprosecutecrimesagainsthumanity.

I will start off rebuilding my case. I would ask my opponent to make his arguments more clear. VP- Realism. My opponent said that the United States would gain power in the international system. This is completly false. According to my Ronnan Farrow card there are many un demecratic countries which in turn hate the United States. And secondly look to his card on the top of his case, we would have to expose oursleves to other nations. National Security: Ok, all he says is that we would be stopping abuses. Well even if we are we are hendering our national security because since we are in the ICC they have jursdiction over us! And we are not devoting 100% of our time and resources to help our own citizens, And again the US constitution makes no provision for the welfare outside the United States. Extend my VP because he does not say how we do not surrender it VC: Ok, my opponent says that the courts only acted as a last resort, but that is just proving my fact that they will take cases from the United States, when THEY think we are unable to do it, thus surrending national sovereignty. And the US constitution clearly states that all US cases happen on US soil, (not exact words). His SBB attack about prosecutions has nothing to do with it. C1: Ok you want some harms ill give you some, no trial by jury, no right to a speedy trial, and these comply with the US constitution therfore by AFFIRMING the resolution you are breaking the constitution. He secondly says that the League of Nations is not the ICC, well the League of nations was the first of their kind and the ICC is the first of theirs, so we can use the past as the future so the ICC will inevitably fail C2: Ok, he says Obama will change it, well the IC will tell the US how to fight the war on terrorism. Thus hendering our national Sovereighnty. SBA: Ok, he says that it creates a higher authority power, but I am saying in my SBA that we should not help because the United States con. makes no provision for the welfare outside of the United States. And secondly, we would lose our assests because we would be trying to stop CAH which the ICC would tell us to stop thus my vc is not upheld. Secondly it is not always good to stop CAH. There are CAH going on in Russia, they will fight sporadicly and ferocsiouly against any nation or body. So when the US joins it could potentially start a WW3 Ok my opponent gives the warrant argument dont look to it he just couldn't think of a clever comeback. I do not contradict my C2 SNA by saying we can join allies. Look to my Jefferson card, Peace commerce and friendship with all nations entagiling alliances with none. We can be friendly just not in an International Body Extend my Uganda example how the ICC went in there and caused more CAH. So I did answer my opponents burden. This went unanswered so by joining the ICC there will be more CAH. To my opponents case: VP: he says that he does not value anyone before US citizens. But in his case he says he does by protecting other citizens therfore we are not fully protecting our own. VC: He says i contradict but look to my argument before My opponent does not defend any other part of his case so lets go over some main points. He does not attack the illusion of accountability and the bystander effect. He says that countries will just do it. Well why would they want to give up their valuable resources to help someone else, extend this. There will be no CAH stoped. He says Uganda is just 1 example well my opponent has the burden of proof, I just have to give 1 example. Extend the argument that the US is already under the jursdiction of the IC therefore there is no point to joining it, My opponent does not defend his case well and I block out all his points.