Jan/Feb LD topic

AFF/NEG CV: This is actually part of the reason it promotes peace. If everyone joins, as I am arguing they should, then whenever a state fails to prosecute Crimes Against Humanity the court would step in and make sure to root out the problem. So essentially it acts as an international bulwark. VC: what my opponent fails to see is that when we exercise our moral duty to humanity, the good reciprocates back and is felt by our own citizens. We must remember that the world is shrinking, we are all united by trade so it is paramount that we are also united by humanity. governments exist to serve the people, people don't exist to serve the government. Also we will get nowhere with this egoistic Isolationist attitude my opponent takes and instead should look to all of humanity in our political decisions. C1. My opponent says he will go over which of our contentions is stronger later but yet never does. Here is why I Plainly outweigh. My Opponent gives us these theories that a court cannot have deterrence value, but what I give you is an example where the ICC deterred crimes. Speculation Vs. Fact. I outweigh, flow across. C2. My opponents attacks don't even follow. For example the present day ICC, the best model we have to work with, is a court system that is checked heavily by the security council, runs parallel to us, and is on the same side of the judicial spectrum. The organization is plainly not illegitimate as 55% of the worlds countries have joined and we have not seen any of these impacts. C3 My opponent drops this contention in its entirety. I will show the full implications of this later on but I will say now that because we have a legal duty to join, and to act in a cosmopolitan manner, we have a legal reason for my criterion, destroying my opponents attacks. ' NEG CV: Well my opponent gives us a definition of morality that is equally vague. Right and Wrong. So what is right and what is wrong? if we say respecting national sovereignty is right, then would it have been right for us not to march into Berlin to end WWII? Not only is Morality Vague, but there is no link to the Criterion. VC: He just makes these claims but gives us no warrants. He says "for us to change our national sovereignty would be morally wrong" Essentially this means every treaty, every alliance, every trade deal was morally wrong. So under his case moralism is the same thing as isolationism. But here that catch, that would not be best for our people, we couldn't survive. so my opponents own case contradicts his own stance. C1: There is no such thing as "keep who we are" we are constantly changing. This contention falls. No impacts seen in the status quo. C2: Again, my opponent drops all of my real attacks just saying "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." This impact is not seen in the status quo and thus will not happen. Also I guess my opponent doesn't now much about humans because there are plenty of times when people don't look for holes. C3: My opponent just says I go back on my case. He doesn't explain how. Also if you look to my earlier rebuttal you will see that I don't. essentially my opponent defense of his case is a massive logical fallacy and my case stands in its entirety. I have proven that the United states has a moral obligation to join such a court. Look to my contentions for how to vote.