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

Because the United States would be better off without submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, I negate. Value= Justice. The ultimate result of any action taken by the US will uphold justice. But lets forget about this part of framework, since we both agree. VC: Upholding a moral obligation. If in not submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court better upholds a moral obligation that the US has, then I win. Upholding a moral obligation attains my value since this debate is about justice, and what is right for the US to do. If we uphold a moral obligation, we are doing something right, and just, and therefore I attain my value. Observation 1: The US has a moral obligation to its citizens first, and then the world. The US has a contract with its citizens. The US has agreed to protect and serve the citizens. Because the US has such a contract, the US has a moral obligation to protect and serve its citizens. We do not have a contract with the world. We like to think of ourselves as the world's police, but we are not, formally. We don't have a contract with the rest of the world saying we will serve them and protect them. Therefore, the citizens of the US come first. Observation 2: The AFF has the burden of proving why we should join the ICC. I only have to disprove everything he says to win. My burden is to negate the resolution, meaning I have to prove why the US ought not to join the ICC. If the AFF is unsuccessful in proving why we ought to join, you have to default vote NEG. Contention 1: Citizens will lose rights. a.The ICC (as we have agreed is an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity), does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. b. Right to public and speedy trial. The ICC takes a horrendously long time to actually try those accused. In fact, those being accused can sometimes be held up to 5 years. The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to a speedy trial, with 90 days being the limit. Contention 2: The US will not be able to protect human rights throughout the world if the ICC is constantly looking over their shoulder. The US has often seen themselves as the world's police. When we invade other countries to protect those inside it, we do not have time to think about whether or not we will be tried by the ICC. If we have to do it, we have to do it. If we are constantly second guessing ourselves, we will not be as effective an international force, and that is detrimental to our international standing. So in the end, we lost international influence if we join the ICC, and that is bad since that is actually making it harder to protect our citizens. Contention 3: Counterplan. If you don't buy everything above, you have to buy this. The Alien Torts Claims Act is a piece of legislation passed in the US that allows for citizens of the US to be tried in the US, domestically, under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This means that a citizen who commits a crime against humanity will be able to be tried on US soil, with all their rights, but under international law, so that they will still be held accountable for their actions. ATCA is a much better alternative to the ICC, since we still protect our citizens, and we don't lose vital fundamental rights given to the citizens. And now to your points. < > Value: Justice. I've already shown that we agree, so this is irrelevant. VC: Internationalism. You should use my VC because internationalism does not directly achieve justice the way that my VC does. In fact, it doesn't achieve justice on its own at all! Cooperating with nations does not mean that justice will be upheld. And international court does not need everyone to join. It only needs nations in it to agree to be subject to its laws. In fact an international court may be influenced by those in it, and that actually hinders justice. For instance, if the US were to join, we would be trying to influence court decisions and prosecutions, in order to forward our own agenda. If all the other countries did the same, then justice would actually be hindered, not upheld. CI: An international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity is more adequate than the US. A. The US courts are not suitable for not protecting the human rights. You justification of this is Guantanamo Bay. You say that because we are trying to protect our citizens, we are not respecting human rights, and that gives us no right to protect human rights. However, you said it yourself. Those prisoners are not protected by the Constitution. If we determine that those being imprisoned pose a threat to the US, the US is morally obligated to do what it can to protect the citizens. If that means that we may enter the gray area of human rights, so be it, as long as we protect our citizens in the long run. If you argue that we could severely abuse human rights, and justify it by saying we would protect our citizens, you are wrong. In the long term, abusing human rights would lead to loss of US international influence, and we would be stopped from abusing human rights. B. An international court like the ICC is the most appropriate to have jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. i. The Human Rights Watch says we should, so we should. But where is your justification for us to join? Your argument is this: the HR Watch says we should, so we should, even though we are given no reason. ii. My response to this argument is this: Yes there is an alternative option. ATCA. And if you don't buy that, tribunals can also be set up. My point is, there are alternative options. So this point is moot. iii. There is no argument being made here. If there is, I don't see it. Could you please clarify it? C2: The submission of the US to the ICC will further legitimize the court and this will promote the cooperation among nations, bringing justice more "effectively." So this argument is that the US will be able to help the ICC by supplying resources. You argue that in order for these international courts to be effective, they need effective backing. Therefore, since the ICC will be more "effective," it will uphold justice. Actually, you are wrong. We can actually turn this argument around and use it as an argument for my case. In joining the ICC, we will have to give up valuable resources in order to serve this international court that will hurt us in the end (look to my arguments above). We will be forfeiting international power to this court that isn't even effective without us! All my above arguments apply to this one, and indeed, this argument can be turned to help my case. So if we look over the entire case, we see the following: His case can be turned or entirely refuted to help my case. ATCA will provide a much better option. I am winning this debate. Voting Issues: Framework: My value and his value are the same. No argument there. But his VC does not attain his V in the same way that my VC does, so we should choose mine over his, since mine is more effective in achieving justice Contentions: I am winning the contention debate. VOTE NEG!