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

My opponent states that we are achieving global security on a higher level by affirming. However my opponent gives absolutely no warrant to this argument, so we cannot base a victor off of that. The negative achieves global security better because it allows the U.S. to simply utilize its influence as is to achieve anything an international court would be aimed at solving, faster, and more efficiently. Since my opponent and I both agree that the U.S. is a hegemony, however when we submit to the international court, hegemony is lost. Because we would be forced to conform to the regulations of this court, we would no longer be an authority. Which is exactly what a hegemon is, so we'd lose a large chunk of our influence, in order to attain the same exact goal. My opponent states that my definition of a hegemon is flawed and gives no warrant as to why it is, then my opponent provides a definition that is simply cited from dictionary.com. My definition of hegemony comes from "Joseph, Jonathan (2002), Hegemony: a realist analysis". My opponent tries to invalidate my entire case by stating that my definition is flawed, and therefore it cannot be looked to. Yet once again my opponent provides no warrants to this argument, and no real impact for if we do look towards my definition of a hegemony for the round. So my opponent's singular argument against my entire case is moot because of the lack of a warrant. Regarding my opponent's criterion of the Declaration of Independence: My opponent states that we are "morally obliged to protect human rights". This doesn't quite apply to the argument that I make stating that we can achieve this better by negating, and my opponent's singular argument against anything regarding such has been that my "Definition of hegemony is flawed". However since this argument is not warranted, nor does it have an impact to look towards my definition, we have no reason to not look to my definition or any reason as to why it is "flawed" as my opponent states. Voting issues for the round include the fact that the only argument my opponent has against my entire case is a warrantless claim that my definition of hegemony is flawed, on top of that it contains no impacts. So you must look to the negative because the affirmative was unable to defend his own case or attack mine with anything besides cross-applying the warrantless argument that my definition is flawed. My opponent's value of moral obligation supports by value of global security, because if we're looking to moral obligation solely, we're then "morally obligated" to do what is best to make the globe secure, which in this case would be the United States taking charge because it can even stop conflicts before they begin. My opponent never refutes either of the cards in my case, neither the Thayer or the Schmitt ones. These still stand because they're solid proof that U.S. hegemony works. My opponent concedes that it is effective, thus we must negate because on the affirmative we bring the U.S. to the same level as other nations through the use of an international court, so we lose our biggest advantage over other nations that instead of submitting to the same regulations, we could simply be the peace-maker to begin with. When we affirm we lose military power, and because the U.S.'s hard power creates the U.S.'s soft power we sacrifice all influence that we maintain when we negate. You must also vote negative because all of my opponent's arguments against me have gone without warrant or impact, so my opponent never refutes my case in a valid manner, thus my entire case still stands. For these reasons I urge a vote in negation of the resolution.