LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

My case( tying in to my opponent's along the way): V – My opponent says that submitting to an IC will be good for domestic tranquility because it enables offenders to be prosecuted even when the justice system fails. However, without protecting constitutional rights, people will be disgruntled (to say the least) with their government and overthrow it, as the U.S. has to adhere to the rights of citizens before what may be morally right in the big picture in the interest of self-preservation. VC – True, but the fact that it is a living document does not mean we CANNOT look to it as a VC. It is the basis for the U.S. justice system and it should be looked at/interpreted for that reason, not solely because it is a living document. That's not what I said. So since the constitution represents justice, my opponent's criterion of justice can, in fact, be applied to my case. Therefore, even if you accept justice as a criterion, I outweigh on the grounds that domestic tranquility, or upholding domestic justice, is more important realistically than C1: Here's another plan. Obviously, the court decision was fine, indicating that the court is adequate. Counter-plan: let's put more restrictions or checks on the president's power to commute sentences. However, one case is not a reason to suddenly fear for the collapse of the U.S. court system and join an IC. C2: You can't add ideas/guidelines to the IC when both sides have already agreed to them. The guidelines were specifically offered and agreed upon. Therefore, your argument is void. So is my warrant, I accept that, although (as stated before) I do not need one. And I must say that I do not include article titles in the majority of my cases. They waste time and I feel the words in the actual card better convey the idea at hand. C3 and C4 – Counter-plan: use the previous counter-plan I suggested. It is much more effective than deciding to forfeit rights of the U.S. citizens simply based on the stupid actions of one president. As for the Obama argument, I am not saying that Obama will not commit human rights violations, but I do not have the burden to defend this argument. You said that he WILL commit human rights violations, so we should stop him now. You offer no warrant, so simply guessing when he has already demonstrated an attitude chiefly against human rights violations is invalid. As for your defense of C1, Subpoint A, I believe you have the incorrect definition of crimes against humanity. My warrants prove, without a doubt (please look back) that crimes against humanity must be widespread. That they are based in prejudice and condoned by the government is not enough. But I like the sarcasm at the end Voting Issues: 1.Obviously, domestic justice is the key BEFORE any international justice can occur, therefore it outweighs temporally. Warrants in my above argument (beginning of the third round) show this 2.My value is justice. Obviously, I uphold the ideas behind the Constitution. The constitution is country-specific, so obviously domestic justice best upholds the ideals in the Constitution. 3.I have devised a counter-plan against my opponent's claims of U.S. court failure 4.Previous allegations of crimes against humanity do not currently hold true with a new administration displaying resolve to prevent such horrendous crimes.