what needs to be done is the main world powers need to get together, and for each individual country they need to get the leader to institute a law that allows the international court you speak of to hold investigations in thier country, making it so its not a violation.  To do this most of the world powers would need to be dedicated to it. They would have to be consequences to not signing, being cut off from trade from all countries part of this international court and such.  middle eastern countries would be the hardest to get, but slowly i am pretty sure that each country would join the international court.  and if a country thats not part of the international court needs help for something, it may be required that they join it. Then you could have a court taht could leagally try and convict from a number of countries on crimes against humanity and such...

just an idea really, i havent put too much thought into it, but i believe it could work.

this probably wouldnt be touched on in a debate though would it?

Though there are intergovernmental systems. Where one does not super seeds the other in certain areas.

Hey, Red Rooster.  Give me your email.  I'm an assistant debate coach, and can help you.  Fairly good at LD, PF, and policy.  In fact, I'm sending this message from a debate tournament. 

(That is, unless you're from my region, in which case you're on your own)

If you don't want to give me your email, just set up an ingame empire or something.  Whatever.  I like helping out debaters.  It's what I do. 

I think your definition, overall is... hmm... interesting!  You take a much more hardright stance than most debaters will, which I think is freaking awesome!  Just know that you're opening yourself up to lots of 2AC securitization, war, blah blah blah kritiks.  Then again, that would depend on the judging pool.

As long as you've got a fairly good block in defense of militarism, you should be fine.

Oh, and as for the "that's totalitarianism" thing, screw democracy.  Let me explain how that debate will turn out:

You give your 1NC.  7 minutes.
They give the 2AC.  4 minutes.  One of their args is "waaah, that's totalitarianism you defend."  They can't defend this argument very well because of time constraints.  If they do put an impact on totalitarianism, it may be an extension of one of their 1AC advantages, which you've already answered, or they'll read one card at the maximum.  If they read more, they probably screwed up somewhere else in the debate, and you exploit this to no end.
You give your 2NC.  6 minutes.  You say "hell yeah, who needs democracy?"  Read Hobbes, or go to one of your friends who does policy debate and see what democracy bad files they have.  Maybe spend 2 or 3 minutes dumping democracy bad on them, or just put a couple cards in your 1NC an extend them.
Their 2AR.  They get 3 minutes.  They'll never be able to cover all your arguments.  Game over, you win, and it's their fault because, since they made the "totalitarianism is bad" argument in the 2AC, it justifies you responding with cards in the 2NC.

(Oh, this tactic would depend on the judging pool.  Some judging pools don't like asshole strategies like the above, for obvious reasons.) 

i dont think the joining an international court would threaten americans rights as long as they dont commit crimes against humanity. The point of the court would be to estabilish a worldwide standard in the treatment of people.  America has gone into other countries to quell civil wars and to find and stop terrorists that have commited crimes against humanity, in some instances making mistakes on which side to take.  If The american goverment is sticking with the role of bettering the world, its only proper to join a court validifying its right to meddle in others afairs.  I think that such a court is needed in todays day and age, and if a country that so heavily leaves its own borders for the sake of righting wrongs, it should do so in the right way.  You cant rightfully enfore standards on a country if your not able to adhere to a standard.

Its not who has the bigger stick is right...

this is not a question of americans loosing rights...this is about protecting thier rights...and not allowing them to get away with things that violate the rights of others. 

the only reason i see a goverment not agree to this is because they want to be able to do crimes against humanity and get away with it if they want.  All other reasons against are just excuses to hold that power.

now im pressing submit without checking or editing, since i have to go now, please dont be mad if i repeated things or made grammer mistakes and such

Awesome, you're nowhere near me.  I'll contact you as soon as possible, but I'm on a screwed up internet right now, and can't get to my email. 

EDIT: Had to remove a horribly outdated interjection.