This is easily the closest debate we've had thus far. I had to review it a few times. Both made arguments that the other never really countered.
One of, if not the best point Kai made was:
"A world court system would remove this bias because the prosecutors would not be the good friend of the police officer that had worked with her or she on a multitude of cases. It would be an impartial third party. A world court would also eliminate the technicalities police get off on such as fear for ones own life "forcing" the officer to react in a deadly manner if such matters were prosecuted as violations of human rights"
But the more I thought about, the more the point became trivial. Cases like (freddie gray, trayvon,etc) that wouldn't make it to the world court because it's not a world court issue, it would remain in our court system.
Another great argument Kai made with the "Australian/ Philippines" example, Allergens made the rebuttal stating that extradition already exists, so we wouldn't need a world court to implement that, so that pretty much killed her argument.
Allergens surprised df outta me, cuz Kai is arguably the best debater on the IC, but overall I gotta give the W to Allergens.