Current LD debate topic
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
The first round will be only for accepctance.
This debate will take place in LD format. Both debaters must offer a value, criterion and necessary definitions. Arguments may include either data or clear philosophical warrants.
Repeated actions or events are those which happen many times. (Collins English Dictionary).
For further clarification I will provide these definitions which will structure the debate.
Morally permissible- behavior that is in the bounds of the moral system
Deadly force- aggressive force that has a substantial risk of causing death
Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally
Domestic violence- A pattern of physical abusive behaviors by a partner in anintimate relationship
Contention 1: Killing isn't proportional to domestic violence
In all instances the punishment must be directly comparable to the offence.The only appropriate retribution is that which is equivalent to the rights which have been violated to begin with.
Taking life is not proportional to the rights violation which occurs as a result of repeated domestic violence.
Sub point A: Social norms discredit the resolution.
The concept of what is moral differs so drastically between everyone. What is morally permissible for me may not be the same to you. Other than social norms there is no way to regulate morality so for any debate regarding what is moral we must look to social norms. Social norms such as the justice system
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey Kirchmeier, "Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The Paradox of Today's Arbitrary and Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme," 6 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 345 (1998).
Crimes that are capable of receiving the death penalty include first degree murder, some forms of rape, especially of a child, and (on a national level) treason against the United States along with attributing aggressive factors.
Even if the abuse was solely physical, no state or national legislature would consider it one of the aggravating factors that justify capital punishment.
Sub point B: Life is our most valuable right.
In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence declared that all men are endowed with certain rights (by birth), and among these is Life.
Take this into consideration, Life provides the opportunity to exercise all other rights, and therefore, it is more valuable than all other rights.
Joshua Dressler writes:
Joshua Dressler [Professor of Law, Ohio State Univ. College of Law]. Battered Women and Sleeping Abusers: Some Reflections. 3 Ohio St. J Crim. L., 457, 2006.
If someone is violating my right to bodily integrity by repeatedly shoving his finger into my chest, that does not give me the right to kill him to stop his offensive conduct. My right to bodily integrity entitles me to demand that he desist and, if that fails or if such a request would be futile, I surely have the right to use proportional force—perhaps a shove—to get him to stop. If the only way I can stop his obnoxious behavior is to kill him, I may not do so, even though he is violating my autonomy. Killing him would be a disproportional response.
There can be nothing worse than the punishment of killing for the simple reason that every other offence can be healed. Though the victim may be robbed of liberty and happiness, they still have the opportunity to regain it because they are alive. A victim's use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible.
Now on to my opponents case;
In his first Observation he is saying that He is not bound to support all domestic violence cases. I find a few flaws in his argument.
He states the resolution does not contain a qualifier such as all, this is quite contradicting because it does not contain a qualifier such as "certain cases the aff supports." The way he presents his case hes arguing that he doesn't even have to support a majority of cases. This completely undermines fairness as he has to prove a few times where it may be morally permissible and foists a huge burden of proof on the con. Reciprocity cannot be achieved by completely undermining it. Also being such a broad statement it doesn't need a qualifier such as all.
And finally, and most importantly, no one is able to draw the line. A bright line never exists in domestic violence. Who is to tell when it is severe enough to be morally permissible and when it is not? Because you cannot accurately apply a reasonable bright line to what cases the resolution encompasses, you have to support all cases as the Aff.
He assumes the same value of justice as I. He defines it as the administering of deserved punishment, but throughout his case nowhere does he show how this a proportional response and death is the deserved punishment. Throughout my entire case I describe how death is not porportianal. You must conclude by his defenition that he isnt supporting justice. Furthermore respecting the social contract does not lead into justice. Hes states directly after his criterion that "This includes allowing individuals to defend themselves against those who have violated the contract using an amount of force which they believe is necessary." Literally, He finds any violation of the social contract would condone any retribution deemed necessary by the victim. This is not justice and completely undermines porportionality. The reason crimes in the justice system recieve different punishment is because all crimes are not deserving of the same punishment. He states "the victim may use an amount of force which he or she believes is necessary for self-protection."By this logic If someone were hitting me I would be able to kill them if I felt necessary. This completely defeats the purpose of justice. There is a difference between self defence and retribution. He places absolutely no value on human life.
On to his contention 1;
Basically he just makes the blatant statement that victims believe their life is in danger. Just because they think it is doesn't make it true, because frankly it isnt remotely so.
According to the Abuse, rape, and domestic violence resource collection
From: "Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998"
Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend each year to 4 million women who are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year.
31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996.
Literally in that 20 year period less than .02% died. I was even using the low estimate of 960,000 in my calculations. 
In his Sub point A: He implies that the resolution is out of self defense. The words Deliberate response and repeated imply that the deadly force is premeditated and that the victim is not in any immediate danger. So the victim is committing what is called a sleeping murder. Anything you say about self defense is irrelevant and quite abusive. If we were arguing whether she can act out of self defense the negative would never win because everyone can agree that immediate self defense is a viable option.
And finally on his sub point B: I cant find any study that proves a 25 times increase. Look to my attack on his actual contention that shows actually how many murders occur.
Also the child argument proves the bright line argument where he isnt supporting a majority of cases. According to this study  44% of domestic violence cases involve a child. Now in his argument he states 70% of the time custody is an issue. This means only 30% of the time is this argument relevant! My job as the negation isnt to prove it doesnt work 100% that would be his BOF.
QT forfeited this round.
iTzDanneh forfeited this round.