The Instigator
mcacubs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 20307
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

mcacubs

Pro

1.Domestic Violence is justified
2.Women have been historically opressed
3.The govt fails to solve
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I accept. As Pro has not provided any analysis to her statements, I will assume round 1 is for acceptance only. I will allow my opponent to further expand her arguments in the second round before posting my own.

As Pro has not laid down any definitions, I will.

morally permissible: in the general sense, it is morally okay, or right for the victim to retaliate against a someone who has repeatedly attacked them with domestic violence

deadly: Causing or able to cause death
http://www.google.ca...

deliberate: Done consciously and intentionally
http://www.google.ca...

response: as in retaliation

repeated: in this case, if the perpetrator has harmed the victim more than three times on seperate occasions, then he has repeated domestic violence

Please PM or comment if you disagree with these definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
mcacubs

Pro

mcacubs forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

As mcacubs has forfeited this round, I will not post an argument in an effort to be fair. This way, each of us would have the same amount of arguments posted.
Debate Round No. 2
mcacubs

Pro

mcacubs forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Hmmmm.... 2 forfeits in a row.
I will post a simple argument to prove my case, as it is getting less likely that Pro will come up with her own arguments.

C.1 Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm sure you have heard of this popular saying. It is valid in this case.

Just because your assaulter attacks you, does not give you the right to use deadly force in response. Responding with deadly force will not stop your assaulter from attacking, it will simply anger him further to attack you, so it solves nothing.

Furthermore, responding with deadly force makes you wrong too. As a result, you can also be charged with assault.

Therefore, it is not morally permissible, as two wrongs don't make a right and responding with deadly force simply lowers you to an assaulter as well.

Hopefully Pro responds with arguments and a refutation.

Otherwise, I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
mcacubs

Pro

mcacubs forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Make that 3 forfeits in a row... Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
mcacubs

Pro

mcacubs forfeited this round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

4 forfeits in a row, please vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Post your argument, it is your turn!
Posted by mcacubs 4 years ago
mcacubs
okay i agree with your defs
go on
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Aren't you kind of stating domestic violence is justified and if so then you stating that it is morally acceptable for a man to beat his wife....and if that's true and he can on morale grounds it is immoral to kill him.....you may want to delete this....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
mcacubsHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: <3
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
mcacubsHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough one.