It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes
Debate Rounds (3)
cheesedingo1 forfeited this round.
I'll just rebut what he's saying then create my own case.
My opponent just presents this paragraph so I'll do a line by line refutation.
So the first thing he presents to Negate is that the victim is only stooping to their level.
There are many issues with that argument because 1st It isn't stooping to the abusers level because the abuser has committed these acts simply to intentionally harm you. When the abuse victim reacts by intentionally killing the abuser it isn't solely done to harm them. The main motive behind the resolved is to become free of the abuse as well as escaping the cycle of violence. Deadly Force doesn't necessarily entail death. Deadly Force, defined by the U.S Armed Forces, is force which one knows is substantially likely to result in death. Substantially likely doesn't mean it will definitely result in death. The point of Morality is to guide action, making something Morally Permissible encourages that action. Affirming encourages one to fight back against abuse, and doesn't oblige them to kill themselves. At the point where Morality doesn't provide any other Moral Options out of Domestic Abuse then we have to Affirm in order to preserve Morality.
Now he tries to say that when we affirm we value the victims life over the abusers life and its extremely contradictory to do so.
Its true when we Affirm we will be valuing the victims life over the life of the Abusers but its not at all contradictory. The issue is whose life do we value ? The Abusers ? Or the Victims ? Many would obviously say the victims because the victim hasn't committed any wrongful acts and are being abused. If I hear a rapist was murdered I obviously wouldn't have too much sympathy for them because they were a rapist, if I hear a person who was raped was murdered and didn't do anything wrong, I would feel a lot of sympathy for said person because they were the victims of some kind of abuse and were killed. When it comes to situations like these we need to value the life of the victim not the aggressors especially if killing the aggressor is the only way out of the abuse.
Now he tries to bring in issues of law.
We're debating it is Morally permissible not Legally permissible. We need to focus on what is Moral not Legal. In this debate Morality trumps Legality. He may try to say Legality is Morality but there are some laws that don't gain Morality nor have they done so in the past such as Segregation Laws.
Now onto my own case
Contention 1: We must affirm on the sole fact that this is the only Moral Option of out domestic Violence
Domestic violence is 2 to 4 times more common in police families than in the general population. In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families. In a nationwide survey of 123 police departments, 45% had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence. In that same survey, the most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling. Only 19% of departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence. In San Diego, a national model in domestic violence prosecution, the City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of referred domestic violence cases, but only 42% of cases where the batterer is a cop.
Her batterer always has a gun (often many guns and other weapons) and is trained to use it. He knows how to inflict pain and leave no marks or bruises. He's trained to intimidate by his presence alone, and to use his body as a weapon. He lets her know he has the power to harm or kill her and get away with it, or have others do it for him. How can she call the police? He is the police! He tells her that if she does call police, the officers (his colleagues and friends) will believe him and not her ... and he's right. He often threatens that if she reports to police he'll lose his job, and if that happens, she's dead. He has access to surveillance tools like phone taps, police scanners, vehicle tracking devices, and audio and video recording equipment to stalk or monitor the victim's activities. The batterer or his fellow officers will often "patrol" the victim's house, work place, children's school or daycare center. Friends, family and service providers are afraid of the batterer and thus afraid to get involved. Domestic violence advocates may share her information with the police. (Other than Purple Berets and Women's Justice Center, all domestic violence advocates in Sonoma County work for either the police or district attorney's office.) He knows the location of battered women's shelters. He knows the court system, often testifies in court, and knows district attorneys, judges and bailiffs personally. Jurors assume police officers would not lie in court.
At the point where your Alternatives are the ones creating the most abuse we can't look to them as Moral Options anymore and therefore the only two options left are 1. Kill yourself (Which isn't Moral at all) and 2. Kill your abuser (Which is Moral seeing that he's beaten you)
The Moral Permissibility is coming from this being the ONLY MORAL option the abuse victim may take.
Thus I urge an Affirmative/Pro Ballad
First of all, my oponent says deadly force doesn't necessarily entail death. But would he agree that it is MOST LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH? Yes, which even he stated that that was the exact definition. Yes, it is true that part of the deadly force is just to rid yourself of abuse, but it is in human nature to want revenge. If someone who has been repeatedly abused by an agressor and has the chance to kill someone using DEADLY FORCE then they will. If they are put in the immediate circumstance to kill someone who has abused them for years, there is no doubt they would.
My oponent says that we should value the victims life over the life of the abuser. Of course, we as bystanders and people who read about it in the news feel compassion for the victim. But this is from the victims perspective. The victim is valuing their own life over the life of the abuser, just as the abuser did. This is making the victim just as bad as the abuser.
My oponent then says that Legality trumps Morality. But it is possible to call for help and find aid before it has to be taken to the level of deadly force. There is always another option, that is why there is laws for it. You can still maintain morality and legality and be safe.
In my oponents first contention, he states about how aparently cops are a main group of abusers. I'm asking, so what? Who does it matter fully who the abuser is? It can be anyone, and it's still wrong. It boils down to an abuser and a victim, and It is still wrong to kill the agressor. You can still call for help. And, It is most likely the case that if a someone is getting abused repeatedly, that the law will be able to help regardless of if the abuser is a cop or not. My oponent acts as though no matter what happens, if your being abused, your basically screwed. There is nothing farther from the truth. Why does my oponent act as though the abuser (a cop in this sinerio) is friends with every cop in the United States? Will every cop just be staying outside surveying the activities of them to make sure the cop abuses his domestic partner? What the heck is up with that? If someone is being abused, they can always find a higher power to make sure she is safe. There is no way that there is no way out.
So my oponent says that there is only two options. Kill yourself, or kill the aggressor. Kill, kill, kill. Is that all he says? I thought that in his rebutle towards me he said that deadly force was only "the intention to kill" and "doesn't necessarily entail death", but now he's saying kill or be killed. That is contradicting itself in it's own sense! What is up with that? And, as I firmly beleive, there is always another option. Talking to an even higher authority that cops (i.e. government). Also, law, as I stated, does have a side in this. Restraining orders. Even cops can't get past that to abuse someone. In court, how would It look if the cops case was that he went against a restraining order just to abuse someone? Of course, that would never ever work. As you can see, there is always an alternative, not just having to use deadly force.
I am intrigued to see my oponents arguement and am glad to have had the chance to go against him in this debate.
Guitar_Guru forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: The only two points I can award are sources and SG mainly because Pro had sources and he had better SG plus all the forfeits I can't vote on Conduct and all the arguments were pretty even. The round never really got to finish..
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.