It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response
Public - "WHAT IS ZARADI DOING!?!?! HE'S STARTING THREE DEBATES AT THE SAME TIME!? HE'S A MADMAN!!!"
Yes, ladies and gents, now that Summer is upon us I decided to try to put my own effort into kick-starting the debate community again and do a bunch of debates! These will be open to anyone and everyone! First come first serve! If I get a forfeit I just remake it.
So the resolution is as stated below:
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
This is an LD debate. Standard LD conventions (not necessarily standard LD cases) apply. Standard debate conventions also apply.
THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL BEGIN THE DEBATE IN ROUND ONE. THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL POST "NO ROUND AS AGREED UPON" IN THE FINAL ROUND TO MAINTAIN EQUAL SPEAKING ROUNDS.
So with that being said, GL HF TO MY OPPONENT.
When you threaten most snakes, it is the only time they attack, because they know it is wise to attack if you are intrigued. Rome did the same, and by doing so, they became one of the largest and most famous empires in all of history. Humans are the same thing, they act when threatened. You cannot say it's immoral to act in accordance to your nature isn't it?
Would you try to make a cat bark?
I value morality. All ethical decisions are made with regard to a social narrative defined and created by interaction and openness to the Other. Butler writes:
“the “I” encounters the Other … as a being fundamentally exposed, visible, seen, existing in a bodily way and of necessity in a domain of appearance. It is, … this exposure that I am that constitutes my singularity. I cannot will it away, for it is a feature of my very corporeality and, … my life, … the social theory … in its insistence on the impersonal perspective of the norm, establish[es] my substitutability? … , I am exposed, and this is as much a part of my … sociality, as the way that I become recognizable through the operation of norms.”
Thus the standard is actualizing our relation to the Other. My burden is to show that our relation to the Other justifies a prohibition of deadly force. Moreover, prefer this standard since ethics is impossible without understanding our relation to the Other. Butler 2:
“this way in which we are, from the start, interrupted by alterity and not fully recoverable to ourselves, indicates the way in which we are … ethically implicated in the lives of others. …our incoherence … establishes the way in which we are implicated, beholden, derived, constituted by what is beyond us and before us. If we say that the self must be narrated …then we say that we cannot survive with an unconscious. … In the language which articulates the opposition to a non-narrativizable beginning resides the fear that the absence of narrative will spell a certain threat … to life, and will pose the risk… of a … the death of a subject who cannot … fully recuperate the conditions of its own emergence.”
Moreover, my framework precludes the AC since it is grounded in ontology. The way we create and exist under ethics precludes metaethics since it determines the way we adopt normative principles. I contend using deadly force is a violation of our actualization to the Other.
First, the face-to-face encounter with the Other requires a prohibition on violence, no matter what the Other has done. Butler 3:
“I cannot disavow my relation to the Other, regardless of what the Other does … responsibility is … a matter of … making use of an unwilled susceptibility as a resource for becoming responsive to the Other. Whatever the Other has done, the Other still makes an ethical demand upon me…I am … precluded from revenge by virtue of a relation I never chose. … [sometimes] responding to the ‘‘face’’ of the other feels horrible … But the primary and unwilled relation to the Other demands that we desist from … aggression “
Second, deadly force denies our shared vulnerability to always be affected by the Other. Butler 4:
“It is always possible to say, ‘‘Oh, some violence was done to me, and this gives me full permission to act … Many atrocities are committed under the sign of a ‘‘self-defense’’ … because it achieves a permanent moral justification for retaliation, … and can have no end. … Violence … delineates a physical vulnerability from which we cannot slip away … but which can provide a way to understand that none of us is … utterly separate, but, rather, we are … in each other’s hands, [and] at each other’s mercy. “
With that, let's respond to my opponent's arguments.
My opponent's sole argument was, essentially, that it's human nature to respond with deadly force when we're in this kind of situation.
To start with, there's absolutely no warrant to anything that he's said what-so-ever. His only way of kind of justifying his argument was that snakes only attack you if you aggress on them first and Rome became a successful empire because they fought people? Nothing in it makes any kind of sense.
But moreover, even if he's right that acting violently is in our nature, that doesn't make it a permissible action. That's like saying that if it were in my nature as a person to go on a mass killing spree and burn down fifty orphanages that I would be justified in doing so "just because", which makes no kind of sense.
But furthermore, his argument is essentially the is/ought fallacy where he's saying that because humans are this way, that they ought to be this way. But that's like saying that because we're all jumping off a cliff to our deaths that we ought to jump off a cliff to our deaths.
But even if you don't buy any of that, even if you buy his argument, it's not sufficient to win the debate. If he's winning his argument, all he's proven is that it's in human nature to be violent, but that doesn't prove why it's a permissible response to the resolution. He's not providing any kind of argument for that, so he can't win the debate.
What's an even more damning flaw is that my opponent has provided no kind of framework or weighing mechanism under which to weigh arguments presented in the debate. I'm the only one with any kind of framework to go off of in this debate. This means that a) you have to operate under my framework, which means you negate because killing people for any reason is bad under my framework and b) it's impossible for him to fulfill his affirmative burden of proving the resolution true if we have no way to weigh his arguments, which means you negate anyway.
 Butler, Judith. Giving an Account of Oneself. diacritics, Volume 31, Number 4, Winter 2001, pp. 22-40 (Article)
I won't make a novel anymore, I would just express my simple defense.
When the drizzle comes, and the rain is weak, people bring out their umbrellas.
But when a tornado strikes, would people even consider hiding under an umbrella?
If not, then still if they survive, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you bring out your umbrella!"
When the sun is warm, and the day is bright, people buy cold drinks to refresh themselves.
But when fire scatters around the neighborhood, would people sit down and relax with a nice soothing soft drink?
If not, then still if they survive, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you drink coke!"
When you are pickpocketed, and you caught the thief, you wouldn't kill him because you know it's in the law.
But when you and your family are held hostage, would you dare wait for a long time, ignoring many opportunities of freedom?
If not, then still, people won't go around asking "Why didn't you just wait for the police! Your going to jail, sir!"
But seriously, if you were on that certain condition, would you take the risk and wait, just for your hostage takers to be shot by the police? How sweet of you!
I suppose this is only expected if I leave it open for anyone to take that I'd get a troll or two.
My opponent doesn't respond to a single argument of mine, even admitting he didn't read through the entirety of my case (which really wasn't that long, between my case and rebutals I still had like 4k characters left to use), so extend all my arguments.
He drops my responses to his first point, as well as his first point entirely, and instead deciding to advance a new argument entirely: that it's more reasonable to kill the abuser than to not.
First, as always, he doesn't have any kind of warrant for this.
Second, there's plenty of non-lethal ways to get out of the situation, so just saying killing is the reasonable response isn't always going to be true.
Third, cross-apply my case that killing is never an appropriate response because it prevents any further interraction with the Other.
Now to continue...
In the Babylonian law stated by Hammurabi, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" It states the natural law of retaliation, but the Babylonian King those days see things equally. Kill someone, Get killed. Use someone's toothbrush, get your own toothbrush used. It's that simple. But over the years... well... things got complicated.
When the great empires came, like the Mongolian Empire, it has always been "an eye for a threat, a tooth for a threat" Up till today, that has been the case. To make it simple, when someone calls you and tells you that they will kill you, you won't call them back and say, "Hey! What a coincidence! I was about to kill you too!" But instead, you'll report them to the authorities.
When you are taken hostage, these natural laws of retaliation comes alive.
One more thing, when you are drowning in the ocean, one thing that people naturally do is grab the nearest person, sink them, and use them as a boost to get air. It sounds inhuman, but it's true, and that's natural, although incredibly annoying...
Once again, my opponent chooses not to respond to my case. As this round is the last round he gets to speak in, as he will be posting "no round as agreed upon" in the final round, it makes my case 100% conceded to and dropped throughout the entirety of the debate. This has a lot of troubling implications to it for my opponent and it pretty much means I win right off the bat.
1. It means that the only framework under which to evaluate and weigh arguments is under mine. This pretty much means you affirm since under my framework, death and killing anyone for any reason is bad because it prevents our experience and interraction with the Other. This alone means the resolution is negated.
2. A lot of my arguments answer the arguments he's brought up in round and explain why they aren't valid. Because he's conceded to them, my responses to his arguments are now, thusly, stronger.
Now, lets touch on the fact that my opponent accuses me of ad hom.
1. There's a difference between insulting you and ad homing. Calling you a troll (which you are) doesn't undermine your arguments. As such, is not ad hom.
2. My opponent's just trying to employ the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, where he's just hoping to throw out big fancy fallacy names to try and sway the audience into his favor that I'm doing something wrong and he should deserve to win. The only problem is he's incorrectly using the terms that he's using, and thus I'm not actually commiting the fallacy he's accusing me of commiting.
Again, my opponent has continued the same strategy of not sticking to a single argument for more than a round. He's never defended a single argument he's made, prefering to drop it altogether and make a new argument. As I've responded to his other two arguments, and those responses were dropped, he has no actual argument to advance forward in this debate.
His "new argument" this round isn't even that new, as it touches back to his natural instinct argument he made in the first round. Cross apply the four respones to that I make to this round as well.
So, the debate breaks down really simply:
1. I made my case that my opponent chose never to respond to (or even read through all the way). You negate off of that.
2. My opponent has never defended a single point of his, only making new points through the entire round. Since I've responded to every point he's brought up, he has no way to actually affirm the resolution. You can negate there as well.
Remember, my opponent should post "No round as agreed upon" to keep the number of rounds we get to argue in fair. If he does not, it should count as a breach of conduct, and no arguement made there should be weighed.
2.Seriously? Why do I feel this one is an advertisement? Hello? McDonalds, are you there?
Now, let's move on to the fact that I accused him of ad hom.
1. "In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is referred to as ad hominem." I've studied fallacies, and please, don't make your own laws just to win a debate.
2. This one is just an elaborate version of number 1. Yes, I admit that I'm hoping to throw out big fancy fallacy names trying and swaying the audience into my favor that you're doing something wrong and I deserve to win. Why? Because this is a debate! Not only does a debate help people understand problems better, but it's also because people want to see two people having a duel of literature!
So there you go, my fellow debaters and critics! I have negated all of his negations and therefore protected my previous arguments. Now it's time for you to decide who wins? The one who made a novel to make a single point in the first round, then was charged of ad hominem in the second round, then used all of his last round to throw in more judgement towards my arguments, with a sprinkle of advertisement at the top, or me.
So, the debate breaks down simply...
We talk, you vote, someone wins, someone loses.
Thank you for reading