The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

It is permissible for victims to use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic abuse.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,041 times Debate No: 22627
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




I stand behind the resolution, Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic abuse.
Round 1: Only for acceptance and to discuss elements of the debate
Round 2: Construction of cases, no clash
Round 3: Clash
Round 4: Closing statements, voters


Accepted. Below are my observations about the nature of the resolution and what should be considered acceptable.

1. As the resolution was the January/February NFL LD resolution, I assume the debate will be of that manner. This will mean that the debate will be of the LD style, unless my opponent informs otherwise in the next round.
2. If the above observation is true, I posit that all types of LD cases should be acceptable (kritiks, disads, theory, etc.)

That's really all I have. I look forward to my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1


Domestic violence is a very controversial issue in America today. Some of us may try to bury it underground, and others shout it out to the whole world but the truth is that Domestic abuse will always be present. There must be a way for the poor victims to escape. Sometimes the law even denies the presence of the abuse, leaving the victim in solitude and without salvation. Therefore, I stand beside the resolution. Resolved: IT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR VICTIMS TO USE DEADLY FORCE AS A DELIBERATE RESPONSE TO REPEATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. The thesis of this case revolves around the fact that sometimes, the use of deadly force is needed because if the victim would not use deadly force, his or her life would be put in deaths way.
Obsv. 1: Geoffrey Rapp, (Prof., Law, U. Toledo College of Law), GEORGIA LAW REVIEW, Fall 2010, 143.
The privilege of self-defense is an ancient concept dating to the earliest moral teachings of Rabbinical law. The
privilege has been recognized in Anglo-American law for more than 500 years.
Contention 1: Repeated domestic abuse puts the victim or victims in immediate danger.
A: Domestic violence is widespread and affects various victims
Domestic violence in a household directly places all the peoples living within that household in immediate danger. The abuser puts the lives of the victims in peril when he abuses just one of the victims. Domestic violence is also highly widespread in the United States. Nancy Wright, a professor of law at Santa Clara University of law(1) writes in 2009 that "According to the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Hundley, the physical abuse of women is "extremely Widespread" with the court "estimating that it affects between four and forty million women.' In fact, the American Medical Association estimates that "one-fifth to one-third of all women will be physically assaulted by a partner or ex-partner during their lifetime." Moreover, according to the Wyoming Supreme Court in Witt v. State, battered women frequently suffer other forms of abuse as well, such as 'humiliation, denial of power, name calling, sexual abuse, threats of violence, and deprivation of food, sleep, heat, shelter and/or money.'" The abusers actions in this instance may have not only affected the Woman but the woman’s children or the woman’s other family members living within the house. By putting the victim under fire, the abuser may have affected the children and or the extended family in the household.
B: Domestic violence is deadly
Nancy Wright writes that "30% of domestic violence incidents involve the use of a weapon and the injuries that battered
women receive are at least as severe as those suffered in 90% of violent felonies. In fact, each year approximately
two million of these women suffer severe beatings at the hands of their spouses or partners. Unfortunately, over
three women every day are murdered by their husbands; frequently experiencing "prolonged, brutal deaths after
years of violence."
Contention 2: Many victims of Domestic abuse have to use deadly force in order to survive.
A: The law Enforcement sometimes denies help to the victim
Nancy Wright writes that “Most battered women have sought help unsuccessfully from police or other protective agencies. One study of
women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were
known by the police to have been physically abused before their deaths. This means that even if the law knows about a victim, they continue to ignore them until death. This puts the victim in even more danger because they are not being helped at all by the outside world. The victim in turn, is forced to use deadly force to dispatch the abuser. Sometimes, turning to the Police has worse consequences than denial. Myrna S. Raeder writes “that efforts such as calling the police simply increase the violence”
B:Victims often find that there is no escape from the abusers.
Nancy Wright states that “ Victims are often trapped by their abusers, who isolate them from family and friends who might otherwise provide
them with assistance and support in leaving. They are frequently trapped by poverty, making retreat from the
abusive situation a financial impossibility. And they are virtually always trapped by the unremitting violence, which
not only batters them physically but emotionally as well, making leaving the abusive situation a psychologically
unrealistic option. Faced with the inevitable prospect of escalating physical violence, often accompanied by sexual
and psychological abuse, some of these women and children decide that the only escape from their imprisonment
is to kill their abusers.
Contention 3:The victims use deadly force as a last resort
A:The use of deadly force helps victims outlast their abusers
The wife in State v. Koss(2) not only suffered psychological damage when her husband repeatedly threatened to
kill her but also suffered physical injuries when her husband actually tried to kill her. On one occasion her husband
tried to smother her with a pillow and on another, he put a radio in the bathtub while she was taking a bath.
Ultimately, she killed him before he succeeded in killing her. The fact that she only killed him after she was threatened repeatedly proves that deadly force was used only as a last resort.

In conclusion, I believe that it will always be morally permissible for a victim to dispatch his or her abuser if the abuse is extended. Therefore, I urge you to vote pro. Thank you.


As agreed on in the comments, my case is in the below link:

As the round structure has been decided on, I shall not attack my opponent's case this round. I shall save my attacks for the next round.
Debate Round No. 2


I shall begin by attacking my oponents case.
First of all, i would like to point out that my opponent has defended only one argument througout his whole case. That argument is that "minimizing suffering is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being". Now, take in mind that my opponent is acctualy not using any solid evidence that ties to the resolution, but instead is using a philosophy. Some of the voters may be bafled by his case, but I did allow my opponent to use any kind of case, as he stated in round 1.
Let us move on. In my opinion, my opponent has not succesfully grasped the resolution. He is only providing a philosophy wich deals with a beings existense. But, i say to the voter and to my opponent, that this resolution calls for a more vivid outlook. One must look past theory and look to facts. The facts point out that domestic abuse occurs. My oponent has not pointed out why a person put under repeated domestic abuse should not be allowed to use deadly force to rid his or her abuser. My opponent has only stated that "suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings". But, I say to you that suffering is not a nessesary part of life and one should never undergo suffering just to be able to find the "true meaning of life".
Now, this takes me to another thing i would like to point out. My opponent would have us believe that after a said person suffers from domestic abuse , he or she will get back on their feet and live life to the fullest. But does one not agree ,that in many of the cases pertaining domestic abuse, the person being abused does not make it out of the situation alive, due to the fact that the abuse ends up killing the said person. So how is the fact that suffering allows ones eyes to be open to the reality of life have anything to do with this resolution? This resolution only asks if it is allowed for a victim of domestic abuse to dispatch his or her abuser.
This brings me to yet another point. My opponent has not brought up the topic of law. Law will always be present in situations like the resolutions. So i ask this, can a suspect that abused his or her spouse , while testifying in a court of law, say the following words to defend his or her own case : I wanted [him or her] to be exposed to the reality of human existence according to ontology, so i abused [her or him] in order for [him or her] to open her eyes and realize that suffering is vital to life. No, one cannot say that in a court of law without destroying his or her case to pieces. The law dose not take into account the fact that suffering is vital to life. Instead, they take the events that actually happened and tie them to the case.
Thus, i close by asking my opponent to answer the questions i posed above. Thank you.


I'll start with my opponent's case.

Before I get to the specific arguments and contentions, I'd like to point out that my opponent's case literally provides no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under. No value/criterion, no burden system, nothing. Since my case provides a burden system to weigh the round under, you can prefer my case for that reason.

Secondly, my opponent isn't actually affirming the resolution. My opponent must show that it is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE for victims to kill their abusers, not that it is LEGALLY permissible. To say that what is legal is what is moral commits the is/ought fallacy, which is like saying that because people DO use illegal drugs, then people OUGHT to use illegal drugs, which isn't the truth at all. As long as he provides no way to prove MORAL permissibility, and I am the only one showing why it is not morally permissible, then you negate.

A2 C1:

I concede the A point. Domestic Violence is widespread and affects various people. What isn't true is the B point, which is that all domestic violence is deadly. If I'm cussing at my wife and verbally degrading her constantly, it would fit the criteria of domestic abuse, but would she die? No. If I'm merely slapping her, would she die? No. Not all domestic violence is deadly, so the use of deadly force would be unreciprocal, and thusly unjustified.

A2 C2:

A point has a few problems with it.

First: Even if the police system is flawed, it still doesn’t justify using deadly force because there are other ways the victim can use to get their batterer arrested. Since abusers are clearly arrested frequently, the problem the aff is trying to magnify just isn’t as big as he/she’s making it.

Second: TURN: If the police system is truly as flawed as the aff is making it out to be, then the police might mistake the victim’s use of deadly force for something that it isn’t, which puts the victim at even more risk. This outweighs because the victim is the one being harmed instead of the abuser. Basically, it’s better for them to just report the problem to the police and, even if the response isn’t entirely adequate, it’s still better than being thrown into prison.

The B point is just as flawed.

First: This just isn’t true. A victim can always choose to simply walk out the door, psychological impacts aside. Instead of choosing to shoot the abuser in the head in the middle of the night, there is nothing preventing them from simply walking out the door.

Second: TURN: there is no way to determine in fact whether or not a woman could’ve really left her situation. All domestic violence cases involve an element of “he said, she said”, and it would be incredibly easy for the woman to claim she had no other options, when she really did.

A2 C3:

I'll concede to this. Lethal force is a last resort. This doesn't make it justified, though. Just because going to nuclear war with Russia is a last resort, it doesn't make that last resort justified or morally permissible.

With his case entirely refuted, let's go to responding to the arguments against my case, which he has vastly misinterpreted.

"He is only providing a philosophy wich[sic] deals with a beings existense."

1. So? I'm the only person adressing the resolutions question of "moral permissibility". I'm showing exactly why it isn't morally permissible, as ending suffering by killing the abuser ruins the value of life.
2. He literally provides no warrant to his argument. All he does is asserts that suffering isn't necessary to find value and meaning in life, and provides no warrant as to why it's true. I'm providing you with clear evidence as to why suffering is necessary to find value and meaning in life, and these warrants were never attacked.

"My opponent would have us believe that after a said person suffers from domestic abuse , he or she will get back on their feet and live life to the fullest."

Errp. Wrong. Not what my case claims at all. What my case says is that when we suffer, we allow life to have meaning and value to it. Without suffering, there is no reason why life has value or meaning. Pretty simple concept, but I guess I can understand how it would be difficult to wrap your head around. His argument here also relies on his contention that all domestic violence is deadly, which I already showed was false. The resolution asks of us that is the response of killing the abuser morally permissible, and my case directly refutes this.

"My opponent has not brought up the topic of law."

So? Saying that the law derrives what is moral commits the is/ought fallacy, as I already explained.

So at this point, the debate breaks down really simply. Heck, we can call the debate over right here and vote con for the following reasons:

1. I'm the only one adressing the actual resolution. I'm showing exactly why it's not MORALLY permissible. My opponent is not doing this. Off of this, we can vote con.
2. I'm the only one providing a way to weigh the round in my case. My opponent doesn't do this. As such, you prefer my case. Since he hasn't actually refuted what my case says, it goes entirely conceded and thus can be extended. So we can vote con here as well.
3. We can extend my definition of negate being to deny the truth of. All I have to do is sufficiently refute the pro's case in order to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on me as the negate, which is to deny the truth of the affirmative. Since I'm refuting his arguments, then we can vote con here as well.

Debate Round No. 3


1: My opponent has stated that i "Provide no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under". I would like my opponent to clarify as to his first point aimed at me.
2:My opponent continues on to say that i am not AFFIRMING the resolution. But, i say to the voter, that i can counter by saying that HE in fact has not NEGATED the resolution. He has only provided ONE ARGUMENT that is based on a pilosophy! How is this NEGATING the resolution? Now, as for the fact of me not AFFIRMING the resolution, I disvalue his attack at me by saying this: I am including not only why it is MORRALY permisable for a victim of continued abuse to dispatch his or her abuser, but i am also providing evidence as to why it is LEGALLY permissable.
3:My opponent actually AGREES with me, something that no debater should ever do. To agree with ones opponent is to stand by him, therfore destroying ones own case.
4: My opponent makes a deadly mistake, he states that i said that "all domestic violence is deadly" when i realy stated that "domestic violence is deadly". There is no ALL included in that statment. Now, my opponents states that if he were mearley slaping his wife, she would not die. But, i say to the voter that sometimes, a slap is enough to kill a person. A slap can do anything from making a said person fall back in pain and hitting the edge of a counter, to just hurting the said person. It would all depend on the abusers power, strenght and motivation.
5: My opponent begins his assult on my second contention by saying that " there are other ways the victim can use to get their batterer arested". This sentence makes no sense, first of all since the wording is out of place. Also, i say to the voter, that there just may not be another way for a victim to arreste said batterer! First of all, the said batterer may find a way to keep the victim in check, therfore leaving no way to properly contact the police. Now my opponent continues on to say that " this outweighs because...", and i ask him, what does this outweigh? He later continues on to say that "its better for them to just report the problem to the police and, even if the response isn't entierely adequate, its still better than being thrown in prison". But, i say to the voter, is DEATH better than prison? The fact that my opponent states that police responses may not be adequete, therfore leaving the victim in solitude and with only one other way to escape abuse: death to the abuser. Now i say to you, the voter and my opponent, that the simple action of contacting the Police may end up in the death of said victim, since the abuser will most likley NOT be very happy that his vicim is looking for help!
6: My opponent continues on to say that victims can " always choose to simply walk out the door". But, i say that its not as simple as JUST walking out the door. What if the door is blocked by said abuser? What if all doors are locked by the said abuser? What if the victim cannot even leave a single room? It seems as if my opponent has not taken this into consideration.
7:As for his attack on the fact that there is no way to prove wether or not a woman could have escaped, i say that there is no way to prove otherwise.
8:May I point out that once again, my opponent AGGREES WITH ME. The fact that it is a last resort, a last line of defence, proves that the victim had a right to use it. If all else fails, then a victim may see that the only real way to escape is to dispatch his or her abuser. Self defence is tied directly to ones moral views, thus this last resort falls under the category of self defence.
9: My opponent CLAIMS to be the only one addresing the resolution. How exactly is he doing this? By providing a philosophy called Ontology. A philosophy that not many people undertake, at that. Could my opponent elaborate as to how ontology coexists with morality?
10:My opponents states that he is providing clear evidence to support his claims. I ask, where is said evidence? Where are statistics? All my opontent has at hand is a few words from philosophers. Nothing solid, nothing tangible enough to be called evidence.
11: My opponent continues on to say that his case says that when one suffers, he or she allows life to have a meaning. But i say to the voter, that i value my life greatly, with or without suffering. Suffering plays a little part in life. Thus, one should not allow suffering to govern the way one values life. Life should be valued as just that: your life! Suffering does not allow life to have a meaning. When i suffer at the hands of a scrape or a punch from a friend, i dont say "wow! I need to have meaning in life!" Thus, i have just voided my opponents arguments.
12:My opponent continues on to say that law in no part, has anything to do with morals. Justice in itself is a moral, as is Law. Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity(1)The word MORAL apears within the defenition of justice. Justice is used in law, therfore law is directly tied to Morality. Furthermore, he continues on to say "heck". Heck is informal, and should in no way used in a formal debate. One would not say Heck in a court of law, without the risk of sounding like one that is not educated in the ways of formality.

I belive that it will always be moraly permisable for a victim of continued abuse to dispatch his or her abuser. I value life and innocent life should never be put in harms way if there is no need for such actions. Thus, i stand behind the resolution. Morals come from the rights claims we agree upon when we form the social contract. According to Hobbes, the only right which we cannot sacrifice completely is the right to self defense. If one’s life is threatened, he/she has the absolute right to defend, and the aggressor effectively sacrifices their right to life by threatening that of another. Repeated domestic violence can be said to actually threaten the victim’s life. It traps them in such a cycle of physical and psychological damage, that it effectively robs them of their life. Therefore, their deliberate use of deadly force to escape the situation is morally permissible.(2) To make it more explicit, suppose the person has been captured by a serial killer. The serial killer continually rapes and beats the victim for several years before killing them. Would we not admit that it is morally permissible for the victim to use deadly force to escape the situation? Why is repeated domestic violence any different?
My opponent has also given the voter claims as to why one should vote for him. I shall also do the same

1) I am apperently the only debater actualy looking at the resolution from various angles, whereas my opponent has only used a phylosophical aproach.
2)My opponents case, at a seccond glance has no road map or structure. Structure in a case should be orderly.
3) I am not here to tell the voter what to vote for, i am here only to try to convince the voter to vote for me. I am not here to MAKE you vote for me, since voting is a voters privelege. But i do advise the voter to take a look at the debate closeley.
4) My opponent has acctualy NOT expalained why it is not morraly permisable for a victim to dispatch his or her abuser. He has not given any means as to why what he says is to be belived.
5)Furthermore, suffering should not be vital to find the meaning of life. The meaning of life is all around you. Your family, friends ,dislikes,likes and moral values should govern the true meaning of life. If i was to suffer continues domestic abuse, i certantly would not see suffering as a way to find a reason in life.
Thus with this i close my case, and hope for the voter to follow his mind in chosing the winner. Thank you for even taking the TIME to sit down and read my arguments. I extend my thanks as well to my oponent for a great debate. Thank you and have a great day.


I'm getting the feeling that my opponent is more familiar with PF debate than LD debate. The vast majority of his arguments are incoherent and, frankly, make as much sense as his argument that I said heck. So let's go through them.

"My opponent has stated that i "Provide no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under".

This is where I draw the vast majority of my suspicion that he is not all too familiar with LD debate. His case consists of one observation, and then straight into contention level arguments, with no framework in between. Without a framework of some sort, i.e. a value/criterion, a burden system, etc., we have no way of actually being able to tell how his arguments interract with the resolution (absent arbitrary judge intervention). As my case provides the only weighing mechanisms (a burden system), you're going to prefer my case and my framework because of it. Whoever is best promoting the value of life is going to be winning this debate. As he is reducing the amount of suffering in the world, he is fundamentally ruining the value of life, and thus is the reason to negate.

"HE in fact has not NEGATED"

False. I'm explicitly proving in my case why it is MORALLY impermissible to use deadly force to respond to domestic violence, as it ruins the value of life. This 'philosophy' you waive off as pointless is the exact reason why I'm actually negating the resolution and you're not even adressing the actual point of the resolution. All your case does is argue that it is LEGALLY permissible, when the resolution clearly states that you need to prove it is MORALLY permissible. Because you aren't doing that, you aren't actually affirming the resolution, but rather a twisted, distorted version of it, while I'm the only one arguing it. This is the second place to negate.

"My opponent actually AGREES with me..."

Let's go over the points I conceded to you:
1. Domestic violence is widespread. No offense here.
2. Domestic violence is used as a last resort (even though I said that it doesn't really justify anything, which is something you never really respond to). Even still, no offense here.


"There is no ALL included in that statement."

Yet you continue on to argue that even the mildest forms of abuse (i.e. a simple slap) can be deadly, hence implying that all domestic violence is deadly. Incoherency at it's best.
But even if you're correct in saying that not all domestic violence is deadly, this is only a reason to negate because then using deadly force to respond to it would be unreciprocal. For example, if I flick you and you hit me in the head with a baseball bat, that would be an unreciprocal response. This is the same as if an abuser were cussing out his wife, and her, fearing for her life, takes a gun and shoots him. Verbal abuse does not merit a deadly response. So, in some cases, domestic violence would be impermissible, and thus we can negate.

"first of all the wording is out of place."

Because this totally makes sense.

"there just may not be another way for a victim to arreste[sic] said batterer!"

By arguing that the police response is insufficient, you concede that the police can and has been contacted by the abused. Otherwise, we wouldn't know if the response is adequete or not. By arguing that it isn't, you then concede that we can contact the police.

"what does this outweigh?"

Calling the police, even if the response isn't fully adequete, would outweigh killing the abuser, as killing the abuser would only put them in a worse spot.

"is DEATH better than prison?"

Not all domestic violence is deadly, thus death isn't always the result of domestic violence. You even argue this in your last round. So would taking a few harsh words be better than prison? Yes.

"its not as simple as JUST walking out the door."

How is it not? Nothing is preventing the victim from just getting up and leaving in the middle of the night when the abuser is asleep. It is just that simple. The victim can always leave, if they choose to.

"i say that there is no way to prove otherwise."

....Is this a concession to the point?My argument is that there is no way to prove that the woman couldn't have left or not, which he, from the looks of it, agrees with. This means that we should always presume that there is some way out of the situation that doesn't involve killing.

"The fact that it is a last resort...proves that the victim had a right to use it."

Again, this is entirely false. Refer back to my analogy of going to nuclear war with Russia.
Moreover, as Yoda might say, warrants for this argument you lack.

"Could my opponent elaborate as to how ontoloy coexists with morality?"

Ontology is the study of being, how we come into hypothetical existence. In this sense, ontology is a field of moral study.

"But i say to the voter, that i value my life greatly, with or without suffering."

So who's word do we take? A random kid on a debating website, or a handful of professional philosophers who study and think about this for a living?
Moreover, he never actually responds to or attacks the warrants coming out of the Long or Strauss analysis. In this sense, he inevitably concedes the entirety of the negative case. This is the game-over issue for my opponent, as he concedes the only case that actually talks about the resolution.

"The word MORAL apears[sic] within the defenition[sic] of justice."

Wow, a wikipedia source. How surprising.
Besides the fact that wikipedia has about as much credibility as an infant in a debate, laws and morals are not the same. To say so commits the is/ought fallacy, as I explained already. This analysis was conceded, hence turning his entire case as inable to fulfill the inherent resolution burden of proving moral permissibility.

"he continues on to say "heck". Heck is informal..."

Because DDO is totally black tie...

"Morals come from the rights claims we agree upon when we form the social contract."

Excuse me for a moment.
You have got to be sh!tting me...
Way to put a totally brand new argument in the last round, in a spot where I would have less than 2000 characters to try to respond to it. I ask the voters not even look at this argument when weighing the resolution, due to the extreme absurdity and unfairness of it. Regardless, I will attack one key link in it: that the abuser forfeits their rights by attacking the victim.

This is false because, as the laws he holds in such high regards state, the right to life is an inalienable right i.e. we can never lose it, regardless of what we do. Because of this, the abuser cannot lose their right to life, which makes it permissible for them to defend themselves when the abused tries to fight back. Thus, if we affirm under the social contract, we allow the abuser to kill the victim in self-defense and get away with it.

So at the end of the day, the round ends really simply for you as a voter:

1. My opponent is not meeting the inherent resolutional burden of proving MORAL permissibility. I've disproven this in multiple ways. As I'm the only one arguing for morality, you negate here.
2. I've refuted the entire affirmative case. As per the definition of negate, meaning to deny the truth of, I'm meeting the inherent resolutional burden of disproving the affirmative. You can negate here.
3. I'm winning sufficient offense off of the NC, which proves that using deadly force should be morally prohibited. You can negate here.
S/G - Goes to me, as my opponent made numerous spelling errors.
Conduct - Could go either way. I was highly sarcastic this round, but my opponent's new argument in the last round could merit it to me.
Sources - Frankly, I'm the only one providing independent citations from authors. My opponent's sources were wikipedia and a biased link.

So, frankly, the vote is extremely simple. There's no real reason to vote pro, and plenty of reasons to vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
LD debate is a highly philosophical debate. Pro's basic attack on Con was that Con was using philosophy instead of cold, hard, facts to make his case. In reality, when arguing whether something is moral or not, philosophy counts much more than what statistics/laws say. (I.E. In Germany (during WWII), if 90% of people said the holocaust is legal that does not make it moral.) Con ran with a more philosophical approach to the debate while Pro ran with a legal approach. The problem is, while morality and legality are intertwined, what is moral is not always what is legal. And what is legal is not always what is moral.

A key part of LD is the "value" this is possibly the most important part of the case. Something to weigh the case by (depends on the argument made).

Con's "value," so to speak, was killing the abuser diminishes the value of life. Pro provides nothing for the voter to weigh their case with. They value...nothing. Because they value nothing I can vote Con right now.
Posted by Spartan136 5 years ago
lol niceee
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Sarcasm is my primary spoken language
Posted by Spartan136 5 years ago
My opponent seems to like the use of sarcasm. Not to mention the fact that im "sh!ting him" lol . I realy dont see the need to use these things.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
XD thank you oldfirth. I was too lazy to bring that up myself.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Regarding the word "Heck"

Spartan, how long have you been here? have you visited the forums? Read Imabench's, "Poop has DNA?" Please read those. I think heck is acceptable.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Main ideas*

I hate my phone -.-
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
It comes down to what one reads in round and what one doesn't read in round. In an actual LD round, you only have a certain amount of time to read your case. So we tend to only read the important bits that underline the main undead and warrants of the evidence and article, and what isn't important is cut out. What's underlined and bolded is what would've been read in round. Everything small font would've been skipped.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Zaradi, why does your case look like that? I've asked this question many times to many people over the course of DDO and have received no response. Please tell me why you feel it necessary to underline so much and leave in words and phrases that add nothing to the flow of argumentation?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
....I'm not even gonna try to prove this wrong because it's just blatantly false...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: comments. Counter Frozen....what you personally believe is irrelevant.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made a more logical appeal to me. Also i just disagree with some of the philosophies stated by con. Pro had more credible sources