Jan/Feb LD Resolution
Resolved: It is morally permissible to victims to use deadly force to respond to repeated domestic violence.
First round Pro may present an argument.
LD styled debate.
All types of cases are acceptable.
By accepting the debate, my opponent agrees to these rules.
Since Society cannot always guarantee that Justice is dealt affirm the Resolution: It is Morally Permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
I will now offer Definitions for this round:
Repeated Action-Actions that happen many times or reoccur again and again
Domestic Violence: an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. 2008 NCPEA
Therefore, avoiding the argument of simple random acts of violence since the abuse is being done in a pattern and methodically, it is not at all random.
With this definition of Domestic Violence we can see it entails oppression. The reason for that oppression is because the abused are viewed as weak and masochistic. These statistics from the U.S Department of Justice show how estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. Women are usually the abused because they are seen as weak and masochistic creatures of society.
Therefore my value for this round is justice.
Just as D.A. Clarke, a feminist essayist and activist, writes in her 1991 essay Justice is a Woman with a Sword
In male fantasy, women are always powerless to defend themselves from hurt and humiliation. Worse, they enjoy them. Treatment that would drive the average self-respecting man to desperate violence makes these fantasy-women tremble, breathe heavily, and moan with desire: abuse and embarrassment are their secret needs. The "womanliness" invented by pornographers is a deep masochism, which renders women as powerless to defend self and others as the sweetness-and-light female patience and martyrdom of Christian romanticism. It's but a short step from the ladylike and therefore ineffectual face-slaps of Nice Girls to the "hot and steamy surrender" in the dominant male's brawny embrace.
When we as a society recognize we have this view of women then it is time to recognize the oppression that goes on in everyday life. Oppression cannot coexist with Justice because oppression usually entails taking ones natural rights to liberty/freedom and even of their physical sanctity or their right to life. The point of justice is to ensure those rights stay intact. Men usually commit domestic violence to be the "Alpha-Male" If anyone defies him then they will be beaten. This is immoral and wrong because there is no justification to simply beat someone just for dominance. When these beatings continue and Society fails to stop them Justice has been lost.
My Value Criterion is to reduce oppression.
1st We should look to the reduction of oppression because the resolved entails some type of oppression through "Repeated Domestic Violence" So whoever can better reduce that oppression should win the round.
2nd Justice is very difficult to gain so long as oppression exists because justice aims to protect innocent people's rights and the taking of violator's rights while oppression (especially in Domestic Violence cases) is the taking of innocent people's rights as well as the violator's rights to remain intact. Therefore reducing oppression is a pre-requisite to gain Justice
Contention I: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who have been beaten, raped, etc.
D.A. Clarke 2
There are several ways to prevent crimes from happening. One is education and reason, and our effort to bring up children to be good adults. Then comes elementary preparedness and awareness on the part of the innocent. Then there is active resistance and self-defense when a crime is attempted; lastly, there is the establishment of consequences for the perpetrator. Every time a man molests his daughter and still keeps his place in the family and community—every time a man sexually harasses a female employee and still keeps his job or his business reputation--every time a rapist or femicide gets a token sentence--there is a terrible lack of consequence for the commission of a crime.
D.A. Clarke 3
We disagree as a society about the level of "punishment" which should be enforced. We can't agree whether murderers should themselves be killed. Most of us would agree that hanging is too severe a penalty for stealing a loaf of bread, but is it too severe a penalty for hacking a woman to death? Some would say yes and some no. Others think we should abandon the concept of punishment altogether. While we argue about these things, women are steadily and consistently being insulted, molested, assaulted and murdered. And most of the men who are doing these things are suffering no consequences at all.
Sometimes Society either delivers very little Justice or at times no Justice at all, by Affirming the resolution we will better be able to achieve Justice by allowing those that have been abused the encouragement to fight back when they can no longer rely on Societies aid Therefore allowing them to themselves reduce oppression.
Contention II: Through Affirming there is a possibility to end Domestic Violence
D.A. Clarke 4
If the risk involved in attacking a woman were greater, there might be fewer attacks. If women defended themselves violently, the amount of damage they were willing to do to would-be assailants would be the measure of their seriousness about the limits beyond which they would not be pushed. If more women killed husbands and boyfriends who abused them perhaps there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives. Violent resistance to attack has its advantages all round.
D.A. Clarke 5
If women become more violent, will the world be a more violent place? Perhaps, but it's not a simple equation of addition. We will have to subtract any violence that women prevent. So we will have to subtract a large number of rapes and daily humiliations suffered by women who today cannot or will not defend themselves. We might have to subtract six or seven murders that would have been committed by a latter-day Zodiac Killer, except that his first intended victim killed him instead.
In the context of the resolution if women attacked their abusers then there would be less abuse. In two ways: 1 Women won't be continuously seen as weak and masochistic creatures anymore therefore Dominant Brawny men will be less likely to abuse which reduces the amount of potential oppression. 2The abuser that the woman would either injure severely or kill will not be allowed to move on and just start abusing more and more women thus reducing even more potential oppression.
Aff meets Self Defense
As Jane Campbell Explains
"The law of self-defense arises from longstanding principles governing behavior between those involved in aggression, but developed apart from the relationship between spouses. The law needs to recognize that batterers are different than others who make threats. They operate much like the way terrorists do by instilling fear that an attack is forthcoming, and thus, creating constant anxiety and fear in their victims. The sustained trauma created by an abusive relationship differs from other situations in which self-defense is used."
As Elizabeth Ayyilidz Explains
"Several aspects of the traditional self-defense doctrine are a difficult fit for women. As many commentators have argued, the law of self-defense is a male construct, defined by how men respond to violence. Rather than recognize and respect the fact that domestic violence is different, and often less avoidable, than other types of violence, the law often simply metes out unjust and overly harsh results for those whose self-defense does not fit precisely within the traditional, male-based canon."
Thus Affirmation is justified by the Self-Defense Doctrine
I now await my opponent :)
First: Before any other evaluation of the resolution we must evaluate the effects on human ontology that the resolution has. Michael Campbell writes:
The relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is. Any mode of thought always already carries an ontology sequested within it. What this ontological turn does to other- regional – modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review demand[s] a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy.
This means that ontology is going to come first because be for we make assumptions that we are humans and can act in moral ways we must first understand what it means to be human
I contend that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering via killing those who cause suffering is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being. Eugene Long explains the way humans exist:
We exist in the present involved in the heritage of what has been. However, we also exist in the future that is coming towards us. Our being is such that in the present we recollect the past and anticipate the future. Our transcending or becoming, however, comes up against many boundaries along the way which set limits to our transcending or becoming. One of the most significant boundaries is found in suffering. Suffering stands over against our transcending, our acting. the process of becoming in which we act to realize some state of affairs that we desire and through which we find meaning in existence, the experience of suffering appears to be the opposite of activity. It is a boundary, a tragic element in human experience which sets limits to our process of becoming and raises the question of the meaning of human existence. Suffering may bring us up against our finiteness and may clear our being in the world of the gods of self-deification. Suffering may be accommodated into our human becoming. For example, that although we would not have sought suffering we are better persons for having undergone the experience of suffering
Thus, the way in which humans exist is through the experience of suffering in order to know the distinction between gods and humans. This allows for human becoming and transcendence to happen. Long 2 explains why suffering is needed:
Suffering is necessary to a greater good or that it will be transformed or overcome in the future by a greater good. Rather, persons are called not only to condemn such evil and suffer with those who suffer, but also to assume responsibility for working for new possibilities for good. Human suffering on this account is at one and the same time an experience of emptiness or nullity and the giving or loving of Being, the on-going creative activity or providence of divine reality. Perhaps one might say that the giving, the calling of beings to their fullest being in relation to others is the essence of divine reality, that divine reality is in this giving. In this giving of Being in reaction to the suffering of beings in the world.
suffering allows prospering over future problems; the on-going creative activity of the divine reality, which allows people to come to their fullest being This proves that suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings. The suffering of others calls us to question who we are what actions we take as human meaning that it is necessary to understand the true function of being a human.
Additionally, confronting notions of death and suffering is how individuals conceptualize good and bad and this confrontation is the only reason why life has value Strauss explains:
Dasein is the term to speak of individual human consciousness and is Unique among entities in that it puts Being itself- Death, in turn, puts the whole of Dasein's own being at stake. In part, this is because death is "nonrelational," which is to say that no one else can represent me or stand in for me at my inevitable demise. Dying is something that I must do for myself. I am therefore alone in the face of my death, and that mortal isolation informs me of my separation from others, makes me aware of my finitude in relation to them. The for me less masses of humanity in general, the indeterminate and unattributed they of "They say..."goes on and on, but I do not. Death lays claim to it as an individual. The non-relational character of death, as understood in anticipation, individualizes Dasein down to itself.” Death, by separating me off as finite, makes. Me capable of being a whole to myself, and I actually do become whole to myself through my attitude toward that death. it is that a privative limit can structure experience into subjectivity and existence into a life. One's relation to death is either authentic or inauthentic. In the latter case a person tries to forget that he is finite and must die by imagining that he is the same as the indeterminate They. Authentic anticipation turns out to be the possibility of understanding one's own most and utter most potentiality-for- Being-that is to say, the possibility of authentic existence. The ontological constitution of such existence must be made visible by setting forth the concrete structure of anticipation of death. The structure of our relation to death makes our authentic individual existence apparent to us as a whole, and it is, consequently, through anticipating death that we authentically exist as whole individuals. Second, this "owning" creates its owner, since it puts the totality of finite Dasein at issue. I am an owner in so far as death "lays claim" in so far as I am owned, in turn, by my death: it is only mine, but I only am.
Thus it is necessary to confront death in order to find meaning in life
Next, Strauss would deny the right of the victim to kill the abuser because we are to confront death not actually die. This is true because when we die we don’t have the ability to confront and understand our most potential-of-being because we would no longer be. This means that if the AC defends the abuser killing the victim every time then they link into the harms.
Also, I do not advocate that we advance suffering, but let the suffering in the world flow naturally and avoid trying to minimize it so any arguments about me justifying another holocaust or promoting extinction won’t link.
Further, suffering is not something with a brightline i.e we have never undergone enough suffering, it is always static because if it weren’t then we would slowly be able to lose the ability to suffer which doesn’t make sense because even people who have suffered through insane torture or crazy diseases will always have the ability to suffer more
And, they are going to stand up and say they know what it is like to suffer just by watching other people suffering however this is false for two reasons
A) The warrants in Long assume that it is the experience of suffering that calls into question what it means to be and to find meaning in existence and
B) The warrants in Strauss are clear on the fact that it is the confrontation of death that only I can do for myself and it helps me realize my finitude in relation with others which would function just by watching someone confront death because that would only increase the false idea that we are in some relation to others.
Finally, this negates for 2 reasons
A) I meet the inherent resolutional burden that the neg has to prove a prohibition because I show why it’s bad to kill the abuser and
B) This case turns the AC because insofar as they are reducing suffering and functionally ruining value to life. And value to life is important because without it morality becomes irrelevant.
Rebuttals shall come in my next round.
Campbell talks about the relevance of Ontology in everyday life, and how ontology is also always encrypted in all modes of though. My opponent then impacts this argument by saying that we must look to Ontology before all other things because before we assume we are humans and can act in moral ways we must first understand what it means to be human.
This is fine but in order for ontology to be effective it must be followed by taking some type of action rather than repeating the contemplation process and allow abuse to continue. This contemplation process over ontology has already been done since the 1970's. If you negate off of this ontology argument you will only be further re-entrenching ourselves in taking no type of action towards ending these issues.
The tagline of his first contention is that if we try to affirm off of minimizing suffering by killing those who cause it then we wouldn't be able to understand Human Fatality of the ontological mode of being.
He then cards Eugene Long who talks about embracing suffering in order to understand and appreciate human existence, also to place a differentiation between being a god and being human.
You can turn Long 1. Suffering is never ending, suffering happens in all actions we take. Even when we affirm we realize some type of suffering. The decision to kill is not an easy one to come to, the contemplation process shows that the agent committing the murder knows fully what they are doing. At the point where I know I MUST kill or be killed then I suffer because the idea of death itself is always one that is suffering.
Now Long 2 talks about how we must embrace suffering in order to overcome future problems of life, but there must be a bright line of some kind to the suffering that must be endured in order to understand we are humans and we can act in moral ways. If there is no bright line then:
1st We would only be encouraging/condoning domestic abuse which is the type of suffering one doesn't choose to deal with. Rather than having such an arbitrary suffering occur, it would be better to have the type of suffering that resulted from ones actions in order to truly learn from what we've done, discover what it means to be human, and taking steps towards bettering ones own self. You get none of these benefits from Domestic Abuse.
2nd It would be insulting to domestic abuse victims to say they haven't gone through enough suffering or that they must endure this suffering forever in order to understand what it means to be human.
He then tries to say we need to confront death in order to value life.
The confrontation of death has already been done since repeated domestic abuse is a threat to life. If we simply allow this notion of "We need to confront death in order to appreciate life" then we will only stay in a cycle of doing nothing. We need to couple these ontological ideals with action and take some steps towards further valuing life.
Also turn the argument the idea of "Deadly Force" Means there will be a confrontation of death, but its not definite. According to Strauss this is justified because it confronts death to an extreme.
Then he tries to say he doesn't advocate further suffering but rather let suffering flow. The affirmative side does this better. Domestic Abuse victims will still kill regardless if we affirm or negate meaning domestic abuse victims naturally kill their abusers now, and will continue to naturally kill their abusers after this round. The language of Moral Permissibility in this context is society's tolerance for an action. When we negate we will say the action of causing natural suffering is immoral, and the suffering you must endure must be suffering selected for you by arbitrariness. This is not at all allowing suffering to flow naturally. The Affirmative side of this round allows suffering to flow naturally the best and be considered morally acceptable/permissible.
Then he tries to say that we affirm because I can tell what its like to suffer by seeing others suffer.
A) Long assumes the suffering is being experienced. This positionality argument can be turned. The idea of positionality deciding morality affirms because no one can ever tell the abuse that one has gone through except for the victim, since this is true we must leave the idea of using deadly force as a deliberate response up the abuse victim. If they use this course of action then it must be considered morally permissible in order to allow moral options and uphold the values of morality.
B) The Aff promotes a great ideal of confronting death. The Abused has confronted death for a large chunk of their life, they then confront death when they attack their abuser, because abusers are still dangerous. The confrontation of death is greater in the Aff than in the Neg.
Then he gives his voters.
A) There is no prohibition on the action anymore. All of these arguments actually affirm.
B) The AC advocates a natural flow of suffering more than the NC, also the AC doesn't destroy any value to life. Rather the AC promotes some type of discourse being taken along with the notion that life is valuable.
I apologize for my short responses but I'm super busy between all of my activities -.-
I await my opponents responses. :)
I'll defend my case, then rebuke his.
Ontology must be followed by taking some type of action...
1. There's absolutely no warrant for why this is true. He's just asserting it out there hoping to get some kind of vote off of this.
2. Taking no action is exactly what the neg is proposing here. By taking no action, we allow the natural suffering to flow naturally. So the whole re-entrenching argument just doesn't make any sense..
Turn: Suffering happens in all actions we take
1. This just isn't true. Unless my opponent wants to defend that buying flowers for your girlfriend causes suffering or that having a birthday causes suffering, or other hypothetical situations such as that, then this turn just isn't true.
2. Even if it is true, I'm going to be outweighing on the amount of suffering because a) he takes actions to change the flow of suffering which prevents us from achieving trandencentalization and b) by killing the abuser, the suffering of the women is decreased, which prevents her from finding the value in life.
So at this point, Long can be extended clearly.
There must be a bright line
Refer to my argument in my case about why suffering doesn't have a brightline because it would then assume that people, after some point, could no longer be able to suffer which just isn't true. It went conceded in the last speech, so this sufficiently answers back his argument here.
We will only stay in a cycle of doing nothing
1. This, again, is exactly what the neg is advocating.
2. Again, he gives no warrant as to why actions make us value life. And so far as I'm winning on Long, actions do not make us realize what life is, but suffering.
Confrontation of death is not definite
This argument makes no logical sense in the slightest. All he's doing is throwing out random, blippy arguments that aren't legitimate arguments hoping to get some sympathy from the voters. So don't buy the turn.
The aff makes suffering flow better
1. No warrant as to why domestic abuse victims will kill their abusers 100% of the time. This is a totally false assertion on the part of my opponents.
2. This isn't even responsive to the argument I'm making. This has nothing to do with what society views as permissible, but on how suffering ought to flow.
3. This just isn't true. By allowing women to kill their abusers, the abusees' suffering is ended or, at the very least, decreased, which changes the natural flow of suffering. Only doing nothing, which is what the neg advocates, will allow suffering to flow naturally, so he doesn't link here.
no one can ever tell the abuse that one has gone through except for the victim
I'm not advocating for a way to measure suffering (if so that would entail there was some form of brightline, which would contradict my case). The fact that they are experiencing suffering is enough to bite straight into the neg.
The confrontation of death is greater in the Aff than in the Neg.
This isn't true. By allowing them to kill their abusers, they end the confrontation with death. By doing nothing, as the neg advocates, the confrontation with death continues. This argument is easily refuted.
So since I'm winning on literally ALL the arguments on my case, I'm still meeting my burden. This can be extended.
By allowing the victim to end, or at least decrease, the suffering they are experiencing by killing the abuser, they fundamentally ruin the value of life. This still turns the AC since the AC advocates that the oppression caused by domestic abuse is bad. My case talks specifically about how this oppression and suffering defines life and thus, since he's trying to end this oppression, he ruins the value of life.
Now to go to the AC:
Off D.A. Clarke 1:
1. This specifically references male FANTASY. But I would like to point out that fantasy is very different from reality. In reality, there are plenty of men out there that would like to be dominated sexually by a woman.
2. There's a difference between the fictional scenarios proposed by porn companies and the real world. This is a missing internal link in my opponents case, which makes the card irrelevant to discussion.
Off D.A. Clarke 2:
1. This doesn't link into his first contention at all. All this card does is list ways to prevent crimes from happening, but this doesn't entail that society fails to deliver on these methods.
2. There's no warrant for why any of this is actually failing to be done. Anyone who pays attention to the news will see stories of people who shot someone in self defense or someone who lost their job for molesting someone under them (i.e. priests losing their jobs for molesting little boys during Sunday School in Boston?). And we teach people that crime is bad by jailing those who commit crimes. So there's no reason anything this card suggests is true.
3. There's absolutely no impact to this card. Even if this card was 100% true, he gives you no analysis as to why this actually matters in the round. Don't let him stand up in his next round and give you some B.S. reason.
Off D.A. Clarke 3:
We agree on punishment via the judicial branch of the government. Their job in court is to decide on court cases and decide on sentancing of those found guilty. So we have a way as a society to decide on who deserves what punishment.
Off D.A. Clarke 4:
1. No warrant. All it does is assert claims without actually backing it up with any substantial reasons why this is true.
2. TURN: Ending domestic violence ruins the value of life. Cross apply the negative case as a warrant for this argument.
Off D.A. Clarke 5:
1. This is exactly why the AFF doesn't cause suffering to flow more naturally. So you can extend this as an answer to the arguments he placed against the negative case. By using deadly force, we are subtracting suffering.
2. No link as to why this ends domestic abuse. I might prevent one or two more murders, but that doesn't mean domestic violence is stopped as a whole.
Group the underview, since it's essentially a third contention for self defense:
1. Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it's impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely.
2. TURN: If self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused, thus failing to meet his criterion.
3. If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not that actually felt threatened - analysis that is in no way falsifiable.
4. Self-defense negates because deadly force fails to fall into the category of self-defense. Cathryn Rosen explains:
The amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against nondeadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor will be greater than the harm avoided. Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only be justified when it inovlves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with nondeadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving less societal harm are avaiable. In many cases it may have been possible to avoid the unlawful conduct altogether.
Since using deadly force to respond to domestic violence fails to meet these criteria, either a) don't buy self-defense and ingore the underview or b) vote con off of self-defense.
 Rosen, Cathryn Jo. The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill. The American University Law Review. 1986.
Guitar_Guru forfeited this round.
Round forfeit. Consider all responses extended, which takes out his responses and his case.
I hope the voters and my opponent will excuse my forfeiture.
I'll just address the arguments he presents in the order he presents them.
"Ontology must be followed by some type of action"
1. He tries to say there is no warrant for this. What I mean by this argument is that right now we do need to re-think our positions on what happens when it comes to Domestic Abuse. We must recognize that 1st People are justified in taking the action since it is necessary to prevent any greater harm to their life.
2nd People will already take this action regardless if we affirm or negate. The language of Moral Permissibility is what actions society tolerates and what actions they don't tolerate.
Now he argues against my turn.
1st Extend the argument I make about how the deliberation process and coming to the decision of killing one suffers, even with the thought of having to kill one suffers. Also, with the two examples he gives, people still suffer. When buying flowers for your girlfriend you waste money therefore suffering. When you have a birthday you suffer because you get closer to death, or you don't get what you want. The turn still stands
2nd He argues that he outweighs on the magnitude of suffering.
a) I take no action in changing the flow of suffering, rather, I take action in saying it is justified for the flow of suffering to be altered, but it still doesn't change any flow of suffering, people will still naturally suffer with the decision of having to kill. The natural flow of suffering is justified in the Aff world, while in the Neg world the natural flow of suffering is viewed as prohibited.
b) The suffering of the woman is not decreased by killing the abuser, rather, the suffering stays in place. The trauma suffered by the woman stays in place, and even more trauma from coming to the decision of killing also comes to play. People who are abused will still commit this action when they see it necessary, but in the Aff world it is justified to have this flow of suffering versus the Neg world prohibits it.
Long can be extended, but its a reason to Affirm not Negate.
The idea of a bright line is that people can suffer enough to actual do some kind of transcending. He says suffering is necessary for one to transcend but there must be a certain amount of suffering in order to be able to transcend and be able to become better people in life. Once again suffering is everywhere and is natural, thus the bright line is when one is able to make the decision of how to suffer. This creates a more natural flow of suffering, because ones actions decide it, not arbitrariness.
Extend both levels of the argument I make.
I apologize for the misunderstanding I create with the argument of the confrontation of death. I meant to say that deadly force doesn't necessarily mean one will die, but that one will come close to dying or possibly die. Thus the confrontation of death is greater in the Aff world. You can now buy the turn.
"The Aff makes suffering flow better"
1st This is exactly what I mean by there must be a bright line to arbitrary suffering, then the next level is suffering from ones decisions where people will be able to make the most transcending.
2nd This turns the argument he's making.
3rd The action the Aff takes is a critical discourse by saying the action is Morally Permitted, since abuse victims will attack their abusers when they see it necessary anyway.
The NC can go extended but all of the arguments coming out of the NC are reasons to Affirm.
He fails to understand how Clark 1 functions, it is only to stress reasons as to why we live in a patriarchal society.
Regardless if it says fantasy or not it still imprints an image in society's mind. We still live in a patriarchal society, my opponent can't challenge this.
Once again he fails to understand how this card functions. This card functions with the next one. It shows how society often fails to punish or doesn't punish enough.
The only argument he makes are "He provides no empiric evidence." essentially. He fails to provide evidence they don't fail. Its much easier to believe they do fail, than they don't. They still fail sometimes. Thus extend Clark 2 which shows how systematically society provides a lack of consequences for a crime.
The response he makes to Clark 3 is not responsive to the important point in Clark 3 so extend it. The important point is that whenever there is a lack of consequence for a crime, the action is looked upon as justified. Thus the Neg advocates an arbitrary form of suffering which is bad because he condones one to change the natural flow of suffering by abusing their partners without any kind of consequence in return.
This asserts warrants as well. It talks about a deterrence factor which will be tolerated in the Aff world/
The turn doesn't apply because there is still a value of life, even with domestic abuse ending there is still a confrontation of death in this situation and in other situations in life naturally.
We subtract arbitrary suffering and promote suffering made by decision which is better. Extend it vote Aff even more.
Abusers will be stopped from continuing to abuse even more and more people, it will deter their idea of patriarchy even more.
1. Every situation isn't different for domestic abuse, he isn't being responsive to the actual arguments. Extend Campbell and Ayyildiz who talk about the reasons why in Domestic abuse situations one should be allowed Self-defense.
2. The abuser forfeits their rights at the point where he infringed on another persons rights.
3. The murderer would have to be under constant abuse, we aren't justifying psychotic maniacs going around killing 30 or 40 people.
4. Once again extend Campbell and Ayyildiz who clearly show how the Aff does in fact meet the criteria of Self-Defense.
Thus vote Aff of of the turns on the NC and the Underview.
My opponent sadly misrepresents and misunderstand how my arguments function and how they link, and thus he's going to be losing the round today.
He says that we must take action to prevent harm to life. He's not sufficiently responding to Campbell or my case. My case specifically talks about how suffering causes us to realize who we are in our finitetude and to find meaning in life. Any action to reduce this suffering would lead to the ruining of the value of life, thus causing greater harm to life.
His second argument is that people will take action regardless of the outcome of the debate. This is exactly what my case advocates to change. My case advocates for a stance of no actions being taken, thus preserving the value of life by not changing the natural flow of suffering in the world. This argument is non-responsive to my case.
On my opponent's turn:
Regardless of what my opponent is saying, my case clearly says that altering the NATURAL FLOW of suffering results in a ruining of the value of life. By killing the abuser, we ALTER the flow of suffering. It can't be more simple than that. The turn doesn't apply. But to respond to my opponent's two points.
1. The examples I gave were the NATURAL suffering of the world. These things ought not change. In so far as he is reducing suffering by ending the process of abuse, he is invalidating his claim that he links into the natural flow of suffering because HE IS ALTERING IT. I repeat, it can't get more simple than this.
2a. Nowhere in my case do I say that the natural flow of suffering is prohibited. I'm actually advocating that we KEEP the natural flow of suffering, while killing the abuser, whatever added suffering that may momentarily cause, would be temporary because once the abuser is dead, the amount of suffering is DECREASED, thus ruining the value of life. Thus, HE CANNOT LINK INTO suffering. The turn doesn't apply.
2b. All my opponent does is restate the above point. So refer to the above refutations.
So Long is cleanly extended to be a reason to vote con.
On suffering must have a brightline:
Refer to the argument I give in my case that explains exactly WHY suffering DOESN'T have a brightline. To put a brightline on suffering means that once we reach that brightline, it is impossible for us to suffer more which isn't true in the slightest. There will always be room for more suffering. It is impossible for us to not be able to suffer. Thus, it would be an arbitrary brightline that is just not true.
This argument is clearly refuted.
On deadly force not being deadly:
The pro changed up their argument in the middle of the debate. This is highly abusive for me because then he can just change his argument to something that my arguments don't respond to any time he wants, thus making the debate highly unfair. Hold him to his original argument that deadly force causes death. Do not let him be abusive. Since deadly force will cause death, the turn still doesn't apply.
On aff makes suffering flow better:
I guess I have to reiterate again. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PRO TO LINK INTO SUFFERING SO LONG AS THEY ARE AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION. By ending domestic violence, we reduce the suffering of the world, thus ruining life. He never responds to this point, but instead concedes it. This is going to be a game-over mistake for my opponent. Now to the specific points:
1. Refer to my argument that suffering can't have a brightline. Putting a brightline on suffering implies that at some point, we can no longer suffer, which just isn't true.
2. No warrant as for why. All he literally says is "it turns". So all I have to say is no, it doesn't. No, it doesn't.
3. Refer to the debate on Ontology.
Thus, the NC is cleanly extended as a reason to negate. He can't link into the flow of suffering, thus making his turns not true. Thus, the NC functions as a clean turn to my opponent's case since they are ruining the value of life, something that my opponent advocates is something important. In so far as he's doing this, it's an easy vote for the con.
On Clarke 1:
Regardless of whatever hidden warrants he wants to fabricate, the 'patriarchal society' only exists in male FANTASY as per his card. He never responds to the arguments that fantasy is different from reality. The arguments against his card were never responded to. You can extend them both to cleanly take out this card.
On Clarke 2:
My opponent's only real response is I don't know how the card functions. But his explanation of how the card functions is EXACTLY WHAT I RESPONDED TO. My only argument against this card wasn't a no warrant card (I did make this, and he still provides no warrant for it). He never responds to the no link argument OR the no impact argument. All three can be cleanly extended to take out this card.
On Clarke 3:
This hidden point that my opponent supposes is made in this card actually isn't there. Feel free to read the card yourself. There is absolutely NO WARRANT as for why what he says is even IN the card, much less why it's true. My argument still stands and takes out this card easily.
On Clarke 4:
I do realize that it talks about deterrence. I never refuted that it did. My argument was that it gives no warrant as to why this deterrence is even TRUE. Thus, it still lacks a warrant.
The turn still applies because a) I'm winning off of the NC and sufficiently proving that by affirming, we reduce suffering and ruin the value of life and b) the turn still applies because when the abuse ends, there is no longer a confrontation of death, thus he still ruins the value of life. The turn stands. This card is easily taken out.
On Clarke 5:
1. He still provides no warrant as for why taking action ends domestic abuse. I may stop one or two domestic violence cases, but that doesn't end domestic violence as a whole. His card isn't saying what he wants it to.
2. He concedes here that the aff reduces suffering. He gives no warrant as for why one form of suffering is better than another, while I advocate that suffering as a whole ought not be reduced. So far as he's reducing suffering in any way, he cannot link into suffering. Thus, you can still extend this argument to take out his responses on the con case. This card is easily taken out.
On the underview:
1. If every situation of domestic abuse ISN'T different, then my opponent must defend that calling my girlfriend a skank and a man brutally beating his wife to death with a baseball bat are EXACTLY THE SAME. Since they are not, this argument against self-defense still stands.
2. His cards don't say what he's trying to make them say. Read the cards yourself. There's no warrant as for why deadly force is self-defense. Using non-deadly force is clearly self-defense, but my opponent is not proving how DEADLY FORCE meets self-defense, which is what the resolution implies. Thus, extend out Rosin as an answer to self-defense and how the aff fails to meet it. Thus, the underview is cleanly taken out.
On the abuser forfeits their rights specifically:
1. He gives no warrant as for why this is true, only asserts it to be so.
2. If someone loses their rights when infringing upon someone elses, then it would be justified for the abuser to turn around and kill the victim when the victim tried to kill the abuser, thus infringing on their rights.
3. All people inherently have human rights. Jack Donnelly explains:
Human rights are, literally, the rights that one has simply because one is a human being. Human rights are equal rights: one either is or is not a human being, and therefore has the same human rights as everyone else. They are also inalienable rights: one cannot stop being human, no matter how badly one behaves. And they are universal rights, in the sense that today we consider all "human beings" holders of human rights.Thus, everyone will always retain their human rights. His argument that the abuser loses their rights just isn't true.
So this round breaks down simply. My opponent isn't doing enough work to prove his case. He doesn't link into suffering. So vote con.
Source is in comments.
Guitar_Guru forfeited this round.