January/February LD Debate Resolved
Debate Rounds (5)
Seeing that I need more practice with my cases I would be really appreciative of all forms of criticism good or bad.
I will be Aff for this topic.
This round will be in LD debate format
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Aff case, Neg case/rebuttal
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Rebuttals
Round 5- Closing statements
Your case should consist of Framework whether it be Value/Value Criterion or Burden. Contentions/Claims. Warrants/Cards. Impacts etc.
I look forward to a great debate round whoever accepts ^.^
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, the term Repeated Domestic Violence is defined as: an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control that happen many times or reoccur again and again, thus 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.
It is necessary to understand how we are going to weigh the arguments in this round. The resolution asks is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. The definition of Domestic Violence as I stated before is an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. The ending of that definition 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.
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.
D.A. Clarke is talking about how women are seen as weak and masochistic creatures simply living in a dominant and brawny man's world. My opponent may say this is stereotypical, but it is something that is proved every day. So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women are viewed as by society. 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.
Therefore my value for this round is justice.
My Value Criterion is to reduce oppression. 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.
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 or reparation altogether, with their authoritarian implications, and concentrate on re-educating and reclaiming our errant brothers, turning them into better people. 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. The less the consequence of their offence, the more it seems to them that there is really nothing wrong with what they have done.
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 would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as 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
It's interesting to envision a slightly different world. The man limps into the emergency room with one ear half-torn off and multiple bruises. As he gasps out his story, the doctor shakes his head: "You mean you grabbed at her breasts and tried to pull her into your car? Well I mean, dummy, what did you expect?" And he gets no sympathy, not a shred
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.
D.A Clarke proves how if people defend themselves in random acts of violence then there would be less violence. 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.
I now await my opponent :)
I negate the resolution.
My opponent's definition of DV includes escalating violence; however, the resolution does not describe this escalation. Since the action is only "repeated"— meaning it has happened more than once— this escalation is not necessarily present; "repeated DV" may refer to an abuser hitting a victim a couple of times. This is too low of a standard to allow for killing.
According to Hodge, "All men thus judge the sins of others. The consciences of all men are grateful when the just penalty of the law is executed upon the offender, and outraged when he escapes."
Hobbes tells us that justice is the basis of morality; the object of a moral action is to create justice. My value is justice, defined as giving each his due.
If I can prove that the use of deadly force as a response to repeated DV is unjust, you negate.
My criterion will be retributive justice. Retributive justice is a theory that says that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behavior. This does not mean the punishment has to be equal to the crime. A retributive system simply must punish severe crime more harshly than minor crime.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy explains,
Fairness in sentencing seemed most likely to be achievable if a criminal sentence was of a determinate rather than indeterminate duration. But even determinate sentencing would not be fair unless the sentences so authorized were the punishments that convicted offenders deserved. Thus was born the doctrine of "just deserts" in sentencing, which effectively combined the two ideas. By this route the goal of retribution came to dominate.
Contention 1: The act of killing someone in response to DV is not a just response.
Based on retributive justice, a moral response to a crime must be proportional. If I strike you, you can strike me back, but cannot shoot me.
Since an abuser's acts have been repeated in the past and the victim survived, in most cases the abuse is not severe enough to kill. The abusers' actions infringe on victims' quality of life, but not to their life itself; thus it is not morally permissible to kill them in response.
In order to achieve justice, each must be given his due; however, in the aff world, each is given more than his due by suffering unjust murder. To uphold justice, retribution must be upheld.
Contention 2: The victim can pursue court orders.
Proportionality requires that response to an action be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behavior. If a response offers a way to stop the person's actions without direct retaliation, this solution is also morally permissible. Calling the police is an alternative solution for victims to take advantage of.
According to a family violence law report, 17.7 percent of police family violence reports submitted in 2004-05 resulted in criminal charges a 73.2 percent increase on the previous year. We can see from this statistic that many victims are successful in contacting the police, and that their abusers then receive punishments as deemed appropriate by our society's legal system.
Although it is difficult to escape abuse through the law, it is possible. Since this alternative exists, we can solve for abuse while upholding retributive justice.
Saying it is moral to kill in response to abuse skews proportionality in the aff world. Instead of unjustly murdering their abuser, a victim should use the legal system to end the situation and give their abuser due punishment.
Now to my opponent's case.
As an overview, my opponent simply does not affirm; his case doesn't even mention moral permissibility. He provides us with no mechanism for passing judgment on an action's permissibility, thus you cannot affirm.
On his framework: even if you prefer his definition of escalating DV, we still have a low standard for deadly force in the status quo, because this means there is a beginning point in every abusive relationship when abuse is minimal, has not escalated, and deadly force is unnecessary.
Look next to his Clarke 2 card and the way he stereotypes women. Clarke talks about the portrayal of women in pornography as weak; however, pornographers do not represent society. Defining victim with this limited perception is bad for 2 reasons:
First, it is inaccurate. This masochistic, powerless view of them has no real truth. Stereotyping women in this way only creates social barriers for women.
Secondly, my opponent focuses on a subgroup and ignores male victims. According to an Oregon law survey, approximately 40 percent of DV victims are men. Since he ignores these victims, his case does not affirm.
He doesn't define justice, but says "When these beatings continue and Society fails to stop them Justice has been lost." However, abuse is not the only thing threatening justice. In this round we define justice as "giving each his due." Allowing victims to take their abusers' lives is giving them more punishment than they are due. By doing this we fight injustice with injustice, and two wrongs don't make a right.
He provides no link from his criterion of reducing oppression to the value of justice. He also gives no definition of what constitutes this oppression. Killing an abuser oppresses their right to life. Also, oppression is not the only thing threatening justice. Look to my criterion since it is applicable to any response situation.
Under his 1st contention, he says society doesn't deliver justice; however, he doesn't prove this. Instead he proves with Clarke 2 is that letting criminals go encourages them. There are 2 reasons to reject this.
1- this can be turned; if we allow victims to kill their abusers, imagine the message this will send to society! If victims are allowed to kill at the 2nd instance of abuse, where is the line drawn? What stops a child from killing his bully because he felt threatened? Affirming condones homicidal vengeance.
2- I can solve for this in my case. The legal system is an alternative solution to deadly force. We don't let abusers "keep his place in the family and community." We punish abusers, but instead of killing unjustly, we give them due punishment agreed on in court and accepted by society.
Even if you buy his tagline that society fails, this doesn't lead to moral permissibility. This contention deals only with legal matters and does not address morality.
Under Clarke 3, he inflates resolutional abuse. "Hacking a woman to death" is not topical, since in the resolution victims are alive and able to act. If the abuse was repeated before and the woman survived, future abuse is unlikely to kill. Also, the resolution covers minimal cases, and killing in return for a couple of slaps is obviously too severe. This response skews proportionality and justice, and is not morally permissible.
Now to his 2nd contention that affirming reduces oppression.
First of all, I've already pointed out that my opponent never addresses morality. Even if his second contention is true, we still have to ask —"But is the act morally permissible?" The fact that affirming reduces oppression is not enough since (1) oppression is not the only threat to justice and (2) the case lacks any mechanism to prove the response morally permissible.
Even if you don't buy that, the benefits of affirming do not outweigh. Affirming increases oppression by allowing victims to infringe on their abusers' right to life and condoning homicide.
In Clarke 4, my opponent shows the benefits of violent resistance. He ignores that fact that violent resistance doesn't equal killing; the only violent force necessary is enough to incapacitate the abuse.
On Clarke 5: Clarke tries to balance an equation of violence by saying the victim prevents future killings, but she ignores the effects of affirming on society; telling society that killing is ok in any circumstance will escalate violence.
Frame Work Debate
Lets look to my opponents value structure. She says if she can prove that Deadly force as a response to repeated DV is unjust then we negate. So I obviously will attempt to disprove this by meeting her criterion, but we should still look to my criterion for this round for 2 reasons. 1st her response to my criterion is inadequate. I did this whole resolutional analysis in the beginning of my speech which provided the link. Let me re-iterate it. The resolved seeks justice because of the usage of the words *Response* and *Repeated*. *Response* is the actual deliverance of justice, while *Repeated* shows how these beatings continue. Therefore the value is Justice. The definition of Domestic Violence is an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. The ending of that definition entails oppression. Therefore whoever can reduce that oppression gains the justice the resolved seeks and wins the round. I link my value and criterion to the actual resolved while she doesn't. Also her attack on my Frame Work isn't sufficient enough to take it out since we aren't talking about that situation the resolved says *Repeated* that is what we debate, not the *Starting Point*. Another issue with her value criterion is that she defines *Retributive Justice* as only having to punish a more severe crime more than a *Less Severe* crime. Then she goes on to give a *Proportionality* argument in her first contention. This is a major contradiction. Therefore consider her criterion not as this definition of *Retributive Justice* but rather *Proportionality*. Also extend my value criterion.
She tries to say that I have no means of justifying the moral permissibility of the resolved, but I have through my value and value criterion. The reason being is because the act is morally justified when the act gains justice. She may argue against this but *Justice* and *Morality* pretty much go hand in hand. My Frame Work *is* the weighing system. Even if you don't buy that I can meet her *Proportionality* Criterion.
Direct Link to both Value Criterions
Cross Apply to her first contention
She tries to say that there is no escalation of violence in Domestic Violence but there is. My definition clearly shows it, she provides no counter definition from an actual source so use my definition. Domestic Violence can also be considered *Deadly* If I'm dating someone and I beat them today that's not *Repeated* Domestic Violence. If I beat them within an inch of their life the next day *That* is repeated Domestic Violence. So Domestic Violence *Is* deadly.
Also as Nancy Wright, a law professor at Santa Clara University, writes in her article "Voice for the Voiceless"
By 2004, there were almost 1,500 deaths annually from child abuse, an average of more than four children each day, unfortunately, over three women every day are murdered by their husbands.
This shows how *Deadly* Domestic Violence is. Therefore a response of *Deadly Force* is proportional because the definition of *Deadly Force* is substantially likely to result in death U.S Armed Forces. This links directly back to the Value Criterion of *Proportionality* As well as *Reducing Oppression* because when we affirm we will be preventing these *Deaths* because we will allow victims to fight back and not get killed.
She says pornographers don't represent society, but pornographers still create the image that society tends to view women as. Then she says this is inaccurate, it has no truth, and I'm only creating social barriers. It is accurate I provided the statistic from the U.S Department of Justice saying 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. The reason for that abuse is because the *Abuser* believe he is strong and his victim is weak. This is clear proof and accuracy of women being viewed as *Weak*. I also recognize the social barrier being there, and its oppressive. That's why I seek to abolish that view with my case. Her second response is that I'm only focusing on a sub-group of victims and I exclude men. I have two responses. 1st the statistic she gives only strengthens my case. Women are mainly the abused, in that study then the other 60% of DV Victims in Oregon are women. 2nd I made this analysis that at the point where I prove it morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for *Victims* in my Framework. Let me re-iterate that point.
Also Extend that point it says:
D.A. Clarke is talking about how women are seen as weak and masochistic creatures simply living in a dominant and brawny man's world. My opponent may say this is stereotypical, but it is something that is proved every day. So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women are viewed as by society.
Therefore I am not ignoring men because men can still be viewed as weak and masochistic.
On that note extend Clark 1. It may not be a sole reason to vote but it strengthens my Value Criterion of Reduce Oppression because these views, as my opponent stated, "Create Social Barriers" These Social Barriers are oppressive. Therefore when I abolish this view of women then I reduce oppression therefore win the round.
Her only response to Clark 4 was *Violent Resistance* doesn't equal *Killing* She assumes *Deadly Force* Always results in death when it doesn't. Its simply *Violent Resistance* So this card is dropped and also able to be extended. Therefore extend Clark 4 which states:
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.
This impacts directly back to the standard of reducing oppression because it shows how when we affirm women (or any other domestic violence victims) Will no longer be viewed as weak and masochistic creatures of society therefore reducing those social barriers and reducing oppression.
There is a major issue with her response to Clark 5. She says killing is ok in *Any* Circumstance. It isn't I only advocate *Deadly Force* in response to Repeated Domestic Violence.
My Contention 1
1st she tries to turn Clark 2 by saying wheres the bright line for domestic abuse. If someone is *Beating* you everyday and the *Beatings* increase in the level of violence everyday and its done to *Gain Power and Control* that is not to low of a bar for retaliatory murder. It is proportional because the Domestic Violence is a threat to life and it takes away liberty. Therefore the child being bullied everyday and is getting *Beaten* worse and worse everyday is able to respond with deadly force to defend himself. This doesn't necessarily mean death.
2nd she talks about *Alternatives* Group this argument and her *2nd Contention*
Nancy Wright 2
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 to authorities before their death.
This proves alternatives fail.
thus I urge an affirmative ballad.
My opponent states that just acts are morally permissible ones. I hadn't gotten this from your case; thanks for clarifying.
First of all, I continue to reject my opponent's definition of domestic violence. The word "repeated" in the resolution simply refers to something that has happened at least 2 times, and in many cases does not point to the cycle of escalation described by my opponent. Also, he even says in his rebuttal: "the ending of that definition entails oppression". The flaw in this is that we do not look to the ending of every situation to evaluate moral permissibility. We are looking to the status quo to evaluate the resolution, so even if you accept his definition of escalation, there are always relationships in which the abuse has been repeated once or twice but the escalation has barely begun, and so abuse is minimal.
On his criterion—he reiterates the fact that this oppression exists and threatens justice, but does not make it clear why we should evaluate only the existing oppression from the abuser (which is all his case addresses) and ignore the oppressive nature of the use of deadly force.
My opponent provides another example of domestic violence being equivalent to deadly force. However, he still ignores the wording of the resolution. "Repeated domestic violence", not "beating within an inch of their life." So, while his example of the victim being severely beaten qualifies under this term, so does a slap across the face one day and another slap the next day. There's no way to justify using deadly force against this.
Wright 1- My opponent claims that 3 women a day are murdered by their husbands. This amounts to 1095 deaths a year. According to an article by Elaine Carey, a Toronto Star Demographics Reporter, 1 in 3 women are abused each year. This equates to about 1,200,000 women. If we combine the two statistics, we can see that only .00009 percent of female victims are actually under attack by deadly force. For the 99.99991 percent who were not attacked by deadly force, it is not morally permissible to respond with a disproportionate amount of force.
Clarke 1- Again, pornographers do not "create" societal views of women. They are certainly not the main shaping factor for society's views. My opponent states a statistic on how the majority of victims are women; this does not give a reason! It is not acceptable, proven, or correct for my opponent to assume that the REASON for abuse is that men view women as weak. This ignores the many psychological and circumstantial factors pertaining to abuse cases.
In LD debate, the burden rests with the affirmative. If he does not affirm for 40 percent of victims under the resolution, this is not enough and you must negate.
Clarke 4- again, this card can be flowed through but it gives him no offense. I allow the use of violent response in the negative world; however, this must be proportional violence. In 99.99991 percent of cases, deadly force is not proportional, unfair to the abuser, and morally impermissible.
Clarke 5/His Contention 1- Sorry for the lack of clarity on Clarke 5-- I meant that, no matter the circumstance, telling society it is ok to kill is going to increase its tolerance for violence. If we deem it morally permissible for a victim to kill their abuser after being hit two times, where do we draw the line? What stops a child from pulling a gun on a playground bully?
Again, this cyclical domestic abuse does not encompass everything under the definition. Where does the line get drawn? The woman being beaten to death is justified in deadly force, but what about the other 99.99991 percent? They are not justified. This is not a morally permissible action; you cannot affirm.
Wright 2- First of all, this certainly does not disprove alternatives. Legal action is not the only way of escape for victims; they can escape to one of the 1500 abuse shelters across the United States, or pursue safety in the abode of a friend or family member. In addition to this, the statistic gives a skewed impression. In reality, this 64% of the .00001% who actually are killed, of the 60% of victims who are women. So, even taking this information into consideration, the percentage of victims able to escape is... you can infer how many nines are going to be on the end of that 99%. (A lot.)
On my value criterion, my opponent states that I contradict myself. I see no contradiction; however, I apologize if I've been unclear. Under a system which requires severe crime to be punished more harshly than minor crime, proportionality is the easiest way to accomplish this. Proportionality is the most important component to my value criterion; retributivism simply supports this as a wider theory of justice. The fact remains under this theory that a response to a crime must be proportional.
His criterion still provides no weighing mechanism; we must look to our arguments on his contention to determine who is reducing oppression more. Even here, we can see it's a difficult topic to make an objective judgment on. For this reason, look to my value criterion first. Proportionality is essential to justice and it's easy to see whether this criterion is being upheld.
My opponent offers no direct argument to my first contention and I've already addressed the Wright card; therefore, you can flow through both of my contentions.
He has not successfully proved his impact of reducing oppression, which is the first reason you cannot affirm.
Secondly, even if my opponent did achieve his value criterion, he would only be doing so for the subset of victims who are women. He ignores the existence of both men and children under the resolution.
The third and final reason to negate is my case; he has not made arguments to the base of it. Morality requires justice, justice requires proportionality, and therefore allowing a victim to shoot an abuser who has hit them is not morally permissible.
Thus, I negate.
The term *Repeated* Doesn't imply the escalation of violence. Rather the definition of *Domestic Violence* does imply the escalation of violence. My definition of Domestic Violence is from an actual source. She provides no counter-definition of Domestic Violence. She can reject my definition of Domestic Violence but fails to offer a counter definition from an actual source therefore my definition still stands which states, an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. When I say "The ending of that definition entails oppression" that means the ending of the definition not the ending of the abuse. The abuser abuses their victim to feel in control, that is during the abuse. Then she tries to talk about how there are relationships where abuse is minimal. In these situations it can't be considered *Domestic Violence*. The abuse must be large enough to control the abused, it takes a lot more force than a simple slap or two to control somebody. Therefore the abuse is large, deadly, and escalating.
Then she tries to say that the Neg can meet my criterion by ignoring the oppressive nature of deadly force I have two responses.
1) The reason we value the abused freedom more than the abuser is because justice is defined as giving each their fair due. Therefore we are better achieving justice when we reduce the oppression on the abused because that is what they're due. Also we gain justice through punishing the abuser which is they're due/
2) At the point where I prove alternatives aren't a viable course of action then the Neg world allows this abuse to go on which isn't moral and isn't delivering justice.
Then she says a slap across the face today and a slap across the face tomorrow meets the requirement of the resolved. However she is wrong. The abuse needs to be enough to control the victim and a slap across the face doesn't do this.
She tries to weasel out of Wright 1 by saying that the other women who were domestically abused but weren't killed were also not being beaten with deadly force. This however is wrong. The other 99.99991% were simply not killed by the domestic abuse, but as I stated before are still being abused with enough force to oppress them and the force continues to escalate. This disproves that for 99.99991% of Domestic Violence cases that it isn't morally permissible to respond with deadly force
So my opponent tries to re-iterate her point here. Allow me to simply break it down. The pornographers still create an image that we still tend to use. We pay attention to the fact that pornographers paint this image of "Look that woman loves to get beaten and she will still stay with her boyfriend and actually have sex with him" the same way that we've painted this image that all black people are crime perpetrators. I don't agree with either statements but if you ask common people they will agree. I aim to destroy the idea that women or any domestic violence abuse victim is weak and masochistic. The statistic does give further reason and proof because I clearly proved how the abuse occurs because the abused views their victim as weak and easily able to be dominated. My opponent doesn't dispute this. She also says this ignores many circumstantial factors for abuse but she doesn't provide any. This is a blank claim.
Then she tries to pin the B.O.P on only me. That's not how it works, the B.O.P is both on the Neg and the Aff. The Neg needs to prove it is morally impermissible while I must prove it is morally permissible.
Once again she tries to re-iterate the new statistic she finds in her attack to wright 1 but cross-apply what I said to it early. This card does flow through and gives me major offense because it links to both value criterion's. I am reducing the oppressive view of women and the victims of Domestic Violence being weak, I am reducing the oppression the abuser has over the victim in Domestic Violence, and I am punishing a serious crime, like Domestic Violence, with serious consequences rather than no consequences at all. (Which occurs in the Neg world without alternatives)
We tell society is ok to kill in *Certain* circumstances. It isn't justified to kill anyone you see like you're trying to make it sound. We only say the killing is Justified when the abused is being controlled/oppressed and the force used to control/oppress is getting larger and larger. Cross-Apply the response to the 99.9991% argument I've made 2 times.
She tries to say they have other alternatives then she provides some, allow me to disprove
Koch 1 (Crisis line counselor; "Why Don't Battered Woman Just Leave?")
Battered Women Shelters are usually full. Another problem with re-locating is that many women have children who would have to be taken out of their current school and enrolled in one near the shelter- only to do it all over again in a month or two as the shelter is only a temporary response. Batterers tend to isolate their partners from other people because this gives them more control and security. Hence, these men often make having friends difficult or impossible for a woman. If she happens to have family in the area, batterers will commonly discourage or prohibit her having contact with them. Furthermore, women in abusive relationships frequently become estranged from family members and friends who are frustrated that she has not left her abuser. However, even if a woman does have family or friends willing to put her up, it is highly possible that she is putting both herself and them in grave danger by staying there. A batterer often looks for a woman when she leaves. If her mother, brother, or best friend live in the area, you can bet he's going to go there first. These men are violent individuals. They are dangerous. Some of them are complete and utter psychopaths.
This disproves those alternatives.
Also she misunderstands the percentage. These abused women were known by the police before being killed the others simply couldn't reach out due to these reasons. The other 99% still couldn't escape.
On to her Case
My opponent claims my criterion provides no weighing mechanism but it IS the weighing mechanism. The arguments that reduce oppression win. There is no difficulty using this to weigh arguments.
She still fails to link her criterion to the resolved therefore look to mine first since it does link to the resolved. Also she still can only meet her criterion with alternatives, which I disprove therefore I meet her value criterion better.
My Wright cards are still there on her contentions don't let her even touch them until she properly responds to them. Also she simply says extend both contentions but fails to state how she gains offense from this.
I have proved my impact of reducing oppression, because the resolved presents oppression and whoever can better solve that oppression wins the round. I will be gaining justice by giving the abused their due of liberation as well as the abusers due of punishment.
I am proving it is morally permissible for all victims. I make this connection in my Framework where I state "So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women are viewed as by society." Therefore I am proving for all victims and I meet my B.O.P
The *Proportionality* is a clear reason to affirm when alternatives aren't available which I have proven
For these reasons I urge a Pro/Aff vote. I await my opponents responses.
sunbeamsfromcucumbers forfeited this round.
I would like to thank my opponent for a GREAT round and I hope to debate her again seeing that this was very interesting.
I already have enough Offense and Defense presented for an Aff/Pro vote. Thus I urge an Affirmative/Pro Vote ! :D
I'll concede his definition of domestic violence since he is correct in saying I have not offered a counter definition.
BUT. When you look to his definition, you can see that we still need to negate the resolution. Here's why.
"…she tries to talk about how there are relationships where abuse is minimal. In these situations it can't be considered *Domestic Violence*."
Under his own definition, this must be considered domestic violence: "An escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control." This definition does not state that we deem it domestic violence *only after a certain point*-- it includes the entire cycle, including the minimal instances that begin it, when the abuse has not yet gained enough power and control to stop the victim from leaving or seeking other solutions. It is NOT morally permissible to kill in these circumstances; therefore you cannot affirm. This is your 1ST VOTER.
Wright 1: I said that 99.99991% of victims are not being attacked with deadly force; he says this 99.99991% are "still being abused with enough force to oppress them and the force continues to escalate." To the first point: oppression is simply NOT ENOUGH to constitute killing in return! When an abuser strikes a victim, this does not mean the victim can turn around and stab them. It is an unfair and disproportionate response that certainly is not going to create justice. To the second: again, the existence of this escalation means that in many situations it has not yet escalated and deadly force would be a completely inappropriate response.
Clarke 1: I will no longer debate the cause of the abuse since it is irrelevant to the moral permissibility of the response; however, I do believe that this pornographic view of women always being the victim is not accepted by the whole of society. Most of society's views stem from what they see around them in day-to-day interactions, and other (non-pornographic) sources of media like news, TV shows, and social networking sites. These have gender portrayals that are fairly even, especially per our society's recent focus on gender equality and feminism. Men are also included under the resolution, and since 40% of victims are male and his case focuses entirely on women, he is not affirming for all people.
The burden of proof: where I come from, if the aff doesn't prove moral permissibility the judge still has to negate regardless of the neg's arguments. However, I accept that I do need to prove some sort of moral prohibition, and believe I have done so with my proportionality argument.
Clarke 4: I addressed his first argument in Clarke 1. He also states:
"I am punishing a serious crime, like Domestic Violence, with serious consequences rather than no consequences at all."
Here again he inflates the violence dictated under the resolution; this violence may not have escalated and a couple of slaps cannot be considered a "serious crime". Even if the abuse is extreme, killing is not a permissible solution because it is not proportional to the physically harmful (but NOT deadly) attacks brought on by the abuser.
In addition, I never advocate for "no consequences at all" and believe it is preferable that the abuser is punished through the legal system. However, if the victim can escape another way, this also creates a state of justice by ending the abuse.
Clarke 5: "It isn't justified to kill anyone you see like you're trying to make it sound." I am not attempting to say that the affirmative is contending this; only that if we affirm, it will become more and more difficult to draw the brightline on killing. What constitutes as oppression enough in society? According to my opponent, it is permissible after the victim receives minimal abuse that may escalate in the future. Again, I bring up examples such as the bully on the playground. Is this, in the aff world, going to be considered abuse enough to kill as a response? Sending a message to society that it is ok to kill in this or that circumstance is inevitably going to increase violence and lower the bar on homicidal vengeance. This is your 2ND VOTER.
Wright 2/Koch 1: First off, let me remind you once more of the possibility of minimal abuse. The drastic actions described in Koch may well be entirely unnecessary for escape.
Now, saying that abuse shelters are usually full is an argument that can be turned. What about those who are filling it? These are victims who have escaped using their resources, which proves it can be done.
If you look at the remainder of Koch 1, you can see that my opponent has proved alternatives difficult, but not impossible. This difficulty is irrelevant to moral permissibility. The fact that one solution is hard to access (but still possible!) does not automatically make another one permissible! For example, if I steal my opponent's cell phone, he has many options. He could steal it back peacefully, for example, or he could kill me. Both of these could solve the problem. But, if he came to my house and I refused to give it to him, this would make it extremely difficult for him to steal it back. However, this does NOT automatically mean that it is a morally permissible option to kill me instead. Likewise, even though alternatives may be difficult for a victim to access, this does not prove permissibility and is not a reason to affirm.
1) His criterion is reducing oppression but he does not reduce oppression on the abuser. He says that the victim is more deserving of this oppression reduction and that oppressing the abuser creates justice; however, the fact that he cannot achieve his value criterion for all the participants in the affirmative world is a reason to negate right here. You can also cross-apply my first contention here: killing the abuser is NOT going to create justice because this is a disproportionate response. Killing the abuser is giving him more than he is due since the abuse shown towards his victim was not deadly.
2) At the point where he proves alternatives are an impossible course of action to victims regardless of the level of abuse they are receiving (which under his definition is as likely as not to be minimal), you can affirm. He does not prove this.
No weighing mechanism—this still holds. How do we determine when we have reduced oppression? This is often a long equation of events. The fact that he cannot achieve his own value criterion is your 3RD VOTER.
For these reasons, prefer my value criterion which is basically proportionality.
I don't link my criterion to the resolution? Here's the link.
My opponent agrees that morality is based off of justice. A morally permissible action is one that upholds justice. In order to uphold justice, we look to the theory of retributive justice, which states that a just response to a crime must be proportional. Deadly force as a response to abuse is not proportional, therefore not just, therefore not morally permissible, therefore you negate.
This argument is clearly stated in my first contention and is your 4TH VOTER.
Remainder of my case:
"My Wright cards are still there on her contentions don't let her even touch them until she properly responds to them."
I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I can't find anything applied to my first contention that directly refutes the principle that killing is not a proportional response to abuse. Please extend this argument and look to my criterion link to see why this matters.
Although he says he disproves the alternatives I provide both in my second contention and in subsequent arguments, this is not a reason to affirm. Again, a difficulty in access to alternatives does not prove moral permissibility. My proportionality argument still stands and it is NOT just or permissible for a victim to shoot an abuser in return for physical abuse.
Thus, I urge a CON vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.