The Instigator
Guitar_Guru
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points

January/February LD Debate Resolved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 21196
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Guitar_Guru

Con

I need some more practice to make sure I can win at my upcoming varsity tournament. So I put a limit on this for as good or better than me.. The full resolution is: resolved it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

This round will be in LD Format, therefore there must be
Framework- Value Structure or Burden
Contentions
Claims
Warrants
and Impacts

I'm looking forward to a good opponent and a good round, I really need someone who understands exactly what LD and how to debate LD.

First round is for acceptance
Second round Neg Doesn't post an argument and Aff does so it can be like a real LD round
Third round Neg Case/Rebuttal Aff rebuttal
Fourth round Neg's final rebuttal Aff's final rebuttal
THEBOMB

Pro

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Guitar_Guru

Con

Thanks for accepting THEBOMB :D As stated in the rules I will not post up any arguments for this round.

Good Luck and I hope we have a good round ^.^
THEBOMB

Pro

Resolved: it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic
violence.

Definitions:

Victim- A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. (In this case crime)

Deadly force- force with the full intent to cause death

Deliberate response- an intentional or controlled reaction

Repeated- more than once; long term

Domestic violence- the cycle of abuse used to coerce or control an intimate partner

Morally permissible- allowed in relation to the standards of good or bad conduct

Value/criterion- Self-defense, it is defined as the protection of one's person against some injury attempted by another. According to the social contract, the one right mankind cannot completely sacrifice is the right of self-defense. Self-defense is an inalienable right as under the social contract, a person's right to live is only dependent upon another person recognizing that right. If a person's life is threatened they have the absolute, unwavering right to defend their life with any means available to them, as the aggressor has given up their right to live by threatening the life of another.

Contention 1. Domestic abuse victims feel they are constantly in imminent danger

a) Battered Person's Syndrome (BPS)

This is a psychological and physiological condition classified as ICD-9 code 995.81. A person who is in a long-term abusive relationship will develop this syndrome. There are several recognizable symptoms, some of which are the same as the well known PTSD: re-experiencing the battering as if it were re-occurring even if it is not, attempts to avoid attempts to avoid the psychological impact of battering by avoiding activities, people, and emotions, hyperarousal or hypervigilance, disrupted interpersonal relationships, body image distortion or other somatic concerns, and sexuality and intimacy issues. Battered Person's Syndrome results in the following beliefs: the abused believes the violence was their fault, the abused has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere, the abused fears for his/her life and/or the lives of his/her children (if present), the abused has a irrational belief their abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. (Omnipresent is defined as being everywhere; omniscient is defined as all-knowing). The
abused also believes they cannot escape the abuse except through death, and therefore, are in constant fear.

b) Domestic violence is a cycle

In 1970, Lenore Walker identified the stages of domestic abuse. First, the tension building stage, this phase is prior to physical damage. During this phase the victim tries to change their behavior to avoid an outburst. Second, the acting-out phase, this is where the physical abuse begins. The abuser attempts to dominate the victim. Third, reconciliation/honeymoon phase, this phase is fairly obvious, the abuser tries to reconcile with their victim by apologizing, etc. Fourth, the calm phase, during this phase it is well calm, there is no violence. Repeated domestic violence goes through these stages several times and sustained periods of living in this cycle leads to development of battered person's syndrome.

c) Domestic Abuse Victims feel they are in constant danger

A woman who is in a long-term abusive relationship most likely WILL develop Battered Person's Syndrome and all of the symptoms and beliefs going along with it. The women therefore, believes they cannot escape, their abuser is omniscient, the abuse is constantly occurring in their mind, and as a result they are in constant fear of their abuser.

Contention 2. Killing in self-defense is valid in this situation

Self-defense has been defined as the protection of one's person against some injury attempted by another. I will present a hypothetical situation: a person has been kidnapped. Their kidnapper continuously rapes and beats this person for several years causing tremendous pain and suffering. As such, this person will develop BPS and the only escape is through killing their kidnapper. One day, the person somehow manages to kill their kidnapper and escapes. Was their action morally justified? I say yes, simply because their only means of escape was through killing their kidnapper. How is this situation any different than an account of domestic violence? It is not. An abuse victim is being physically attacked and raped. After a period of time, an abuse victim will develop BPS and all the symptoms attributed to it. Therefore, the woman believes they will NEVER be able to escape the abuse without killing themselves or their abuser. The only escape in a woman who has been in an abusive relationship for an extended period of time is death. Running away does not help their issues as an abuse victim believes their abuser to be omniscient, therefore, they will live constantly in fear. Running away does not change the fact that an abuse victim will constantly be "replaying" the abuse over and over again. In an abusive victims psyche they are CONSTANTLY in danger. They are CONSTANTLY being abused. As such, it is justified for a woman to kill their abuser because they believe that they are constantly being attacked and they constantly fear they will be killed. The only escape for an abuse victim is killing their abuser.
Debate Round No. 2
Guitar_Guru

Con

Thanks for posting an argument THEBOMB, I'll present my case then rebut my opponents.

Since we need institutions of Justice in order to make sure Justice is served negate the resolution

The resolved presents the issue of Repeated Domestic Violence and offers Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response as a justified answer, but if we were to justify the resolved then we would be justifying vigilantism because we are saying it is ok to take the law into your own hands. The resolved is justifying Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response because it delivers Justice but at the point where we justify Vigilantism we are undermining institutions of Justice and Justice is lost because without these institutions Justice can't be delivered.

Therefore my Value for this round is justice; Justice is defined as giving each their fair due. The reason I value Justice is because the resolved seeks it. The resolved presents the issue of Domestic Violence and justifies Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response to end this issue.

My Value Criterion is to uphold Institutions that provide Justice. The word institutions can be defined as groups of people. Upholding Institutions of Justice will gain Justice because without them there would either be no reinforcement of punishment when a crime is perpetrated or unfair/disproportional responses from a possibly biased party. These institutions include the police force, and the due process system. So whoever can better uphold these Institutions of Justice should win the round.

Contention I: The Aff creates a world of disproportional responses where people are able to take others natural rights without any necessity to due so and its considered justified

Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Moritz College of Law, writes in his Book Battered Women sleeping Abusers: Some Reflections

My Focus, is not with the case of the woman who uses deadly force against her abuser during an attack or because of an immediately impending one; rather, my focus is on the morally perplexing situation of the battered woman who kills her tormenter when he is not attacking. I am interested, in ‘nonconfrontational homicides,' such as when the abuse victim kills her abuser while he sleeps. The traditional rule, is that self-protective force can only be used to repel an ongoing unlawful attack or an imminent unlawful assault; and ‘imminent' or ‘immediate' has come to mean that the attack will occur momentarily, that it is just about underway. By definition, of course, no assault is taking place or imminent in nonconfrontational cases. Stemming from the common law, a core feature of self defense law is that the life of every person, even that of an aggressor, should not be terminated if there is a less extreme way to resolve the problem.

Dressler 2

I fear that the result of expanding self-defense law to the extent required to justify the killing of a sleeping abuser would be the coarsening of our moral values about human life and, perhaps, even the condonation of homicidal vengeance. I believe that we should be very, very slow to suggest that the killing of a sleeping abuser is a ‘proper' or even ‘tolerable' moral or legal outcome.

Impact: The danger of allowing nonconfrontational homicides to be considered morally permissible is a slippery slope. If a woman hits a man twice, according to the resolution, he can then light her bed on fire while she is in her bed and kill her. Her life has become forfeit. A whole slew of dangerous self-defense claims then become possible. When we affirm the resolved we are justifying the use of vigilantism. The bar for retaliatory murder is set extremely low by the people who believe they are victims. At this point institutions wouldn't be able to tell the difference between self-defense and retaliatory murder. This is why we must negate to ensure justice is served which is why I urge a negative ballad.

Now on to my opponents case

===Definitions===

He doesn't cite any of his definitions. I agree with all of them except for deliberate response. Deliberate Response must be defined as a response characterized by deliberation, careful or slow in deciding [1]

===Framework===

1st My opponents framework lacks a weighing mechanism therefore we must look to mine because my framework is weigh able.

2nd Cross-apply my NC it explains how Affing only blurs the line between Self-Defense and 1st degree murder.

3rd The Neg doesn't force anyone to sacrifice their right to self-defense because self-defense is characterized by necessity, in Domestic Abuse cases there is no necessity to kill your abuser. You can turn his sub point b and make that the warrant for this claim. Since Domestic Violence is a cycle and the abused must be rational in order to deliver a deliberate and justified response then the Aff doesn't meet the criteria's of self-defense.

===Contention 1===

Sub Point A- Dressler 3

"Self-defense, after all, is a justification defense, not an excuse defense. The claim of a defendant pleading self-defense is that she has acted properly or, at least, not wrongfully, in doing what she did. . . . [In contrast,] an excuse defense is recognized in the law when the actor has performed a wrongful act—an unjustified act—but we believe that she should not be blamed for her actions."

Arguing that the woman has been so emotionally scarred that she should not be blamed for resorting to murder is an excuse defense: we empathize with the woman and will be lenient towards her, but her actions were still morally wrong. Dressler explains that justification defenses must prove that the act itself was justified, whereas excuse defenses seek to prove that the agent who committed the act should not be held fully culpable. The BTS or PTSD defense is an excuse defense that concedes the moral impermissibility of the act itself but seeks to excuse the act by appealing to the agent's lack of rationality.

Sub Point B- Cross Apply the turn

Sub Point C- Just because one feels they are in constant danger doesn't make the action of killing morally justified. It can make the action excusable because they saw it the only way fit out of the abuse but not justified. This kind of thinking only furthers the idea that violence can be used to resolve problems and furthers the patriarchal mindset the aff seeks to destroy. We need to end ALL violence being considered justified in order to end the Patriarchal mind set. There are alternatives such as the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit, founded in Portland Oregon in 1993, is now all over the world and represents the true end to Patriarchal violence. [2]

===Contention 2===

1st Cross-Apply the NC

2nd I recognize the fact that running away doesn't help, that is why they must also seek help from authorities, cross-apply the DVRU alternative which also takes out the principle of necessity.

===Closing===

The Neg provides Moral options to the Abuse victim but using deadly force as a deliberate response can NOT be seen as Morally Permissible because it would only encourage and perpetuate the Patriarchal Mindset, break down institutions of justice, blur the line between self-defense and first degree murder, and the abuse victim can still use the deadly force but the action isn't morally permitted rather the victim is morally excused.

Negate for all of these reasons.

I now await my opponent :')
THEBOMB

Pro


Value


My opponent values Aristotelian justice which is each being given their due. Then they make the claim “The reason I value Justice is because the resolved seeks it.” But, why must the resolution seek justice? Couldn’t it be seeking to uphold the right of self-defense?



Criterion


My opponent’s criterion is to uphold institutions providing justice. This means my opponent had to provide empirical evidence that justice is upheld in society. They have not done this. Their criterion fails as they fail to show if justice is even upheld in society. My opponent cites the criminal justice system but, they failed to prove the criminal justice system upholds justice. My opponent simply asserts this claim. Their case deals with law, but, my opponent does not prove law upholds justice. They simply imply it without substantiating their implied claim. Their criterion utterly fails.



Definitions:


My opponent accepts most of my definitions. Their redefinition is invalid because the term deliberate appears in the definition of deliberate. The definition is, a reaction (response) characterized by deliberation (thoughtfulness) therefore, it is an intentional and controlled reaction.



R1.


My opponent’s entire case rests upon there being an objective morality. An objective morality means there are set rules and behaviors which cannot be changed. Their sole contention deals with disproportionate responses, meaning a belief there is an objective scale to what is proportionate. A proportionate response is one which is moral; an un-proportionate response is one which is immoral. In order for my opponent’s case to hold true they had to prove morality is objective. They did not do so therefore their case is invalid. We must hold the opposite, subjective morality. Here is why morality cannot be objective:


My opponent needs to prove pantheism to be true. Pantheism holds the universe is God. Basically, we are all living on a “part” of God. In order for moral objectivism to be true, the universe must be in some way conscious. Ethics and morality did not come into play until very recently (in the scope of the universe) when the first homo sapiens evolved on earth. Early creatures lived, in what political philosophers know, in the state of nature in which all people had the right to do anything they wanted. There is nothing binding humanoids from doing what they want, there was no morality at this point in time. Eventually, more sentient beings evolved and if objective morality is true, it implies the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings in mind. Through what mind? God? This theory goes against all scientific evidence that sentient beings came in existence through natural selection due to contingent, accidental circumstances. If objective moral laws do exist, then the universe cannot be unconscious. In order for an objective morality to exist (and thus uphold my opponent’s sole contention) my opponent needed to have proven God exists. My opponent’s sole contention fails simply because morality must be objective for their contention to even have any weight.


My opponent has the Burden of Proof, according to Ockham’s Razor, to show moral objectivism is true. In order to for moral objectivism to be a valid principle, a non-physical entity must be added to the universe morality. My opponent has not done so. Therefore moral objectivism does not exist and, my opponent’s sole contention fails as it rests upon there being an objective morality. Why is deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence unproportionate and immoral when the moral system varies from person to person? The simple answer is to one person it is immoral but, to the women it is completely moral.



Impact


This impact relies upon an objective moral system which has been entirely unsubstantiated by my opponent. Subjectively, why can’t homicide be morally permissible? The definition of repeated is more than once; long-term, this means it must be over a long-term period.” If a woman hits a man twice, according to the resolution, he can then light her bed on fire while she is in her bed and kill her.” The definition of domestic violence is “the cycle of abuse used to coerce or control an intimate partner” this means the abuse must be cyclical and the abuse must be used to control their partner. A slap to the face does not meet either criteria. It is not cyclical. A slap alone cannot be used to control another person. “When we affirm the resolved we are justifying the use of vigilantism.” Why is this a bad thing? “The bar for retaliatory murder is set extremely low by the people who believe they are victims. At this point institutions wouldn't be able to tell the difference between self-defense and retaliatory murder.” What is the difference exactly?



Now for my rebuttals of their rebuttals.



Framework


1st What does this even mean? My opponent’s rebuttal has not even been substantiated with any proof. They simply make a claim.


2nd NC = Negative Construction? I implore you to spell out words. My opponent’s definition of the line between self-defense and murder is what exactly? Necessity? To the woman, it is necessary.


3rd “Since Domestic Violence is a cycle and the abused must be rational in order to deliver a deliberate and justified response then the Aff doesn't meet the criteria's of self-defense.” Why must the abused be completely rational to deliver a deliberate and justified response? Having an irrational belief does not necessarily make a person irrational. According to my opponent, all Christians are irrational because of their beliefs and therefore, none of their actions can be deliberate and justified. What is the criterion of self-defense?



D1. This contention was nothing more than an explanation of domestic violence and the psychological implications of domestic violence. But nevertheless:



a)“Arguing that the woman has been so emotionally scarred that she should not be blamed for resorting to murder is an excuse defense: we empathize with the woman and will be lenient towards her, but her actions were still morally wrong.”


The woman feels she is in a constant imminent threat. Therefore, her actions were morally justified as they believed that they were in constant danger. Since these psychological symptoms have been forced unwillingly upon the victim then, the abuser has provided the justification by forcing the woman to believe they are in constant threat of attack. “The abused also believes they cannot escape the abuse except through death, and therefore, are in constant fear.” The victim believes the only way to escape their abuse is through either killing themselves or killing their attacker. The woman believes she is constantly being attacked. The woman believes killing is self-preservation and is morally justified.



“The BTS or PTSD defense is an excuse defense that concedes the moral impermissibility of the act itself but seeks to excuse the act by appealing to the agent's lack of rationality.” You are confusing this defense with an insanity defense.


b)What does this even mean?


c)“Just because one feels they are in constant danger doesn't make the action of killing morally justified. It can make the action excusable because they saw it the only way fit out of the abuse but not justified.” Yes, it makes the act of killing morally justified. Since, to the woman, killing is nothing more than self-preservation. My opponent here is basically saying the woman should “just take it”. This is despicable thinking, violence is sometimes necessary. The woman is not facing a simple “problem” they believe they are in imminent danger every waking moment.



Contention 2.


I will make this brief. “The abused also believes they cannot escape the abuse except through death”. Appealing to authority does not help the problem. One of the two must die in order for the abuse to end. It is completely necessary according to the woman’s psyche. Furthermore, my opponent drops my hypothetical situation.



Debate Round No. 3
Guitar_Guru

Con

Guitar_Guru forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Pro

To keep it fair I'm ending this.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Yeah I'm really sorry man, I'm extremely busy :/ Great round though ! It was a lot of fun :D We should recreate the debate and actually have the two final rebuttals (y)
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
You had 3 days....oh well...at least you didn't ff round 2 :D
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
I missed it by ONE second... I'm so freaking pissed -.- I apologize for the inconvenience....

I would like for the voters to vote off of everything but round 4 just to keep things fair..

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate ! :D
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
slow is a subjective characteristic....to one person something is slow while to another it is fast........
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
I added slow in deciding so you have to defend a position of first degree murder, and not second degree murder or self-defense :p
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
...your new definition of deliberate is the exact same as mine....response == reaction...deliberate == done with care and intention...I said it was an intentional response...you really did not change anything. Just saying.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Sorry, I forgot to post the sources with my arguments

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] https://www.ncjrs.gov...
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
I apologize for the delay
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I would accept but you've edited the settings so that I can't. Bummer.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 4 years ago
FIGHTTHEPOWER29
Guitar_GuruTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it's pretty even if you subtract the forfeitures...
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Guitar_GuruTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm forced to buy the AC because of Con's forfeit. Same with the rebuttals. If con had actually made a response, my ballot may have been different. Conduct goes to pro since con forfeited. I really don't give anyone a win, since this round wasn't very good.