The Instigator
Guitar_Guru
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

January/February LD Debate resolved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Guitar_Guru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,690 times Debate No: 20404
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Guitar_Guru

Pro

Round 1 is just for acceptance.
Rules are as follows:
This Debate will be in LD Debate Format,
Definitions should be part of your case
FW should be present (Unless you're using mine)
Contentions/Claims
Cards/Warrants,
Impacts.
MasterKage

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Guitar_Guru

Pro

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:

Deadly Force: is force which a person knows is substantially likely to
result in death (U.S. Armed Forces)

Deliberate- characterized by deliberation; careful or slow in deciding.
(Random House Dictionary)

Repeated Action-Actions that happen many times or reoccur again and again (Merriam Webster)

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 methodically and in a pattern. 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.

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 shows 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 typically are. 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. The reason I value Justice is because the resolved is presenting the issue of repeated Domestic Violence and also presents Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response as a justified answer. Therefore the Resolved is looking for Justice which is why I value it.

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 and gain the justice the resolved looks for should win the round.

Contention I: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve it

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-defence 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" or retribution or reparation 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, or very slight consequences. The less the consequence of their offence, the more it seems to them that there is really nothing so very 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 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 or their children, there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, however slowly, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives.

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. It's not as if we were suggesting that women introduce violence into the Garden of Eden. The war is already on. Women and children are steadily losing it.

Basically the reason for the Abuse is because the abused are seen as weak. When the abused retaliate with deadly force then that erodes the views of them being weak. Therefore causing abusers to consider even greater consequences for their actions. This reduces even more potential oppression which is why I urge an Affirmative ballad.
MasterKage

Con

MasterKage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Guitar_Guru

Pro

So it seems that my opponent has forfeited for the second round. Since I don't have a Negative Constructive to rebut I'll simply say I await for my opponents rebuttal on my points.

I hope my opponent still goes for this debate. He can always bring up new arguments that link back to my VC since he hasn't provided his own framework.

I look forward to Cons rebuttal.
MasterKage

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, and apologize for my forfeit last round. I was busy with my schoolwork I got side tracked.

My opponent has allowed me to post my case and refute his arguments this round, and so I thank my opponent.

Let's begin, shall we?

My case

C1: There are alternatives.

There are alternatives that exist that are safer and just as effective if not more than using force from domestic violence. The person that is receiving the domestic violence can infom proper authorites of the situation to allow the much more experinced police officer to fix the situation. They victim can inform the law system to fix the situation. The victim can use non-deadly force to prevent the attacker from harming the victim from further harm, and in that time inform authority to resolve the situation. [1]

C2: Disproportionate Rights Violation

The most appropiate retribution is that of which is equalivent to the rights that have been violated or broken to start with. Taking a human life isn't proportional to the rights violation of repeated domestic violence. Perhaps the victim has lost thier liberty and happiness, they still have the ability to regain those rights since they are not yet dead.

"A victim’s use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible." [1]

Refutations

C1: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve it

The fact that there a certain flaws in the criminal justice system and that those flaws prevent females from getting a fully sastisfactory trial is not a vaild argument for the Pro of the resolution. In fact, society treats females as being more feminie and as such actually focuses more attention on the wrongdoings that have happened to females.


C2: Through affirming there would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as domestic violence.

This is incorrect. The resolution states that "Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence".

So to affirm the resolution you would not be affimring reduced violence, but, in fact, you would be affirming a equal amount of violence, if not a greater amount of violence.

I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him good luck in the next round.

Sources

[1]
http://shatteringthelens.com...


Debate Round No. 3
Guitar_Guru

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding. I'll just rebut his case then refute mine.

Seeing as my opponent doesn't provide his own framework or rebut mine means that he accepts my framework. Which means all arguments should link back to the reduction of oppression. Whoever can better reduce that oppression will now win the round. Lets start looking at his case.

===Rebuttal===

Lets look at his first contention which is:
C1: There are alternatives

This contention assumes that there are always alternatives. So lets look at the alternatives he presents. Pretty much the only alternative he present is to contact the police. This is pretty faulty because 1st. Many abuse victims try to contact authorities and fail.

Nancy Wright, a law professor at Santa Clara university of Law, writes in her essay Voice for the Voiceless

One study of women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were known by the police to have been physically abused before their deaths.

This just goes to show how Authorities tend to do nothing. Then he says the Victims can use non-deadly force to subdue the abuser, escape and contact authorities. The victim is still in danger. If the victim contacts the police then they'll be safe for a short amount of time, but the abuser is still likely to attack the victim. My opponent may say that the police will do something to help, but the most they would do is have a restraining order, but whats that going to do ? If I am an abuser and I'm about to kill my victim I don't care about the few days in jail that I'm risking. The alternatives in this case are ineffective. My case clearly shows how Alternatives do not work. He also fails to give any actual empiric evidence or statistics on how these alternatives exist and work well, so we still can't look to this argument.

Another way these alternatives are ineffective because of the psychological damage done to Abuse Victims.

Nancy Wright 2


Another reason that women don't leave abusive relationships is called "separation abuse,", meaning that the battered woman fears retaliation towards herself, her children, other family members, friends or even co-workers. For example, in Koss, the battered wife testified that her abusive husband threatened to kill her children unless she dropped a domestic violence complaint she had filed against him. Fears of retaliatory abuse appear to be well-founded since the most frequently and seriously battered women are those who are separated or divorced from their abusers. n175 Although only 10% of women are separated or divorced, they account for 75% of all victims of domestic violence and are fourteen times more likely to be battered than women who are still cohabiting. Unfortunately, it is also accurate that, if the abuser is unable to locate the battered woman, he may seek revenge on other people who are important in her life.

This also shows exactly how even if these alternatives did exist then abuse victims are very unwilling to use them due to ineffectiveness and fear.

Now lets look to his second Contention which is:
C2: Disproportionate Rights Violation

So here he talks about how disproportionate responses are not morally permissible. He then goes on to say that the resolved is disproportionate, but 1st Self-Defense is a disproportionate response because someone is threatening your life and in order to protect your life in that instance you had to kill the person. This disproves his statement that disproportional responses are morally impermissible. Even if you don't buy that then looks look to the definitions of Deadly Force and Repeated Domestic Violence (Neither of which he disputes) the definition of Deadly Force is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. This means that the force will be likely to result in death but not necessarily. Then lets look to the definition of Repeated Domestic Violence. Its 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. The escalating pattern of violence is potentially deadly.

Nancy Wright 3

Unfortunately, there has been a steady increase in the number of children who die from domestic abuse at the hands of their parents. In 1989, approximately 600 children were killed by their parents. By 1995, almost twice as many children (or 1,000 youngsters annually) died of domestic abuse. By 2004, there were almost 1,500 deaths annually from child abuse, an average of more than four children each day. Unfortunately, many experts believe that these shocking figures are conservative since death from parental abuse may be incorrectly diagnosed as accidental or as the result of sudden infant death syndrome.

This shows how deadly Domestic Violence is and how Deadly Force is a proportionate response and is morally permissible.

===Refutation===

Now lets look to my contentions

C1: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve it.

My opponent fails to understand how this contention functions. If you look to the Impact of that argument it says: 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. The point I try to stress is that Society cannot always guarantee safety. So at the point where society cannot save Domestic Abuse victims then they are allowing the abusive oppression to continue. This contention proves how in the Neg world we won't be able to reduce oppression, rather in the Aff world we can because we allow victims to liberate themselves.

Then he goes on to say since females are feminine we look to protect them more, he fails to provide any empiric evidence or statistics as to how this is true, and he is also agreeing to my 1st D.A Clarke card at the top of my case. This card talks about how women are seen as weak and masochistic. This statement can actually now be turned, he admits that society also has this view. The only way to end that oppression, by society, is to allow those who are viewed as "Feminine" (Domestic Abuse Victims) to be able to liberate themselves therefore reducing oppression on two levels.

Now lets look to my second contention
C2: Through affirming there would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as domestic violence.

He lets D.A Clarke 4 and 5 go cleanly dropped, he never addresses what the cards actually say. Just because he says this is my response to Contention 2 doesn't mean he actually answers contention 2. He simply says that we are actually affirming even more violence

Extend D.A Clarke 5 which says:

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. It's not as if we were suggesting that women introduce violence into the Garden of Eden. The war is already on. Women and children are steadily losing it.

This effectively takes out the argument of "Only Affirming more violence" Because we will have to subtract violence we PREVENT when we Affirm which outweighs the violence we advocate. This also links directly back to the standard of reducing oppression because we are letting the abused be seen as strong creatures able to liberate themselves and prevent violence.

I look forward to my opponents next argument :)
MasterKage

Con

MasterKage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Guitar_Guru

Pro

Right so since my opponent forfeited I will just extend some points then give voters.

==Extensions==

Extend my Framework because he doesn't provide his own framework nor does he rebut mine.

The Value for this round is Justice.

The Value Criterion is to reduce oppression. Whoever better reduces oppression wins the round.

Now extend my Clarke 1 card which states

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.

This argument functions in 2 ways. 1 it shows the oppressive view of women by society because women are seen as "weak and masochistic" by society. 2 my opponent bites directly into this in his response to my 1st contention where he states "In fact, society treats females as being more feminie and as such actually focuses more attention on the wrongdoings that have happened to females." This view of women is oppressive and will end when we affirm.

Now extend Clarke 2 which states

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-defence 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.

This clearly shows there is a lack of consequence for a crime due to these "alternatives" failing. The only way to eradicate this view is through affirming.

Now Clarke 5 is already extended but re-extend it. Clarke 5 says

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. It's not as if we were suggesting that women introduce violence into the Garden of Eden. The war is already on. Women and children are steadily losing it.

This argument clearly shows how we decrease violence as a result of women defending themselves violently which links directly back into the V.C of Reducing oppression. We are allowing the abused to liberate themselves from harmful wrongdoers.

Now for the BIG ONE. This extension says it all.

Extend Clarke 4, Clarke 4 is going to be the BIGGEST voter in this round it says.

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 or their children, there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, however slowly, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives.

This card clearly shows how when women defend themselves violently they would erode the myth of them being weak and masochistic. This card abolishes the oppression of how society views women as well as how my opponents statement views women.

==Voters==

1. The first major voter is the Frame Work debate, which I have won.

2. The second major voter is the turn coming out of the NR. The turn shows how my opponent recognizes the oppression created by society.

3. The third major voter is Clarke 1 which only further shows how oppressive society is to females.

4. The fourth major voter is Clarke 5, which shows how we WILL reduce oppression when we affirm because the total net violence will decrease.

5. The MAJOR reason to vote pro is Clarke 4 which talks about the oppression on the highest level. The oppression of societies view of women. Clarke 4 shows how through affirming we reduce this overall amount of oppression which links directly into the Frame Work of Reducing Oppression.

For these reasons I urge an Affirmative vote.

Thanks to MasterKage so much for the GREAT debate round I look forward to another debate round with you ^.^ and thanks to the voters reading this and voting. Means a lot. :D
MasterKage

Con

MasterKage forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Guitar_GuruMasterKageTied
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: Multiple forfeits loses conduct and arguments.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Guitar_GuruMasterKageTied
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: MasterKage forefeited three rounds. Thus conduct to guitar. Also guitar made quite a rebuttal to his OP. The guitar gets convincing arguments. SO far I agree with pro based off this debate. I would like to read another debate of this same topic with more of a view on the cons side to help establish my decision.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Guitar_GuruMasterKageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF Sources to Con as he had them if you - the FFs he actually had a stronger argument. He proved there are alternatives and that it is immoral. Con win despite FF Grammar because pro did well too, plus the FF should account for more then 1 point.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Guitar_GuruMasterKageTied
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: 3 Forfeits, meaning CON did not respond to Pro's argument and refutation.