The Instigator
secretspy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EHS_Debate
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

January/February LD Topic: Deadly force as a deliberate response to cases of domestic violence

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 1 vote the winner is...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,819 times Debate No: 20167
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

secretspy

Con

Please try to keep this in standard LD format. I'm trying to prepare for a competition on January 6th. I'd prefer for my opponent to ask crossex questions and I will ask them questions for crossex, also. If you feel the need to ask for evidence, please do so. Try to keep this as realistic as possible.

I'll wait for the affirmative to post his/her speech, then commence.
EHS_Debate

Pro

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, 85% of domestic violence victims are women.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."
John Adams (2nd US President)

I stand in affirmation of the Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

I will now provide some definitions to clarify the debate today.

All Definitions are from Merriam Webster unless otherwise noted
Morally: In relation to standards of good and bad character or conduct
Permissible: That may be accepted or conceded
Victim: A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action
Deadly force: Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force in which a person uses, causing or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm.
Response: something constituting a reply or a reaction
Repeated: Done or occurring again several times in the same way
Domestic violence: The inflicting of physical injury by one family or household member on another; a repeated or habitual pattern of such behavior

My paramount Value in Today's round is Justice. We must uphold justice in this debate round. Justice is defined as being based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When we look to what is morally permissible we must also look to justice and whether or not we are upholding it. (Oxford Dictionary)

My value criterion for today's debate will be Morality. Morality is the goodness or rightness of an action through a balance of deontology and consequentialism.

Therefore, that which is moral, both in principle and in consequence, upholds justice.

Contention 1: Domestic violence is prevalent and devastating.

There are 16,800 homicides and 2.2 million medically treated injuries due to intimate partner violence annually, which costs $37 billion.

Jonathan Abel, from the St Petersburg Times, 2008, reports on Domestic Violence,
The true frequency of domestic violence cannot be tracked.

According to Judith Koons, an associate Professor of Law at Barry University school of law.
EVERY NINE SECONDS A HUSBAND ABUSES A WIFE IN AMERICA. This does not even take into consideration those not in relationships or other family members.

In a broader sense, the National Family Violence Study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, estimates that 188,000 women per year are battered severely enough to require medical attention. Moreover, the FBI estimates that 1,400 women were killed by their spouses or partners in 1992 alone. The problem of battered women, while perhaps not accurately quantifiable, is quite grave.

In 1992, domestic violence was the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States, more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

Battery tends to increase and become more violent over time. Children who witness violence at home display emotional and behavioral disturbances as diverse as withdrawal, low self-esteem, nightmares, self-blame and aggression against peers, family members and property.

Domestic violence has horrendous consequences. Therefore, if a victim uses deadly force to protect him or herself then the victim and society as a whole will be benefited, yielding a greater benefit consequentially.

Contention Two: Oftentimes victims have no other options.

According to Clark County and Domestic and Sexual Violence Services; The danger to a victim increases by 70% when she attempts to leave, as the abuser escalates his use of violence when he begins to lose control.

In 2009, Nancy, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law wrote that most victims of domestic abuse syndrome come to feel that they are trapped into remaining with their abusers. When in desperation, often after many years of abuse, they take matters into their own hands and kill their abusers.

Obviously, in the ideal world the battering would never have been allowed to escalate to the point where killing the abuser would appear to be the only way out to the abuse victim. In an ideal world, there would not be wars. In an ideal world, poverty, famine, sickness, starvation… all of these would not exist. In an ideal world. We live in a broken world, where sometimes people have to decisions in the time it takes to snap one's fingers. We do not live in an ideal world.

According to Elisabeth, The American University Journal of Gender & the Law, 1995, "The battered woman may not be able to confront the batterer without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength or emotional control. The lower degree of force a woman typically exerts upon a man may have little or no impact on a physically stronger abuser. Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser."

Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around.

Christine Gilfillan, on August 22, 2010 wrote: "We want to believe that we can put the relationship back together, and we want to believe their promises that 'this won't happen again. Sometimes things get better. And Sometimes they don't."

Abusers can isolate victims, reducing their power to leave, said Grace Hill, associate director of the Women's Center at Kutztown University. The women may not know where else to go, may not be able to afford to leave or may have children with the abuser, she said.

The women also might be scared to break things off, and sometimes with good reason, Gilfillan said. It's difficult to predict which relationship might turn deadly, said Daniel P. Billings, director of security at St. Joseph Medical Center, a former Wyomissing police officer and domestic violence expert. "

When an abuse victim uses deadly force in response to domestic violence their intention is to stop the abuse. Just as in war, where fighting for one's country is morally permissible because one is protecting the well-being of others, an individual should be given the moral "green light" to defend themselves when they deem it to be necessary, as their action is moral on the deontological side (an intent to defend one's self), and the consequential side (no more abuse and alleviation of an economic burden). Therefore, it is morally permissible for a victim of repeated domestic violence to use deadly force as a deliberate response.

(Approx. 6 minutes) Ask questions if you want for your next round.
Debate Round No. 1
secretspy

Con

Thank you. I will first attack my opponents case, then elaborate on my contentions.

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponents generalization is widely inaccurate. He perceives domestic violence in the traditional, heterosexual relationship scenario. He fails to realize that this doesn't apply to same-sex relationships or child abuse. Additionally, I have a source that states,

"Contrary to previous beliefs, arrests do not appear to be gender biased. The research showed that police arrested men and women with equal frequency when other factors, such as seriousness of offense, were taken into account. Additionally, police were equally likely to make arrests in same-sex and hetero�sexual incidents. "

Thus, men are just as likely to become victims of domestic violence and women are not always feeble and delicate as he claims they are. He also subjugates women to defenseless creatures, incapable of defending themselves. Not only does this perpetuate negative stereotypes, but it cannot be true 100% of the time. His entire first contention is a summary of the terrible effects of domestic violence, but his statements are vastly one-sided. He fails to acknowledge the other facets of abuse. Also, domestic violence may be prevalent, but that doesn't mean murder is the answer. The resolution clearly states, in "repeated cases of domestic violence," meaning the victim has survived. If they could use deadly force, they are capable of self-preservation. Meaning, taking the batterers life is not entirely necessary.

Domestic violence may also involve sexual abuse or economic oppresion.
http://www.financeproject.org...
http://www.loveisrespect.org...

To refute his second contention, I will demonstrate further in my case that victims have options other than deadly force.

Todays resolution revolves around an issue pertaining to morality. We seek to find the truth in a question that could be argued for decades without reaching a definite answer. Is any individual permitted to take anothers life in the event of abuse? Life is very delicate, which leads us to question its worth and whether or not we have the right to take it from others in times of urgency. I negate the resolution, it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. I select Justice as my value, and the Social Contract as my criterion. To clarify my message, I provide the following definitions:
Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one member of the household to exert control over another member of the household.
Deadly - Lethal; causing fatality
Morality- Rules concerning right conduct
Permissible- Permitted; allowed
Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally
Victims - Someone or something which has been hurt, damaged or killed or has suffered because of the actions of someone or something else
These definitions should help my audience analyze my argument, and hopefully, come to terms with it.
Contention 1: Domestic violence victims do not have to resort to deadly force.
The resolution clearly states that the victim in question has been subject to repeated instances of maltreatment. Under these circumstances, the individual has obviously lived to survive the abuse, meaning deadly force is not necessary. Physical altercations do not always end in death and neither should the ones in this context. If the individual is capable of infringing death upon the abuser, they could also inflict harm on them without taking their life. This way, the justice system can fulfill their duties by bringing them to court. A Personal Protection Order may be issued to prevent communication or confrontation from the batterer and if they choose to break that regulation, the culprit may be arrested. Domestic violence arrests have escalated dramatically in the past century, implying the government is becoming more skilled at its expertise. A domestic violence perpetrator is 50% less likely to repeat abuse once arrested. Communicating with federal authorities is the proper course of action. There are many resources available to victims of domestic violence. Death isn't the answer to the situation they may find themselves in. Those who are truly interested in finding relief can take advantage of the assets infront of them. Institutions such as Safe Horizon, the Joyful Heart Foundation and Women Thrive work tirelessly in efforts to alleviate the burden these people must carry. Shelters, hotlines, and law enforcement are all reliable sources of aid.
Contention 2: Disproportionate Rights Violation
The social contract is an agreement between members of society which involves revoking certain privelages to receive others in return. Essentially, this means respecting the rights of others and treating them fairly in order to benefit the same way. An example of this would be to leave another persons property intact to justify them respecting yours. Should they take your property, they may pay their dues by reimbursing you or replacing said item. It would be outrageous to demand an amputation or a major sacrifice over a misdemeanor such as this one. This is a metaphor for what the resolution is proposing. A violation of the right to live a fulfilling life should warrant appropriate punishment. Murder is not an adequate castigation because although the batterer has robbed the victim of joy, they could regain it because they still have the right to live. Assasination is not a proper retribution, it does not equal the severity of the offenders mistakes. Life allows us to earn all other rights through time, thus it is more valuable then all other privileges. Joshua Dressler, a law professor at University of Ohio states:
"if someone is violating my right to bodily integrity by repeatedly shoving his finger into my chest, that does not give me the right to kill him to stop his offensive conduct. My right to bodily integrity entitles me to demand that he desist and, if that fails or if such a request would be futile, I surely have the right to use proportional force—perhaps a shove—to get him to stop. Killing him would be a disproportional response."
Contention 3: Killing abusers undermines value of life.
Denying someone the right to live according to their previous transgressions is immoral. There are countless mitigating factors in every situation that contribute towards an individuals actions. You cannot simply state that every batterer should face execution without first taking other constituents into consideration. Attempting to universalize punishment with this crime will not be anymore innaccurate than with any other crime. As stated by the United Nations,
"States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment."
Thank you, I plead you to vote a negative ballot.

Crossex:
What effect would witnessing a murder have on a childs psychological well-being?
If the victim is capable of killing their attacker, why are they incapable of causing bodily harm without deadly force? Wouldn't this immobilize the attacker temporarily?
What do you feel is the role of incarceration in society?
Would you say men at war and domestic violence abusers have the same intentions? If so, why do many domestic violence victims survive, and why are many batterers arrested? Is this a reliable comparison?
Can you state your source for your definitions of deontology and consequentialism?
EHS_Debate

Pro

My opponent states that I have overgeneralized this debate. That is not the case. I am focusing, because of the allotted time of an LD debate, on the majority of cases.
My opponent's evidence is also misleading, stating, "Contrary to previous beliefs, arrests do not appear to be gender biased…" This simply means that ARRESTS were equally made, not that domestic violence occurs on the same gender level.
However, Katherine Greene, Jane Doe's public affairs director, said cases of battered men are too rare to warrant a massive change in the domestic violence agenda. "Sometimes it snows in Florida," she said, quoting a Jane Doe board member's comment on male victims at an annual board meeting. "We can't ignore it, but we don't make public policy around it."
(Farah Stockman, "A Search for Equality, Domestic Abuse Groups Dispute Status Claims Made by Men," Boston Globe, October 28, 2002)
"In heterosexual couples, it is estimated that the man is the abuser in 95% of cases."
(Linda M. Peterman and Charlotte G. Dixon, "Domestic Violence Between Same Sex Partners: Implications for Counseling," Journal of Counseling and Development, Winter 2003.)
On another note, same-sex abuse is lacking awareness for several reasons. First, abused homosexuals are apt to keep quiet and refrain from reporting intimate violence. Second, gay men and lesbians exhibit the same types of partner loyalty, financial dependence, fear, and other emotional connectedness that keeps abused heterosexual spouses in their troubled relationships. I will still defend every victims action of deadly force as being morally permissible, regardless of gender, color, ethnicity.
I will now answer some of my opponent's crossex questions due to character constraints:
1)What effect would witnessing a murder have on a childs psychological well-being?
Modern research has shown that children who are indirect victims of domestic abuse, by witnessing the physical or sexual abuse of their parent or siblings (which might be called "witness of abuse syndrome") also suffer from the same psychological effects as direct victims.
(Criminal Law Brief; Spring 2009; 4 Crim. L. Brief 76)
2)If the victim is capable of killing their attacker, why are they incapable of causing bodily harm without deadly force?
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force in which a person uses, causing or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Bodily harm is included.
3) Can you state your source for your definitions of deontology and consequentialism?
(1) Ethical theories that maintain that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its intrinsic qualities, and not (as in consequentialism) on the nature of its consequences. I am focusing on intentions.
(2)The doctrine that actions should be solely judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences and whether or not they produce a net benefit.
(http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Therefore, that which is moral, both in principle and in consequence, upholds justice.
I will now move onto the definitions debate. My opponent defined deadly without regarding the entire phrase: deadly force. There is a difference. Deadly force includes both death and serious bodily harm. Deadly force does not always constitute death. Additionally, the intention of the victim is to prevent abuse from happening, not to kill the abuser, therefore a victim's intentions are founded in self-defense.
Next, I will discuss the V/VC clash. My opponent and I agree with Justice as being a value we wish to uphold. Therefore, the judges must look at the criterion that best upholds Justice. Justice is defined as being based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. In turn, actions that are moral uphold justice. The social contract is not as strong as a criterion for this debate.
Under social contract theory, if the state fails in its obligation to protect citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection. One philosopher concludes that where the state fails to protect its citizens, protecting oneself is not considered civil disobedience or vigilantism. One may extrapolate this premise to conclude that vigilantism is morally justified by the state's failure to uphold its end of the compact.
(The American University Journal of Gender & the Law; 1995)
My opponents first contention state: Domestic violence victims do not have to resort to deadly force.
She writes that "Shelters, hotlines, and law enforcement are all reliable sources of aid."
Subpoint A: Shelters.
The inability of impoverished a woman to meet her monthly bills by herself often leaves the woman with no choice for herself and her children but to either go to a homeless shelter or return to her abuser. Shelters for victims of domestic violence are only meant to be short term and they are not designed to provide long-term housing. Many abused women who seek temporary refuge in emergency shelters, ultimately return to their spouses, in large part because they have no other source of income.
(Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law;)
Subpoint B: Hotlines.
Hotlines are not fix-all alternatives. Unless the opposition can provide sources of how effective they are I don't see what impact they have.
Subpoint C: Law Enforcement
Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law states: "Through experience, the victim learns that when she attempts to defend herself -- by reaching out to others or trying to leave - that she will be the victim of more severe violence.
Most battered women have sought help unsuccessfully from police or other protective agencies. One study of women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were known by the police to have been physically abused before their deaths.
My oppoent's second contention is: Disproportionate Rights Violation
My opponent states that death is not the most viable punishment for domestic violence, however, I am not advocating for death to be the punishment.
Killing in self-defense is permitted when there is "reasonable ground" to believe that great bodily injury or death is threatened and there is "imminent danger" of the threat "being accomplished."
Dr. Walker explained how the three stage pattern of domestic abuse allows the battered women to anticipate when physical violence is imminent. Dr. Walker also described the psychological reactions of hypervigilance and the learned helplessness manifested by battered women, which helps to explain why battered women may be objectively justified in killing their passive abusers.
When the term battered child syndrome is used to describe the permanent psychological effects of domestic violence, the effects are virtually identical to the psychological impact characteristically associated with Battered Woman Syndrome
Additionally, Dallas County District Attorney Cindy Dyer said, "One of the worst cases of battered women syndrome I've ever seen was a man battered by another man."
"Battered woman's syndrome" (BWS), is now generally classed as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a psychiatric condition first outlined in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and occasioned by exposure to events "outside the range of usual human experience."
Finally, my opponent's third contention is that: Killing abusers undermines value of life.
There are a few problems with this. Deadly force does not always constitute death. The intention of an abuse victim is to stop the abuse, not to kill the abuser. The victim will no longer be abused, and in turn, money will be saved (AFF-1). When a victim has to resort to deadly force there is good reason for it and it is morally permissible for them to do so.

I urge a PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 2
secretspy

Con

My opponent rebutted my attack by stating my evidence was misleading. According to him, the amount of arrests due to domestic violence do not account for ALL the cases of domestic violence. This may be true, however, it does take into account the perpetrators of domestic violence, many of them which happen to be women. His entire case contains statistics concerning women and the plight they must endure under their husbands abuse. He also claims domestic violence in samesex relationships is under reported because they fear social exclusion. In that case, then, can men also under report, in fear that they will be perceived as "weak" and "feminine" if they do so?
Furthermore, my opponent did not answer my crossex questions directly. For the first question, he states children experience trauma after witnessing abuse. Abuse does not equal murder, but we will make an inference from the information he has provided for us. If children suffer so greatly when members in their household are verbally, sexually, and physically supressed, wouldn't they also suffer negative side effects if they observed a murder? I think so. He completely ignores my question concerning the role of incarceration in society and his comparison between men at war and victims vs their abusers.
He does answer my second question directly, however, he states the following: "The doctrine that actions should be solely judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences and whether or not they produce a net benefit." The consequences of taking an individual's life is not right. You can't say it's better for every transgressor to be exiled from existence because they cost too much money to maintain. If someone's burden on society is measured by their financial upkeep, then those who consume expensive medical services should also be exiled. Money is not a reliable gauge of someones role in society. If they pose a threat to others lives, they could be sent to jail and gain rehabilitation services before they presume their usual roles in society. I was attempting to establish this with my crossex questions, which he blatantly ignored. His attempt at utilizing consequentialism wasn't entirely effective.

His rebute on my first contention is again, vastly one-sided. He tears apart one sentence out of my entire contention. He says women are too vulnerable to ask for help in times of crisis but I already established that if they are afraid of confrontation, they may obtain a non-protection order that will protect them from further abuse.

He also claims deadly force does not equal murder, but he already stated in his first case that a woman cannot exert lesser force upon a man because it will only trigger a retaliation from her attacker. He already established that he approves of KILLING batterers. He cannot change his stance because it is convenient.
I will derive the following quotes from his case:

"The battered woman may not be able to confront the batterer without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength or emotional control. The lower degree of force a woman typically exerts upon a man may have little or no impact on a physically stronger abuser. Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser."

"In 2009, Nancy, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law wrote that most victims of domestic abuse syndrome come to feel that they are trapped into remaining with their abusers. When in desperation, often after many years of abuse, they take matters into their own hands and kill their abusers."

It is clear my opponent intends to annihilate the abusers.
I also stated that I approve of PROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT, meaning if the batterer hits the victim, the victim may hit back, but not kill them. Essentially, my opponent agrees with me, and his rebuttals against my second and third contentions are entirely discredited.

He claims battered woman are justified in killing their passive abusers, but this agrees with his idea that there must be "reasonable ground" for self-defense. There is no reasonable ground for self-defense if the dispute has ceased. At that time, the victim may find other sources of aid, which I have already established are available to them.

Shelters may only provide a temporary refuge, but within that period of time the woman may seek employment and learn to become self-sufficient. Money would no longer be an object if she freed herself from the grasp of her abuser.

The study in Philadelphia of dead domestic violence victims may not be entirely accurate. He did not state when the study was conducted. I already mentioned that domestic violence arrests have escalated over the years. Because law enforcement failed to aid those women back then, doesn't mean they will now. Even if the batterer doesn't face criminal charges, the victim can defend themselves with an NPO and should the batterer attempt to confront the victim again, they will be charged for violating regulations.

I urge you to vote a negative ballot, thank you.
EHS_Debate

Pro

My opponent will try to make you believe that we live in a world where problems can be solved if we want them to be solved. Where a woman simply has to get a NPO to stop the abuse. Sure, if it were that easy.

I will refute my opponents points and then dropped arguments.

She first states:

"My opponent rebutted my attack by stating my evidence was misleading. According to him, the amount of arrests due to domestic violence do not account for ALL the cases of domestic violence. This may be true, however, it does take into account the perpetrators of domestic violence, many of them which happen to be women."

My opponent's evidence, if anything, reveals that gender profiling does not exist when it comes to domestic violence cases, not that gender-neutrality exists in domestic violence.

I want to clarify something. I know domestic violence occurs outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. I never argued that. I gave ample evidence (even had to cut some out due to characters) that the victims of domestic violence were predominantly women. This just means we have more research regarding women when it comes to domestic violence so it makes sense that we utilize the evidence we have available to us.

My opponent mentioned,

"He also claims domestic violence in same sex relationships is under reported because they fear social exclusion. In that case, then, can men also under report, in fear that they will be perceived as "weak" and "feminine" if they do so?"

Yes. That is one of the problems. Victims do not want to report it, or they cannot. Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone. As I wrote in round 2,

"Additionally, Dallas County District Attorney Cindy Dyer said, "One of the worst cases of battered women syndrome I've ever seen was a man battered by another man.""

The fact of the matter is, many domestic abuse victims have no other way out. They are trapped. They want the abuse to stop and resort to deadly force. This is not bad. I stated in round 2 that there are positive consequences to a victim using deadly force. Alongside of the victim no longer being abused, I mentioned that money would be saved. My opponent attacked this part and responded with,

"You can't say it's better for every transgressor to be exiled from existence because they cost too much money to maintain. If someone's burden on society is measured by their financial upkeep, then those who consume expensive medical services should also be exiled. Money is not a reliable gauge of someone's role in society."

This is a straw man attack. I am not advocating for domestic abuse victims to kill their abusers or saying that they should. I am simply stating that we must realize that there are circumstances we are not aware of and understand why a victim feels the need to use deadly force. A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse. The consequences of a victim using deadly force will provide a net benefit. Once again, I am not saying victims SHOULD use deadly force, but only that it is morally permissible if they resort to it.

My opponent also states this,

"If they [abusers] pose a threat to others lives, they could be sent to jail and gain rehabilitation services before they presume their usual roles in society. I was attempting to establish this with my crossex questions, which he blatantly ignored. His attempt at utilizing consequentialism wasn't entirely effective."

I have two responses to this. First off, law enforcement is not always reliable. I gave a study from Philadelphia in round 2 and my opponent questioned it's credibility:

[Nancy; Law Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law; Voice for the Voiceless: The Case for Adopting the "Domestic Abuse Syndrome" for Self Defense Purposes for All Victims of Domestic Violence Who Kill Their Abusers; Criminal Law Brief; Spring 2009; 4 Crim. L. Brief 76]

There is the source for it. I ran out of characters in round 2 to put full sources. My second point is that rehabilitation services for abusers are not effective. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, measured two batterer intervention programs working with male offenders for their success rates. Men completing the two programs – one in Broward County, Florida, and the other in Brooklyn, New York – showed little change in their attitudes toward violence and a fairly high rearrest rate for subsequent assault. (2003)

My opponent then goes on to state,

"I already established that if they are afraid of confrontation, they may obtain a non-protection order that will protect them from further abuse."

I have given ample evidence in round 1 and 2 that reveals why victims of domestic violence do not obtain a non-protection order.

This is a copy and paste from round 1:

"Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around.

Christine Gilfillan, on August 22, 2010 wrote: "We want to believe that we can put the relationship back together, and we want to believe their promises that 'this won't happen again. Sometimes things get better. And Sometimes they don't.""

My opponent is not synthesizing the evidence I am providing and continually makes the same claims. Later she writes,
"It is clear my opponent intends to annihilate the abusers."

It is not my wish for every abuser to be killed. I have to advocate for the moral permissibility of deadly force when repeated domestic violence is present. Like I said before, deadly force includes death and serious bodily harm. I am not "wanting" either of these things, but if a victim has to resort to it then I believe it is morally permissible for them to do so.

My opponent says,

"There is no reasonable ground for self-defense if the dispute has ceased. At that time, the victim may find other sources of aid, which I have already established are available to them."

Where in the resolution does it say the dispute has ceased? Domestic violence is not a one time thing. For example, in State v. Gallegos, the New Mexico Court of Appeal reversed a battered wife's conviction of voluntary manslaughter where she shot and stabbed her husband while he was lying in bed after he had been drinking. Earlier in the day, the husband had sexually abused her and threatened to kill her. Moreover, in the past, he had beaten her and thrown her against a wall, causing the premature birth of their second child.

I have already given evidence in both round one and two to convey the message that it is not that simple for a victim to find sources of aid.

There are two points in time when abused women are at most risk of death: as they prepare to leave their abusers, and once they have left, thus, making exit for some abused women a very dangerous alternative to staying.
(Marina; Temple University School of Law; 2008)

She claims that victims can start a new life while at these shelters. That is extremely difficult to do, and I ask for evidence of how successful women shelter's are.

My opponent concludes with saying that it is pretty simple for a victim to just get a NPO and everything will be fine and dandy. Once again, we do not live in an ideal world. Problems do not disappear in the blink of an eye.

I will now move onto drops.

My opponent drops the "hotline as an alternative" argument and does not address some of my evidence on her law enforcement point. She drops all of my arguments against her Social Contract criterion and does not give any offence against my criterion of Morality. Also, my opponent seems to miss my evidence about why victims cannot simply get a NPO from the police.

Look mainly towards the criterion drop and I urge an AFF vote.
Debate Round No. 3
secretspy

Con

secretspy forfeited this round.
EHS_Debate

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
secretspy

Con

My opponent argues that domestic violence victims are too scared to seek help, so they must use deadly force on their abusers. His theory is inconsistent. A woman who is frightened as my opponent says will not find the willpower to strike her batterer. Because his argument doesn't make sense, it should be disregarded.

He also states that NPO's will not work in the case of domestic violence.

He also elaborates on his contention,
"Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone."

However, the psychological impact of killing another human being the victim MAY be emotionally attached to can be equally horrifying.

As he states:
"Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around."

It can especially drastic if children are present.

He also claims that domestic violence victims have no options so they must use DEADLY force. I do not want to waste precious time debating whether the resolution implies deadly force as a force that HARMS or a force that KILLS. If someone deliberately uses deadly (LETHAL) force, their intention is to kill. I already argued that I feel we have the right to use proportionate punishment, not murder. My opponent seems to agree with this when he states,
"A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.".
Therefore, I have settled my case.

Also, my opponent stated that law enforcement is not reliable. I already provided evidence to prove that the justice system has improved over the years and that arrests decrease the occurrence of domestic violence.

I dropped the "hotline is not an alternative" argument. I'd just like to say they can raise awareness, helping domestic violence victims realize that they have options. They may also provide emotional support in times of need. It will make a domestic violence victims life much easier when he/she realizes he/she has a way out. The need to resort to deadly force can be greatly reduced by these services.

I believe my opponent misunderstood my interpretation of the social contract. According to Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the social contract is the sacrifice of certain liberties to receive others in return. In retrospect, this means respecting others rights to privacy for them to do the same for you. Penalties performed under this contract should be punished with APPROPRIATE force, not simply murder. This is the point I was trying to clarify. Thus, my criterion is not unreliable.

He asks for proof that women's shelters are successful. Here is a shelter that houses men, women, and children in need of housing with an 85% success rate:
http://www.familyshelter.org...

A page from the Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse states the following:

The main purpose of a shelter is to provide safety to a woman and her children in a crisis situation of domestic abuse. Some women who come to shelters, however, are not in an immediate crisis but were victims of earlier domestic abuse or violence. Shelters determine a woman's eligibility to stay and for how long. In addition to safety, shelters typically offer their clients help obtaining social services, protection orders, medical services, transportation, and housing. Shelters also assist many women by phone and through outreach or educational programs, and some provide training to personnel in the criminal justice system.

As for their effectiveness, it states the following:

Bowker surveyed 1,000 battered women about the effectiveness of eight formal services available to help them.

These were police, physicians and nurses, clergy, lawyers, district attorneys, social service or counseling agencies, women's groups, and battered women's shelters. Of these services, women gave the highest ratings to women's groups and battered women's shelters.

I never said the resolution specified a ceased dispute. However, if the victim chooses to seek assistance and take the necessary protocol, it can end. If the woman from New Mexico had sought assistance before murdering her husband he may have faced the consequences of his actions, and the woman wouldn't have to deal with the stress of being prosecuted for murder.

My opponent and I continue to argue on technicalities. Deadly force is a force in which you intend to, or should know, you are going to kill.

Furthermore, he argues that murdering a batterer will produce a net worth. This is not the case. It is unjust because it not equitable on both ends. A thief doesn't deserve death for taking someone's property, and an abuser doesn't deserve death for his/her transgressions... Justice cannot be achieved without proper interaction.
EHS_Debate

Pro

As it is the last round I will refute my opponent's arguments in her last speech. The refutation will include contentions and criterion clash. For the layout of round 5 I will put what my opponent says in quotations and then respond to it below.

""My opponent argues that domestic violence victims are too scared to seek help, so they must use deadly force on their abusers. His theory is inconsistent. A woman who is frightened as my opponent says will not find the willpower to strike her batterer. Because his argument doesn't make sense, it should be disregarded.""

My argument with this is that victims suffer psychological impairments and therefore feel cornered into feeling as if they only have one way out. My opponent counters this by saying victims will not find the willpower to strike their batterer. These counterexamples prove that they can and do and wins me this point (each women testifies to being psychologically impaired and has expert testimony):

State of Kansas v. Stewart (1988)

State of West Virginia v. Riley, 201 W. Va. 708 (1997)

In State v. Gallegos, the New Mexico Court of Appeal reversed a battered wife's conviction of voluntary manslaughter where she shot and stabbed her husband while he was lying in bed after he had been drinking. Earlier in the day, the husband had sexually abused her and threatened to kill her. Moreover, in the past, he had beaten her and thrown her against a wall, causing the premature birth of their second child.

""He also states that NPO's will not work in the case of domestic violence.""

This is all my opponent says about NPO's.

"""He also elaborates on his contention,
"Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone."
However, the psychological impact of killing another human being the victim MAY be emotionally attached to can be equally horrifying.
As he states:
"Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around."
It can especially drastic if children are present."""

This does nothing to help my opponent's case. No evidence is given and she does not mention why this makes it not morally permissible for a victim to use deadly force.

"""He also claims that domestic violence victims have no options so they must use DEADLY force. I do not want to waste precious time debating whether the resolution implies deadly force as a force that HARMS or a force that KILLS. If someone deliberately uses deadly (LETHAL) force, their intention is to kill. I already argued that I feel we have the right to use proportionate punishment, not murder. My opponent seems to agree with this when he states,
"A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.".
Therefore, I have settled my case."""

My argument is taken astray. I advocate that OFTENTIMES victims have no other options and this makes it morally permissible to use deadly force. Even if there are other options available, victims may feel as if there are none. In any case, a victim is acting in self-defense and using deadly force is morally permissible.

Also, lethal force is not the same as deadly force. The last part of her refutation is accepting what I state,

"A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.".

This seems to be the case, which contradicts her point of intentions. A victim of domestic abuse should and does have the intention of stopping the abuse, not to kill the abuser. Remember, earlier I gave evidence stating that domestic violence predominately occurs within relationships where the two involved know each other. Death would not be the first thing to come to mind.

If a victim is beat repeatedly, and in response, picks up a baseball bat to defend their self then that would constitute using deadly force, as a baseball bat can cause death OR serious injury. Deadly force does not always mean a gun will be involved.

"""Also, my opponent stated that law enforcement is not reliable. I already provided evidence to prove that the justice system has improved over the years and that arrests decrease the occurrence of domestic violence."""

This is the only piece of evidence even remotely close to what my opponent is talking about. https://www.ncjrs.gov...

It states,
"Police have been making more arrests in domes�
tic violence incidents. In 2000, about 50 percent of
intimate partner violence cases resulted in arrests,
compared to 7 to 15 percent in the 1970s and 1980s."

This means out of the cases brought before police, more arrests are being made than before. No where did it say that it decreases the occurrence of domestic violence. Looking at my evidence provided in earlier rounds, victims do not receive the help they need from law enforcement, which means that the social contract is broken (my opponents VC) and the victim is able to defend their self outside of the constraints of the social contract. Another point on this, is that when an abuser abuses someone, they lose all privileged given by the social contract and therefore do not even have a right to life once they repeatedly abuse another living being.

"""I dropped the "hotline is not an alternative" argument. I'd just like to say they can raise awareness, helping domestic violence victims realize that they have options. They may also provide emotional support in times of need. It will make a domestic violence victims life much easier when he/she realizes he/she has a way out. The need to resort to deadly force can be greatly reduced by these services."""

My opponent concedes the drop and does not offer evidence supporting the claims at how effective they are.

"""I believe my opponent misunderstood my interpretation of the social contract. According to Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the social contract is the sacrifice of certain liberties to receive others in return. In retrospect, this means respecting others rights to privacy for them to do the same for you. Penalties performed under this contract should be punished with APPROPRIATE force, not simply murder. This is the point I was trying to clarify. Thus, my criterion is not unreliable."""

The social contract is a contract between society and individuals. Where liberties are exchanged. Society (government) protects the individual in exchange for these liberties. When an individual violate another person's liberties (on the level of abuse) then the contract is broken. When the government or law enforcement cannot sufficiently protect the individual, the contract is broken. In each of these cases, deadly force is morally permissible for a victim to use.

"""He asks for proof that women's shelters are successful. Here is a shelter that houses men, women, and children in need of housing with an 85% success rate:
http://www.familyshelter.org...;

Actually, this is not a women's shelter for domestic abuse. The following is copy and paste from their site;

"My Father's House is a non-profit shelter ministry that opened to meet the needs of homeless families."

My opponent also gives information on the Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse but does not state the effectiveness, only that 1,000 battered women prefer women's groups and battered women's shelters over the police and lawyers which only helps my case.

Once again, my opponent states that victims can just go get help by disregards my psychological argument. To finish, she hits up appropriate punishment again, which does not exist when the social contract is broken. The social contract is not broken over little things like stealing or trespassing, only when someone's well-being is being threatened.

My V and VC are not attacked. This should win the debate on itself.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EHS_Debate 2 years ago
EHS_Debate
Thank you for the debate!
Posted by EHS_Debate 2 years ago
EHS_Debate
It's ok :) Pretend like round 4 was never there and respond to what was said in round 3.
Posted by secretspy 2 years ago
secretspy
I'm so sorry I forfeited the round, I was so busy and my phone woke me up in the middle of the night, e-mailing me because I forgot to post an argument..
Posted by iTzDanneh 2 years ago
iTzDanneh
@secretspy for further cases, you may want, instead of making many contention focus on strengthening a couple arguments. Your third contention is not nearly of sufficient length and is easily attacked
Posted by CPaz11 2 years ago
CPaz11
Very interesting debate. i am enjoying this.
Posted by EHS_Debate 2 years ago
EHS_Debate
Yup. Are your times for LD 6(aff) 3 minute questions 7(neg) 3 minute questions 4(aff) 6(neg) 3(aff)?
Posted by secretspy 2 years ago
secretspy
I'm glad you brought that up, it's a good skill to have for tournaments.. i'll use it this weekend (:
Posted by EHS_Debate 2 years ago
EHS_Debate
Ahh. It's my first year too. You can still respond to stuff if you forgot to last round since we have two more rounds. Usually for our tournaments, you need to respond to everything your opponent says in your speech or it flows through the round and usually you can't attack it later because it would leave your opponent little time to defend it.
Posted by secretspy 2 years ago
secretspy
I'll admit I'm pretty unexperienced in LD and I don't think my opponents have mentioned drops before ._.
Posted by EHS_Debate 2 years ago
EHS_Debate
Posted. And thanks Cleopatra :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
secretspyEHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF to break the tie