The Instigator
WriterSelbe
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Sterasmas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

January LD Topic: See INFO

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
WriterSelbe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,730 times Debate No: 19880
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

WriterSelbe

Pro

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

Seeing as my first tournament on this topic is this weekend and I'll pretty much be screwed unless I get a practice round in to help me formulate my case, I need someone to debate this with me before Saturday. First round is for acceptance. 24 hours is the time to argue, and the max for word count is 8k.
Sterasmas

Con

I am a LD debater so I can help you.
I await the first affirmative.
Debate Round No. 1
WriterSelbe

Pro

(Please by all means feel free to give suggestions and critique my debate in the comments. Also, feel free to give suggestions for contentions that I might add to the body of my case after I have finished debating said round.)

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

Domestic abuse is not only a problem to the person being abused but to everyone around them—it is even harmful to the economy. Unfortunately, unless a person fights back, they could end up being beaten to death or into a state where medical bills begin to affect their ability to purchase everyday needs.

Before I begin, I would like to define a few recurring terms that will appear throughout. Firstly, morality being conformity to ideals of right human conduct, while permissible is something that may be permitted—allowed.

For this debate, my value is self-preservation and my criterion is the bettering of society. If a person in an abusive situation works to protect oneself, then society will be bettered. The most beneficial action to society as a whole is the most moral action and since the fulfillment of the resolution is the most beneficial action to a society, the use of deliberate deadly force is morally permissible.

Contention 1: Domestic violence is harmful to the victim and the economy. Over 5.8 million dollars a year are doled out to pay for the damages caused by domestic abuse, much of which is subtracted from health care. If that doesn’t seem like very much, one should take a look at Oregon with a population of 3,700,758. Annually, eighteen people are dead with the cause as domestic violence. In Oregon, one in ten women between the ages of twenty-five and fifty-five have been physically or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner regardless of whether or not they are past or current. Over fifty-million dollars are paid every year in Oregon for physical and sexual abuse, costs accumulated from health and medical bills, missing work, and the rest losses of the lifetime earnings of dead victims. While the fault is that of the abuser, the costs not only affect the economy but the financials of the family or couple where the abuse occurs. Seeing as 55 to 95 percent of women do not report abuse to the police, the abuse cannot be stopped and is repeated. Also, per year, almost 8 million hours of work are missed by victims of domestic abuse—equal to thirty-two-thousand full time jobs. Considering the deadly force would only be used once by the victim while beatings occur ridiculously more often, everyone would financially benefit from the victim retaliating. Seeing as this would benefit society as a whole, my criterion is proved valid.

Contention 2: Repetitive witnessing of domestic abuse from male children can result in abusive tendencies in them as adults. Because of this, it would only make sense for the abuse to be stopped by the victim as soon as possible. Men who witnessed domestic abuse as children are twice as likely to be abusive as adults. The less abusive behavior they witness, the less likely they are to be abusive. This behavior would lead to a cycle in which generation after generation of males would be abusive, harming the society they live in greatly. In fact, over 50 percent of men who abused their wives admitted to having abused their children as well. The sooner a victim defends oneself, the less the cycle will be continued. Going back to Oregon references, the statistic above also stated that thirty-three percent of all physical and sexual assaults in twenty-five to fifty-five range were witnessed by children. If the attacks were ended promptly, fewer children would be influenced and corrupted by them. The corruption of children is not something to be considered a moral act, especially in the cases of the witnessing of physical and sexual abuse. Again, the most moral action would be retaliation with the intent to end the violence and decrease the witnessing of these acts by children—acts that are corruptive and deter the growth of a society. By this act of self-preservation, society would be bettered.

Sterasmas

Con

1. Define Domestic Abuse.
2. Does an abuse victim have the right to leave a relationship?
3. If a person is being abused "repeatedly" as the resolution states wouldn't it be premeditated murder to purposefully us deadly force?
4.In terms of economy how much money is lost when murders occur?
5.Do you have any philosophy backing your case?
I don't know if you want me to wait to put my contentions up but I will wait until you answer CX before I make my negative rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
WriterSelbe

Pro

1. Domestic violence/abuse: Domestic violence and emotional abuse are behaviors used by one person in a relationship to control the other. Partners may be married or not married; heterosexual, gay, or lesbian; living together, separated or dating.

2. An abuse victim has the right to leave, however, the right is not afforded to them by their partner in a relationship. Unfortunately, threats are made to the victim if they say they are going to leave and they are also abused for saying so.

3. Not necessarily. Deadly force does not mean that the user of it intends death on the person they are applying it on. It only means they wish to put them in a state of incapacitation in order to escape or run.

4. Regardless of the money lost when murder occurs, as what the resolution calls for is self-defense, the money lost upon the death of the abuser is far less than the death or abuse of the victim as it happens far less frequently.

5. I will reserve my answer to this question until my opponent states his own case and the case requires I provide philosophy.
Sterasmas

Con

Sterasmas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WriterSelbe

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Sterasmas

Con

Sterasmas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sterasmas 5 years ago
Sterasmas
No offense but you need a third contention and you also need some authorative evidence. Plus philosophy is the central point of LD. Use it!
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
We can start a thread in the forums, and develop your case there quickly.

The current resolution is pretty foggy:

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

One could easily conceive of circumstances in which the answer would be yes, and others in which it would be no.

You're Pro, so I'm guessing that you only need a single instance in which it would be okay to murder your husband. If you produce that one case, you win, right?

How about rape and imprisonment? He locks you in the basement except when he brings you out to have sex. That's not-lethal on his part. But you can argue that if you use less-than-lethal force to escape, since he's bigger than you, and beats you badly when you piss him off, you need to hit him as hard as you can to effect your escape.

You don't have to specifically try to kill him, but you have to hit him hard enough that he might die (lethal force) in order to have a decent chance of escape.

You wouldn't have to be married for this argument to work, but being married doesn't keep it from working. Thus, there is a circumstance in which non-lethal domestic violence warrants lethal force in response.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
I can't complete a debate before your Saturday (different time zones) . I strongly recommend you read this debate if you want some background - http://www.debate.org... though
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
WriterSelbeSterasmasTied
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: Con made no arguments, but used his second round for clarification. Also, forfeits.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
WriterSelbeSterasmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: f