The Instigator
8803
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
CAPLlock
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate Response to rape

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 3 votes the winner is...
CAPLlock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,018 times Debate No: 20643
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

8803

Pro

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

Resolution Analysis: Since the word response in the resolution implies that the victim was provoked by the attacker, we know that the victim, in this sense, would only use deadly force if provoked. Also, the resolution specifically points out morality, are the actions morally permissible? The main focus of this debate will be the morality issue and wither the action itself is considered moral.

My Value for this debate will be Justice. Plato defined justice as "...doing well to one's friend if he is good and harming one's enemy if he is evil." Repeated domestic violence is certainly an evil both to the victim and outsiders. We must uphold justice in this debate round, because justice is also defined as the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. When we look to morality as I stated, we must also look to justice.

The Criteria for this debate will be Due Punishment. Is it morally permissible to let a murderer get probation, or a Rapist due 2 years in a county prison? Is it morally permissible for a violent person who inflicts harm on his/her family to receive no punishment at all? Every criminal must receive their due punishment and that is through justice and giving each their due.

For Clarification, I offer the following definitions:
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.

Victim: A person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.

Deadly Force: Any force brought upon a person, whether accidental or intentional, which is potentially fatal or may cause serious damage to a person's body, such as loss of limb, internal damage, etc.

Repeated Domestic Violence: Includes but is not limited to physical abuse, rape, overall physical and/or mental domination, intimidation, terrorizing, stalking, and burglary. Domestic violence is statistically shown to increasingly intensify with each repeated offense, whether it's reported or not.

Contention 1) No way out.
Victims suffer from the abuse that is inflicted upon them. Whether it's a broken nose, black eye, or having the mental stability of a frightened teenager for the rest of their lives. Repeated domestic abuse is both physically and mentally harmful in exponential ways. My opponent may state that the victims can simply get out of the situation, or call the police. The reality is, it's not that simple. Take for example a child being abused by one of his parents while the other sits back and does nothing. I ask then, what are that child's options? He/she doesn't have the means or money to leave the situation, nor can he run away because his/her abusive parents could file missing persons and the child would be sent strait back to the abusive home. Not every person as the option to get out, there for when the victim's life is being threatened or the lives of the victims family is at stake, do you expect them to stand by and watch as they are beaten and abused? I ask, what is more moral? Let the abuser keep attacking his/her family, or stop the violence with whatever means necessary?

Contention 2) Justice for the victims and due punishment.
The law justifies deadly force in the event lives are in danger, such as in the case of an escalated domestic violence incident. "In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger." If domestic violence escalates every concurrent time it happens (which it does: "Data from the National Crime Survey indicates that once a woman is victimized by domestic violence, she is at high risk for being victimized again.
During a six month interval following an incident of domestic violence, approximately 32% of women are victimized again." (Violence Prevention Center)) And we're talking repeat offenders; the person's life may very well have been or is at risk. Threatened life through violence is an evil, so it demands justice through the due punishment, which is deadly force. Not only is morally justified that the victims use deadly force to prevent more abuse, it is also justified because, quite often, victims are hunted down. Abusers commonly hunt their victims after they leave.
Leaving your abuser sends them into a rage because it means they have lost temporary control over you so, when they do find you the attack will be much more severe than what normally occurs, that is also when most domestic violence deaths occur. The victims, ultimately, are in a lose-lose situation. Using deadly force against their attacker is sometimes the only way to save themselves, the ones they love, and get justice in return.

Contention 3) it is as simple as self-defense.
Keep in mind while debating this topic that we are talking about victims using deadly force. The definition of victims itself (A person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency) constitutes self defense. My opponent may try to say that most often deadly force is used while an attack is not taking place. However, With Repeated Domestic Violence, a lull in the abuse does not mean that the victim is safe it just means that at the moment the victim is not being abused, the smallest thing can set off an attacker such as making the wrong dinner, folding the socks wrong, talking on the phone to long and to the wrong person. So the repeatedly abused is in constant danger. It is considered self-defense in any setting and there for is most certainly morally permissible.
In conclusion, I would like to once again point out that the resolution asks whether or not the action of using deadly force is morally permissible. We are debating the morality of the action. Ant, there for, deadly force is morally permissible against REPEATED domestic abuse, for the reasons I have given above.

Thank you, and vote Affirmative
CAPLlock

Con

I agree with all the semantics.


Contention 1) No way out.
Victims suffer from the abuse that is inflicted upon them. Whether it's a broken nose, black eye, or having the mental stability of a frightened teenager for the rest of their lives. Repeated domestic abuse is both physically and mentally harmful in exponential ways. My opponent may state that the victims can simply get out of the situation, or call the police.

I dont know why the title and the resolution is different.

The reality is, it's not that simple.

Really? But why? The police force is comptent to do a simple task.

...she doesn't have the means or money to leave the situation, nor can he run away because his/her abusive parents could file missing persons and the child would be sent strait back to the abusive home. Not every person as the option to get out, there for when the victim's life is being threatened or the lives of the victims family is at stake, do you expect them to stand by and watch as they are beaten and abused? I ask, what is more moral? Let the abuser keep attacking his/her family, or stop the violence with whatever means necessary?

So in that example it would be just for that kid to pull out a gun and shot his parents?

REMEBER the police are still there.



Contention 2)
But is it ethical when you could have just called the police? He may beat you, which isn't deadly.

http://www.nizkor.org...

I leave this here.

It isn't alright when the abuser attacks but if the abused attacks the other person it IS alrght. Is that your logic?

Out of space.
Debate Round No. 1
8803

Pro

ok but if ure hit first or more than once it is self defence
CAPLlock

Con

ok but if ure hit first or more than once it is self defence


That doesn't justify shooting your dad when he beats you.

My points still stand
Debate Round No. 2
8803

Pro

but it does if you have no way of escaping the abuse then you need to save your liife by doing that you may shoot him once but any more andi it is over kill
CAPLlock

Con

but it does if you have no way of escaping the abuse then you need to save your liife by doing that you may shoot him once but any more andi it is over kill

You haven't touched off on the police.


Even so. Just live with your friends/family for a while.

Debate Round No. 3
8803

Pro

what if they cant and tell the police dont go to most domestic violence reportings
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
Pro, did you post someone else's case online? If so, that really was unethical of you . . .
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Why has PRO used the definition of Justice as Socrates' definition of Polemarchus' justice which he thinksis wrong? (hope that makes sense).
Posted by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
Why is this being debated?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
8803CAPLlockTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Ok, so the case was not even resolutional because Pro argued about DV and not about rape. In addition, Pro did not adequately respond to Con's "proportionality" and "police arguments". "What If?" scenarios are not adequate becuase you need to show that these situations happen on balance, which you did not do. Overall, this was not much of a debate, but Pro clearly lost . . .
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 2 years ago
DevonNetzley
8803CAPLlockTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons lie within my cote.
Vote Placed by Neonix 2 years ago
Neonix
8803CAPLlockTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate could have gone either way. Pro started out fairly strong, arguing with clarity and purpose. That ceased immediately into round 2. Con provided argument that was not refuted. Pro began to correspond with sloppy grammar. It is obvious that Pro lost interest in his.her own debate. I will grant conduct, spelling and sources to Con because Pro lacked all of these. Good job to Con for debating with patience. It can be frustrating to debate a luke-warm opponent.