Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe
Debate Rounds (3)
[Wright, Nancy. 2009. "Criminal Law Brief. 4:76.] documents a despicable tale "For example, in State v. Hundley, Betty Hundley's "build up of terror and fear" extended throughout her "tumultuous" ten year marriage to Carl Hundley. Over the years, Carl "knocked out several of Betty's teeth, broke her nose at least five times and threatened to cut out her eyeballs out and her head off." He also "kicked Betty down the stairs on numerous occasions and had repeatedly broken her ribs." When Betty moved out, Carl "started a pattern of constant harassment," Ultimately, Carl broke down the door of the motel room where Betty was staying, choked her, raped her and threatened her life, as he turned his back to her to reach for a beer bottle, Betty shot him five times in the back." It is because of the horrible experiences of victims like Betty who have endured both physical and, although harder to see but no less terrible, psychological abuse due to domestic violence that I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution:
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
I would like to define a few terms at this time. All definitions will come from [Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 1983.] Unless I say otherwise.
Moral- is defined as "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong; ethical."
Permit- is defined as "to suffer without giving expressed authority; to allow."
Domestic Violence- the following contextual definition is from [ Meyersfeld, Bonita. 2003. Albany Law Review. 67:371.] "…defines domestic violence as: physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant."
More definitions are available upon request.
My value in today's debate will be Quality of Life. We can see that quality of life is the most important value we can consider in today's debate because it is held in important regard to not only individuals but to societies across the world as well. If this was not the case then slavery would be allowed instead of outlawed in most countries today and we would not care if rights were violated like rights to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and right over one's body. We would not have seen the civil rights movement or the promotion of women rights here in America if it wasn't for the deep regard we have for quality of life. After all what is life if you spend every day in chains, if you are not free to spend your free time as you choose, or if you don't have equal consideration?
This leads me directly to my value criteria of maximizing individual rights. Only through maximizing individual rights can we continue to uphold the value of quality of life. These rights like the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness are inherent, furthermore these rights can only go as far as not to infringe upon other's rights. Domestic violence by definition infringes upon these inalienable rights and sends the message that the quality of life does not matter not only for the victim but for others as well. The fact that the resolution posits a situation where this infringement and negative message is repeated further supports the need to uphold the quality of life.
I will have three main points to support my position: (1) Many factors often prevent victims from leaving; (2) Social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense; (3) Deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways.
To my first point, many factors prevent victims from leaving. Several pieces of evidence shine light on this horrible truth. [Hope Toffel, Southern California Law Review, Volume 70, 1996.] "For example… people taken hostage may subsequently show positive regard for their captors… abused children have been found to have strong attachments to their abusing parents… and cult members are sometimes amazingly loyal to malevolent cult leaders. The relationship between assaulted women and their partners, then, may be seen as one example of what we have termed traumatic bonding – the development of strong emotional ties between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." [Nancy Wright, law professor at Santa Clara Law School, Criminal Law Brief, Volume 4, 2009.] "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. Although only 10% of women are separated of 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." When considering this evidence we must see that these victims are faced with the horrific choice of staying in an abusive home or leaving, just to face escalated violence at the hands of their tormentors.
This leads me directly to my second point that social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] "Vigilantism as a permissible mode of self-help for battered women may be justified under social contract theory. The breakdown of the social compact occurs when the state fails in its obligation to protect the individual. This breakdown justifies the individual's resort to self-help. 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." When society fails to undertake necessary measures to eradicate, or at least meaningfully reduce, domestic violence, it ought to be morally permissible for potential victims to take matters into their own hands and prevent themselves from continuing to be victimized.
Moving on to my last point that deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] explains "First, death may be necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. Death may be the only means by which battered women can escape the abuse. Moreover, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in circumstances other than self-defense. In California, for example, deadly force is permitted by any person, not just a police officer, if necessary to apprehend any person for any felony. In these situations, a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger. Battered women should be seen as apprehending the batterer for committing a felony, the battery itself. Finally, death may be justified under a retributive analysis in which the battered woman is seen as punishing the batterer. If the battered woman is stepping in where the state has failed, then she should be permitted to exercise the same powers as those possessed by the state. The death of the batterer, therefore, is a permissible solution for battered women."
In conclusion my case clearly outlines the affirmative position that repeated domestic violence is an egregious violation of individual rights, a violation where the use of deadly force to escape the situation is not only a morally permissible solution, but often times the only solution. I strongly urge you to remember the victims like Betty Hundley and promote the individual rights and quality of life for not just the past and present but for the future as well. Vote affirmative in today's debate.
First i would like to rebut a lot of the government side's statement. And if possible provide the answer as to what i will be writing after this:
1. Now, i'm not really aware of what your L-D High school format is but based on the debates I've believe through, you are suppose to first define and set the motion before anything else as to guide the listeners as to what we are going to be talking about today.
2. You're actually showing us that it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to "REPE"? i wonder what the word "REPE" means. So i will assume that it is an error in your spelling. And what you are trying to emphasize is RAPE, am i correct?
3. You have defined Domestic Violence in your speech, which is physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant. (I believe that you have already gone way beyond our scope as to the parameter of the issue is, which is only on RAPE.)
4. You are actually emphasizing that the value of your debate is the Quality of life.
"Because it is held in important regard to not only individuals but to societies across the world as well" - Those criminals who commit the crime of rape are also part of individuals and societies across the world. (Then you are conceding to the point that these people's life are should be valued, which is contradictory to what your "motion" is all about, which is allowing victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to rape. )
5. Let me define one word for you Mr. Speaker : Deliberation-is a process of thoughtfully weighing options since you said that the use of deadly force as a deliberate response. Let me clarify to you one thing Mr. Speaker, the act to murdering another individual is only permissible given that NO OTHER OPTIONS ARE OFFERED to the victim. But given that it is a deliberate response, then that would mean there are better alternatives for the victim themselves and avoid the point of ending another human life.
6. Do you sincerely believe that only men rape women? Don't you believe it would be bias for you to state that? - Given that in most cases men are seen as the offenders in rape, doesn't mean that women aren't also potential suspects.
7. In your first point you are actually stating a lot of types of abuse not connected to RAPE, AND AGAIN, you are now going out of the PARAMETER AND SCOPE of the motion. People react to different kinds of abuses, we are talking about RAPE, please focus on that Mr. Speaker! Read your first point again and assess.
8." When society fails to undertake necessary measures to eradicate, or at least meaningfully reduce, domestic violence, it ought to be morally permissible for potential victims to take matters into their own hands and prevent themselves from continuing to be victimized." - YOU STATED POTENTIAL VICTIMS, then later on i see the word VICTIMIZED, POTENTIAL VICTIMS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMIZED.
9.You gave an example that the battered woman can actually excercise the power of the state to, which is death of the offender, do you know the state also has the power to arrest?? You have failed to state as to what grounds that the individual must have before resolving to such act!
I agree the quality of life must be preserved, and with that those offenders must be given the same extent. The PRO of this debate has not clarify as to what grounds the person must have in order to resolve to defending himself / herself in to result to deadly force. And is primarily focused on abuses way beyond the parameters of his/her motion, which only focuses on RAPE. The PRO stated that it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to rape. Yet he stated in his last point that it is only applicable when all else fail. (government) , so where's deliberation there? Where's the choice, if that's what you are clearly emphasizing in your last point. Overall, the cases presented by the PRO are weak in terms of the MOTION.
Now let me present my case.
1.) Deliberation means there are other options.
It's true than in times of being sexually abused (RAPE) it is important for us to resist.
Primarily it would prove to court that you have been raped.
(Without it, it would end up being called another Sexual Intercourse)
But if the need arises, there are always options. Never has it ever been approved that ending a life of a person is moral, given that there are a lot of ways to avoid ending another person's life.
Since the motion is talking about a DELIBERATE, then there are options, of course there are options better than ending another person's life. Killing the offender should only happen, if and only if, the victim has no other choice, not when he/she still has options.
2.) It may be used as an excuse for murder. (Given that it will become permissible)
A rough SEX regretted by the other person can be used as a reason for the him/her to kill the other and get away with it.
Rough SEX can become another way or method of Legal Murder. Those who are good enough to understand this can actually use it to kill other people and get away with it.
( What's the connection of rough sex to RAPE? - Rough Sex can be manipulated in court as RAPE )
Given this facts, we on the Negative side of this debate, are proud to oppose such motion. I'll cut it short for now and wait for the reply of the PRO bench. Thank you and once again Good Day to everyone.
Just as a road map i will defend the Pro's case then attack the Con's case.
1. The first point my opponent makes is that i need to first give definitions and set motion of debate. I would like to point out that my first paragraph is an introduction. This introduction is a narrative of a testimony given at a trial "State V. Hundley." After my introduction i go on to state the topic - Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. After i state the topic I define relevant terms to my case which are moral, permit, and domestic violence.
2. Here there is a lot of confusion by my opponent, Im assuming he read the tag line at top of the page but because the topic is so long he did not see the remaining words. However my opponent oversight should not be excused as i go on to restate the topic immediately after my introduction which i will restate again here:
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to REPEATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
the caps are the words that are not stated at top of page that is a website error however it is clearly stated in my argument. Throughout the con case my opponent continues on with his assumption that im talking about just rape, but rape does fall into a broad category of domestic violence so i will still attack his points. Judges please keep in mind that this domestic violence (rape) is being repeated. This would not be a one time incident but a horrific abuse that may persist for years, look to my introduction as an example.
3. Since the debate is talking about Domestic Violence i did not go beyond the parameters of the debate.
4. I am emphasizing quality of life, not life itself. my opponent states "Those criminals who commit the crime of rape are also part of individuals and societies across the world." Yes they are individuals apart of society however as i go on to explain in my value criteria those criminals would be infringing on individual rights when they commit the domestic violence (Rape) worse this would be a repeated infringement according to the topic. Im arguing that on a moral bases alone, NOT LEGAL, that; (1) these criminals give up their rights when they commit the domestic violence (rape); (2)not only is this domestic violence harming the individual it also harms the society because it sends the negative message that QUALITY of life is not important.; (3) in order to uphold quality of life and counteract this negative message we vote pro and affirm resolution.
5. I do not deny in my case that the use of deadly force is a deliberate response, as in the victim made the concious decision to end the criminal life. I do however contend that there are no better alternatives as i go on to explain in my case and will again outline here as i rubutt more of my opponent's argument.
6.All of my points; (1) there are preventative factors to the abused leaving; (2) social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self- defense; and (3) deadly force may be justified in several ways. all of these points are gender neutral the crimes of domestic violence can be committed men against women, women against men, man against man, woman against woman, and parent/guardian against children. Again i can only assume my opponent is selective reading here also i would like to point out the Rape is apart of physical abuse not to mention the psychological abuse that can be suffered from rape. i mention these forms of abuse all through out my case and want to make clear that include rape.
7.All ready answered part of this, that rape is included in those arguments plus the resolution requires that we talk about the many forms of domestic violence not just rape my opponent should have focused on that fact. in this first point that my opponent is responding to I outline several arguments as to why victims cannot escape repeated domestic violence which are Traumatic bonding theory and separation abuse. My opponent attacks neither of these arguments so judge you must assume he agrees with me or at least accept that my arguments stand as my opponent did not attack them. Victims of domestic violence are often prevented from leaving.
8.these victims have already been victimized because the domestic violence is repeated they are however also potential victims as in they will be victims again if the abuse is allowed to continue.
9.In my 2 argument social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self- defense i explain that the state has an obligation to protect the individual and when the state fails in this regard than its up to the individual to protect themselves. my opponent does not respond to this. the fact that this abuse is repeated shows that the state is failing in its duty which gives individuals the right to exercise power of the state to protect themselves. my opponent states "do you know the state also has the power to arrest" my third point answers this "First, death may be necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. Death may be the only means by which battered women can escape the abuse. Moreover, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in circumstances other than self-defense. In California, for example, deadly force is permitted by any person, not just a police officer, if necessary to apprehend any person for any felony. In these situations, a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger. Battered women should be seen as apprehending the batterer for committing a felony, the battery itself. Finally, death may be justified under a retributive analysis in which the battered woman is seen as punishing the batterer. If the battered woman is stepping in where the state has failed, then she should be permitted to exercise the same powers as those possessed by the state. The death of the batterer, therefore, is a permissible solution for battered women." My opponent attacks neither of these arguments that the abused may lack sufficient strength to "arrest" nor can they leave so death is often only option. He also doesn't attack the the abused should be seen as apprehending the criminal for the felony of domestic violence because this abuse is repeated there is reasonable fear for one's life on part of the victim. and lastly that from a moral stand point and retributive analysis that this would be permissible.
Again you can see my opponent did not take into full scope of the topic nor did he sufficiently disprove the pro's case i will move on to attack con case now.
1. deliberate means it was premeditated or conscious decision not that their were other alternative.
My case outlines that there are no other alternatives from them being prevented from leaving, lacking strength to subdue the abuser, and that the state fails to protect these individuals are all reasons why there are not other alternatives to use of deadly force. My opponent states "Killing the offender should only happen, if and only if, the victim has no other choice" i prove that there is no other choice.
2.its permissible according to "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong" im not arguing that this will be permissible according to the law. rough sex implies consent which can't be seen as rape however if you don't accept that argument victim may go along with "rough sex" because of separation abuse of traumatic bonding theory. The abuse is still very real both physical and psychological. lastly my opponent repeatedly states we are talking about just rape in his case so by his on words we should are not be discussing rough sex at all or how it can be used as a defense since he agrees its different from rape.
It is for the reasons i have stated in defense of pro case as well as my attacks on my opponents case that i urge you all to vote pro.
Louie forfeited this round.
Louie forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.