The Instigator
Eneal2k18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe

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 4 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 21095
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Eneal2k18

Pro

would prefer L-D High School Format however if you have argument(s) feel free to accept challenge thx & GL
[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.
THEBOMB

Con

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

Definitions:
Morally permissible- allowed by principles of right and wrong

Domestic Violence- I accept my opponent's definition

Deadly Force- the force in which a person uses causing a substantial risk of death (US Armed Forces)

Self-defense- the right for people to use any means possible to defend themselves when there is an imminent threat to their life

Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally (thought out, premeditated)

Repeated- more than once

These definitions are final.

Value: Life
Value Criterion: Maximizing the amount of lives through morality/ethics

C1. Self-defense killings are not morally justified when there are other options.

If killing in self-defense is the only option for a person, then it is justified to kill. This resolution does not specify whether this action is in self-defense or not. Therefore, the majority of the BOP is on my opponent as they must show it is justified to kill in all situations whether in self-defense or not, while I must show it is not justified to kill in one of the two. If there are other options it is not justified to kill. (Doctrine of Double Effect, Thomas Aquinas) There are other options. I will present two:

a)Non-mortal wounds
Chances are the way the woman, or whomever else is being abused, is going to kill is going to be with some kind of fire arm. Could this women just not as easily shoot the man in the kneecaps? This serves the exact same goal (protection) but, does not kill their attacker. They have other options; a woman, for example, can choose to shoot, or stab, an area which would not cause death but, would cripple their abuser for life. If you shoot someone in the kneecaps they are not going to be walking therefore, they cannot abuse you.

b)Government intervention (police)
Could the abused not just pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1? In almost every country around the world, domestic abuse is illegal and there is a police force. If the abused was to call for government intervention, the government would arrest and protect the person who was abused. We must keep in mind this abuse has been REPEATED as in more than once, so the abused has had multiple chances to end the abuse once and for all without using deadly means.

It is evident there are other options other than death. It is not justified to kill when there are obviously other options.

C2. The terms of this resolution do not meet the standards for self-defense

Nowhere in the resolution do we see the term "self-defense" nor do we see a setting for this killing. Basically, this means the abused can kill the abuser any time as long, as they were abused more than once. The terms of this resolution mean my opponent must justify how murder can be morally permissible. Simply because this resolution only says "Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence." This means anytime after the second abuse the abuser life is forfeit and even if the abuser attempts to change and stops abusing the abusers life is forfeit and can be killed at any time. Nowhere in this resolution do we see the abused is in imminent danger. This resolution does not state the abused is in imminent danger, in fact, the converse is true, and the woman is in no threat at all. Since, this is a "deliberate" action; we now know there is no imminent threat to the abused as they have had time to think about exactly what steps they are going to take to kill. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not looking at a case of self-defense any more, we are in fact, looking at pre-meditated murder as the abused is in no imminent threat in this resolution.

a)We have defined domestic violence as "emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse" in other words saying mean things. This is murder. Simply because the abused do not have an imminent threat to their lives. My opponent must justify how saying something mean justifies killing.

b)We have also defined domestic violence as "economic abuse". In other words, withholding money. Exactly how does this equal an imminent threat to somebody's life? There is no threat. This would just be pre-meditated murder.

c)We have defined domestic violence as "intimidation". Once again, just cross apply (b) to (c). Intimidation is the act of being intimidating; causing someone to fear you.

d)We have defined domestic violence as "harassment". According to the dictionary, harassment is nothing more than "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands". How does doing something annoying necessitate the need for self-defense? It does not. There is no imminent threat to somebody's life.

C3. Using violence to stop violence makes no logical sense
This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning and therefore is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to.

C4. Laws are based upon morality

Society is nothing more than a community of shared ideas. "without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist" if there is no agreement on what is good and evil society WILL collapse. Laws are nothing more than the consensus of what is good and evil. It is evil to kill. It is evil to cause abuse. Society is not physically held together it is held together by "invisible bonds of common thought...a common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is a price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price (The Philosophy of a Law R.M. Dworkin)." The government is the one empowered to create laws which are morale. There are laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws.

I will use my remaining time for rebuttals:

R1. My opponent's contentions contradict each other

Pro states in their first contention talks about Stockholm Syndrome, the emotional attachment of the abused to the abuser. Pro's second and third contentions talk about killing the abuser. There is one problem. If there is an emotional attachment why does my opponent think they are even going to kill their abuser? How would self-defense, or any other means, even be relevant? Abuse victims will not leave because of an emotional attachment but, they will kill despite the emotional attachment. How does this make any sense? Until my opponent clears up this obvious discrepancy, whether by conceding their first point or clearing up the problem, their entire case is null.

R2. Self-defense

My opponent must prove the state has failed to take action to protect its citizens. They have not proved this, therefore, vigilantism is unjustified. Furthermore, under your, or rather your sources, logic all governments around the world should be dissolved because they are not omniscient forces. The government can only protect an individual if the individual calls out for protection. Until the latter is done, a person cannot resort to vigilantism.

R3. Justified in several ways

As I have stated in my second contention, there is no imminent danger to the women. One of the key aspects of my opponents contention is "a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger". In other words, there must be an imminent threat. There is not one as it is a deliberate response, a planned response. There is no self-defense and there is no imminent danger. My opponent has failed to prove the state has failed in any way. The state cannot protect those who do not ask for protection.
Debate Round No. 1
Eneal2k18

Pro

Eneal2k18 forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Con

Sadly, my opponent has forfeited....I will give them another day to respond.
Debate Round No. 2
Eneal2k18

Pro

Eneal2k18 forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Con

....another non-debate.....
Debate Round No. 3
Eneal2k18

Pro

Eneal2k18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Eneal2k18 4 years ago
Eneal2k18
you may accept the debate.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
I would take this but, "You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria." Why can't I? It's not like I am that much younger than you and I have competed in more debates.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Eneal2k18THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Eneal2k18THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Eneal2k18THEBOMBTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple FF's loses Conduct and Arguments.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Eneal2k18THEBOMBTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit