Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Next months Lincoln-Douglas topic from NFL

Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:21:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM, Reid wrote:
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?

In self defense or afterwards?
Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:33:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:21:05 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM, Reid wrote:
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?

In self defense or afterwards?

Reading one of the earlier debate cases on this topic, I've seen:
"Resolutional 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."
So I would assume possibly self defense. I have a feeling this will be a major point in debates over this.
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:44:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:33:25 AM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:21:05 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM, Reid wrote:
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?

In self defense or afterwards?

Reading one of the earlier debate cases on this topic, I've seen:
"Resolutional 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."
So I would assume possibly self defense. I have a feeling this will be a major point in debates over this.

It makes a huge difference. It'll be an enormous uphill battle to argue in favor of the justification of pre-meditated or second degree murder in response to domestic abuse incidences in the past. Self-defense is a much easier case to make in that the perpetrator is engaging in a direct and immediate rights violation.
Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 10:51:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:44:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:33:25 AM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:21:05 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM, Reid wrote:
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?

In self defense or afterwards?

Reading one of the earlier debate cases on this topic, I've seen:
"Resolutional 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."
So I would assume possibly self defense. I have a feeling this will be a major point in debates over this.

It makes a huge difference. It'll be an enormous uphill battle to argue in favor of the justification of pre-meditated or second degree murder in response to domestic abuse incidences in the past. Self-defense is a much easier case to make in that the perpetrator is engaging in a direct and immediate rights violation.

So as pro, prove it was self-defense and a repeated attack on the victim which makes it justified. I think neg is going to have to win semantics here.
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:18:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 10:51:17 AM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:44:29 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:33:25 AM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:21:05 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 10:17:51 AM, Reid wrote:
"Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence."

Ideas on values, arguments, etc?

In self defense or afterwards?

Reading one of the earlier debate cases on this topic, I've seen:
"Resolutional 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."
So I would assume possibly self defense. I have a feeling this will be a major point in debates over this.

It makes a huge difference. It'll be an enormous uphill battle to argue in favor of the justification of pre-meditated or second degree murder in response to domestic abuse incidences in the past. Self-defense is a much easier case to make in that the perpetrator is engaging in a direct and immediate rights violation.

So as pro, prove it was self-defense and a repeated attack on the victim which makes it justified. I think neg is going to have to win semantics here.

Just at first glance and a little sleep deprived it's important to stress that there's no objective bench mark for a killing blow. If the wife's rights are being violated in a way that seriously threatens her physical well-being she has a right to defend herself, and in fact people have died from one punch.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.
Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 1:50:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.

I think its saying that the victim can use deadly force in response to domestic violence as long as its repeated more then once.
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 4:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.

Domestic abuse can very well be a threat to life, there's an information gap. There's often a clear power differential between husband and wife in terms of physical strength so we can't judge cases where a 5'2 wife attacks her 6'3 husband with her fists the same as if it were the other way around. The greater the power imbalance combined with the history of abuse and the anger of the spouse the greater the wife's case is. Another factor here is the issue of being able to restrain the other: The easier it is to restrain your attacker and control the situation the less the justification for murder via self defense.
Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:17:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 4:08:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.

Domestic abuse can very well be a threat to life, there's an information gap. There's often a clear power differential between husband and wife in terms of physical strength so we can't judge cases where a 5'2 wife attacks her 6'3 husband with her fists the same as if it were the other way around. The greater the power imbalance combined with the history of abuse and the anger of the spouse the greater the wife's case is. Another factor here is the issue of being able to restrain the other: The easier it is to restrain your attacker and control the situation the less the justification for murder via self defense.

Domestic Abuse is going to need a good definition then to say "they have been emotionally/physically traumatized"
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:24:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:17:24 PM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 4:08:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.

Domestic abuse can very well be a threat to life, there's an information gap. There's often a clear power differential between husband and wife in terms of physical strength so we can't judge cases where a 5'2 wife attacks her 6'3 husband with her fists the same as if it were the other way around. The greater the power imbalance combined with the history of abuse and the anger of the spouse the greater the wife's case is. Another factor here is the issue of being able to restrain the other: The easier it is to restrain your attacker and control the situation the less the justification for murder via self defense.

Domestic Abuse is going to need a good definition then to say "they have been emotionally/physically traumatized"

You obviously have to define it, and it's apparent that domestic abuse covers a wide range of cases. If you only need to argue that it's okay to kill in self defense then focus on the more extreme cases with the largest power differentials and history of serious physical abuse. In those cases it would be easier to make the point that the aggressor posed a significant risk to the life of the victim.
Reid
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:24:56 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 5:17:24 PM, Reid wrote:
At 12/11/2011 4:08:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/11/2011 1:18:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think that people are oversimplifying the topic here; the issue seems to be referring to a situation in which the wife's life/husband's life is NOT immediately threatened.

Domestic abuse can very well be a threat to life, there's an information gap. There's often a clear power differential between husband and wife in terms of physical strength so we can't judge cases where a 5'2 wife attacks her 6'3 husband with her fists the same as if it were the other way around. The greater the power imbalance combined with the history of abuse and the anger of the spouse the greater the wife's case is. Another factor here is the issue of being able to restrain the other: The easier it is to restrain your attacker and control the situation the less the justification for murder via self defense.

Domestic Abuse is going to need a good definition then to say "they have been emotionally/physically traumatized"

You obviously have to define it, and it's apparent that domestic abuse covers a wide range of cases. If you only need to argue that it's okay to kill in self defense then focus on the more extreme cases with the largest power differentials and history of serious physical abuse. In those cases it would be easier to make the point that the aggressor posed a significant risk to the life of the victim.

Sounds good, any value / value criterion ideas? (pro or con)
Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world. - Immanuel Kant