January/February LD Debate Resolved.

Thank you Rogue Fox for the responses. ===Underview=== The responses he makes to the underview are not sufficient enough to take out the underview. ===Campbell=== His first response is that Campbell never justifies murder, but Campbell takes about how the resolution is considerably self-defense because the trauma that one withstands in a domestic abuse relationship makes them feel an attack is always forthcoming at the point where the action of killing is considered self-defense then we affirm because Self-Defense is a justification defense. He totally mishandles Campbell, Campbell proves how the resolved falls under the Self-Defense doctrine, not that the self-defense doctrine is justified, which it already is by law. His second response is that if you buy Campbell then that means the law is able to solve for Domestic Abuse. This however is wrong. What Campbell advocates is that the law considers the action one that is justified and therefore the action is not considered immoral but morally permitted since it falls under the self-defense doctrine and is necessary to solve for the crime. ===Ayyilidz=== His first response to Ayyilidz is that there is no warrant, but Ayyilidz is the warrant. The law of self-defense is how men or "Stronger people" are able to respond to violence therefore Women or "Weaker People" are simply ignored when they can't respond like stronger people do. He then tries to turn Ayyilidz but I don't further any mindset of Women or Abuse Victims being weak, rather I take steps to eradicate the mindset. When the roles are switched then this is the only time where women or abuse victims will be seen as strong individuals and are able to be rid of their own oppression when they can no longer rely on societies aid. His third response is that this card doesn't justify murder, here he is right. Rather this card justifies attacking your abuser with deadly force behind their backs. This is where you can already cast your ballad for affirmative because the Affirmation is justified by the Self-Defense Doctrine. Lets move further. ===Framework=== My opponent and I share a value so leave that be, but he tries to say I can't link into Justice because I promote Vigilante Justice. I have two responses. 1) Vigilante Justice is still a delivering of justice no where in his definitions does it say justice must be delivered by courts or police. Neither does it say an individual cannot be the one to administer law or authority. Therefore I am NOT de-linked from the Value of Justice because I can still uphold Justice even if I "promote" Vigilante Justice. 2) I don't promote Vigilante Justice. The language of Moral Permissibility is Societies tolerance for an action. Therefore actions that are morally permissible are tolerated by society and encouraged to be taken. Therefore at the point where I affirm, I am not affirming vigilante justice because the affirmative is saying that society should tolerate and encourage the action being taken. At the point where the Negative doesn't provide any kind of solvency to the crime of Domestic Abuse being perpetrated then he can NEVER link into his value criterion of promoting equality because he allows Domestic Abuse to continue and that certainly is NOT equal. Don't let him try to provide any argument that says there are methods in which society has used to prevent Domestic Abuse because I can never respond to it and it would be unfair. My opponent does NOT refute my Value of Justice or my Value Criterion of Reducing Oppression therefore he concedes to my framework which must be the framework of this round, all arguments MUST link back to the value criterion of Reducing Oppression. ===Clark 1=== His first response is that porn is not an adequate indicator of society's belief, and that not all men seek to rape women. Clark is talking about how at the point where we live in a patriarchal society and many of the symbols of a patriarchal society (i. e porn, action movies where women need to be saved etc. ) aren't looked down upon and are even tolerated then women are oppressed by this idea that they are weak. Porn isn't the only reason why women are seen as weak but there are certainly others. Also I use the Clark card in a different way than how my opponent responds to it. I use the Clark 1 card to make a connection as to why Domestic Abuse occurs. The reason for the abuse is because we live in a patriarchal society where many people believe they are strong when they dominate over weaker people which is the cause of Domestic Abuse. His second response is that Women themselves have fantasies about rape then he provides castleman. This actually helps the Aff because the Aff is not focusing solely on women, rather, the Aff makes the connection from women to domestic abuse victims, so turn Castleman it only shows that women can also be abusers and other women are men can also be victims and shows how the patriarchal mindset is also extended to women. Affirming is the only way to end the patriarchal mindset. The turn on the Aff goes away because I don't have the mindset he tries to say I do, rather I work towards abolishing the mindset of Patriarchy Turn Wood, at the point where we continue to allow them to be seen as victims the oppression continues. The Neg provides no solvency, only the Aff. The Aff is the only side abolishing this oppression and that is why you affirm. ===Contention 1=== His first response says that Clark doesn't provide any numbers, but Clark doesn't have to because she proves how the justice system fails systematically without any need of statistics. His second response is that affirming doesn't solve, but Affirming solves more than Negating especially at the point where he provides no alternatives, victims must be provided an option to get out of the abuse. His third response is that the Slippery Slope argument and Vigilante Justice. Cross-Apply the two arguments I made earlier about the idea of Vigilante Justice. On to the Slippery Slope argument. This argument is a Slippery Fallacy there IS a bright line, the bright line is the necessity to prevent any further damage which comes from the self-defense doctrine. Extend Contention 1 it shows how the Neg cannot link into Reducing oppression because the Neg allows the oppression to continue. This is the second reason to Affirm. ===Contention 2=== His two responses aren't responsive to Clark 4 at all. Clark 4 talks about how when we affirm then the abuse victims will erode the myth of them being weak. Rather than address this he tries to steer the argument towards the argument that I am calling them victims. Clark 4 answers this extend it. It shows how when Abuse Victims don't allow themselves to be pushed any further then they won't be seen as victims. This is the third reason why you affirm because only by affirming will they not be seen as weak any longer. Cross-Apply the arguments I just made to the arguments he makes against the second link (Which is the same as the first one) Extend the actual second link which says that the abuser will not be allowed to continue to abuse more and more victims. On to the NC The NC tries to promote the proportionality argument First a threat of death is a proportional response to a threat of death. Deadly Force doesn't always entail death. Further my opponent still provides no solvency so even worse he is condoning the abuser to continue abusing the victim and this is immoral and wrong. Reject the NC, at the point where his only reason to Negate is that its not proportional doesn't take out the Moral Justification because in the Neg world you Morally Obligate people to kill themselves or allow themselves to be killed this is immoral, we must affirm to provide Moral options out of the abuse. :D