January/February LD Debate Resolved

Value My opponent values Aristotelian justice which is each being given their due. Then they make the claim “The reason I value Justice is because the resolved seeks it.” But, why must the resolution seek justice? Couldn’t it be seeking to uphold the right of self-defense? Criterion My opponent’s criterion is to uphold institutions providing justice. This means my opponent had to provide empirical evidence that justice is upheld in society. They have not done this. Their criterion fails as they fail to show if justice is even upheld in society. My opponent cites the criminal justice system but, they failed to prove the criminal justice system upholds justice. My opponent simply asserts this claim. Their case deals with law, but, my opponent does not prove law upholds justice. They simply imply it without substantiating their implied claim. Their criterion utterly fails. Definitions: My opponent accepts most of my definitions. Their redefinition is invalid because the term deliberate appears in the definition of deliberate. The definition is, a reaction (response) characterized by deliberation (thoughtfulness) therefore, it is an intentional and controlled reaction. R1. My opponent’s entire case rests upon there being an objective morality. An objective morality means there are set rules and behaviors which cannot be changed. Their sole contention deals with disproportionate responses, meaning a belief there is an objective scale to what is proportionate. A proportionate response is one which is moral; an un-proportionate response is one which is immoral. In order for my opponent’s case to hold true they had to prove morality is objective. They did not do so therefore their case is invalid. We must hold the opposite, subjective morality. Here is why morality cannot be objective: My opponent needs to prove pantheism to be true. Pantheism holds the universe is God. Basically, we are all living on a “part” of God. In order for moral objectivism to be true, the universe must be in some way conscious. Ethics and morality did not come into play until very recently (in the scope of the universe) when the first homo sapiens evolved on earth. Early creatures lived, in what political philosophers know, in the state of nature in which all people had the right to do anything they wanted. There is nothing binding humanoids from doing what they want, there was no morality at this point in time. Eventually, more sentient beings evolved and if objective morality is true, it implies the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings in mind. Through what mind? God? This theory goes against all scientific evidence that sentient beings came in existence through natural selection due to contingent, accidental circumstances. If objective moral laws do exist, then the universe cannot be unconscious. In order for an objective morality to exist (and thus uphold my opponent’s sole contention) my opponent needed to have proven God exists. My opponent’s sole contention fails simply because morality must be objective for their contention to even have any weight. My opponent has the Burden of Proof, according to Ockham’s Razor, to show moral objectivism is true. In order to for moral objectivism to be a valid principle, a non-physical entity must be added to the universe morality. My opponent has not done so. Therefore moral objectivism does not exist and, my opponent’s sole contention fails as it rests upon there being an objective morality. Why is deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence unproportionate and immoral when the moral system varies from person to person? The simple answer is to one person it is immoral but, to the women it is completely moral. Impact This impact relies upon an objective moral system which has been entirely unsubstantiated by my opponent. Subjectively, why can’t homicide be morally permissible? The definition of repeated is more than once; long-term, this means it must be over a long-term period.” If a woman hits a man twice, according to the resolution, he can then light her bed on fire while she is in her bed and kill her.” The definition of domestic violence is “the cycle of abuse used to coerce or control an intimate partner” this means the abuse must be cyclical and the abuse must be used to control their partner. A slap to the face does not meet either criteria. It is not cyclical. A slap alone cannot be used to control another person. “When we affirm the resolved we are justifying the use of vigilantism.” Why is this a bad thing? “The bar for retaliatory murder is set extremely low by the people who believe they are victims. At this point institutions wouldn't be able to tell the difference between self-defense and retaliatory murder.” What is the difference exactly? Now for my rebuttals of their rebuttals. Framework 1st What does this even mean? My opponent’s rebuttal has not even been substantiated with any proof. They simply make a claim. 2nd NC = Negative Construction? I implore you to spell out words. My opponent’s definition of the line between self-defense and murder is what exactly? Necessity? To the woman, it is necessary. 3rd “Since Domestic Violence is a cycle and the abused must be rational in order to deliver a deliberate and justified response then the Aff doesn't meet the criteria's of self-defense.” Why must the abused be completely rational to deliver a deliberate and justified response? Having an irrational belief does not necessarily make a person irrational. According to my opponent, all Christians are irrational because of their beliefs and therefore, none of their actions can be deliberate and justified. What is the criterion of self-defense? D1. This contention was nothing more than an explanation of domestic violence and the psychological implications of domestic violence. But nevertheless: a)“Arguing that the woman has been so emotionally scarred that she should not be blamed for resorting to murder is an excuse defense: we empathize with the woman and will be lenient towards her, but her actions were still morally wrong.” The woman feels she is in a constant imminent threat. Therefore, her actions were morally justified as they believed that they were in constant danger. Since these psychological symptoms have been forced unwillingly upon the victim then, the abuser has provided the justification by forcing the woman to believe they are in constant threat of attack. “The abused also believes they cannot escape the abuse except through death, and therefore, are in constant fear.” The victim believes the only way to escape their abuse is through either killing themselves or killing their attacker. The woman believes she is constantly being attacked. The woman believes killing is self-preservation and is morally justified. “The BTS or PTSD defense is an excuse defense that concedes the moral impermissibility of the act itself but seeks to excuse the act by appealing to the agent's lack of rationality.” You are confusing this defense with an insanity defense. b)What does this even mean? c)“Just because one feels they are in constant danger doesn't make the action of killing morally justified. It can make the action excusable because they saw it the only way fit out of the abuse but not justified.” Yes, it makes the act of killing morally justified. Since, to the woman, killing is nothing more than self-preservation. My opponent here is basically saying the woman should “just take it”. This is despicable thinking, violence is sometimes necessary. The woman is not facing a simple “problem” they believe they are in imminent danger every waking moment. Contention 2. I will make this brief. “The abused also believes they cannot escape the abuse except through death”. Appealing to authority does not help the problem. One of the two must die in order for the abuse to end. It is completely necessary according to the woman’s psyche. Furthermore, my opponent drops my hypothetical situation.