It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Because nuclear war is considered the perfect impact and global catastrophes are little more than TOC-winning uniqueness stories, I affirm. The affirmative requires a paradigm shift away from numbingly large impacts to the narrative - The individual stories of the human beings who live or have lived through domestic violence. There are three justifications- 1. Argumentative agency- the ballot functions as a punishment and reward mechanism; we reward the debater whose speech act contains the greater benefit to encourage constructive activity in future debate rounds. Any denial of this framework would make judging the round nonsensical. If we didn’t reward constructive activity then there would be no reason to vote for the person who won over the person who lost, making the ballot arbitrary. Since judges are obligated to use the ballot in the most constructive way, you evaluate not only text but also standards external to proving the resolution. My burden then is that my positive discourse is a reason to endorse my advocacy. Debate lavishes over the suffering of human beings. Debate turns bloodshed into body counts, chaos into scenarios and cost benefits. More debate is done on whether or not affirming triggers politics. This problem turns us into mere spectators in what ought to be an engaging activity- Mitchell 98:[1] “argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. … The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" … of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: … the principle purpose … is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life” AND, elo are fantastic but at the end of the day we need something more, something to point at and say “This is what debate taught me.” Mitchell 2: “Within the limited horizon of zero-sum competition in the contest round framework … questions of purpose, strategy, and practice tend to collapse into formulaic axioms for competitive success under the crushing weight of tournament pressure. The purpose of debate becomes [an] unrelenting pursuit of victory at a zero-sum game. Strategies are developed to gain competitive edges that translate into contest round success. Debate practice involves debaters "spewing" a highly technical, specialized discourse at expert judges trained to understand enough of the speeches to render decisions. … The purpose of participating in debate should get extended beyond just winning contest rounds … as debaters intervene in public affairs directly to affect social change, and in the process, bolster their own senses of political agency.”… The solution is a reexamination of our actions. The narrative allows us to see the way they see, to live their life, to put a face on the victims of nuclear war, and to move past hollow stats. Rowland 05:[2] “narrative … can transport us out of our here and now and put us in places very different from our own world. … narrative can be used to break down barriers to human understanding. It is difficult for early twenty-first-century Americans to understand the horrors of the Holocaust. But through narrative, Elie Wiesel and others have taken us to Auschwitz and made us see the horrors of the death camps.” 2. The stories we tell are central components of politics and life – the best training for becoming policymakers and legislators is embracing storytelling as a way to understand and debate about events. McDonough 06:[3] “Why is narrative so central to policy making? Because it is central to life. We live our lives crafting, telling, and receiving stories. We tell our loved ones stories from our day. … Policymakers … are as human as the rest of us. Part of our uniquely human heritage involves telling stories to find meaning from the events, data, and stimuli in our lives. Most policymakers, and especially legislators, have not had training in research methods and thus share the layperson’s suspicion of statistical analysis. The adage “Lies, damn lies, and statistics” makes more sense to most of them than does the value of the r-square.” 3. Empathy— There is a difference between narrative analysis, and argument analysis. My advocacy does not just allow narratives to enter the debate, but requires that they monopolize it. Both McDonough and Mitchell reveal why our advocacy must extend beyond round. To truly galvanize support for an argument we must use narratives alone. Kristof and Wudunn 09:[4] “Frankly, we hesitate to pile on the data, since even when numbers are persuasive, they are not galvanizing. A growing collection of psychological studies show that statistics have a dulling effect, while … individual stories … move people to act. In one experiment, research subjects were divided into several groups, and each person was asked to donate $5 to alleviate hunger abroad. One group was told the money would go to Rokia, a seven-year-old girl in Mali. Another group was told that the money would go to address malnutrition among 21 million Africans. The third group was told that donations would go to Rokia, as in the first group, but this time her own hunger was presented as part of a background tapestry of global hunger, with some statistics thrown in. People were much more willing to donate to Rokia than to 21 million hungry people, and even a mention of the larger problem made people less inclined to help her. In another experiment, people were asked to donate to a $300,000 fund to fight cancer. One group was told that the money would be used to save the life of one child, while another group was told it would save the lives of eight children. People contributed almost twice as much to save one child as to save eight. …” Thus, I stand in support of it is morally permissible for victims of repeated domestic violence to use deliberate deadly force. Goodmark[5] summarizes the story of Dixie Shanahan “During the nineteen years that Dixie and Scott Shanahan were together, Scott blackened Dixie’s eyes, bruised her, threatened her, dragged her by her hair, pointed guns at her, tied her up and left her for days in the basement, called her vile names, degraded her in front of friends, and generally made her life a living hell. On August 30, 2002, … Dixie Shanahan shot her husband while he lay in bed. …” Goodmark continues on Scott’s complete control over Dixie, “From the beginning … Scott verbally and physically abused Dixie. … Scott was already beating her so severely that she was bruised. … Each time Scott experienced adversity— his mother’s sickness, the death of his grandfather …—the beatings worsened. … During Dixie’s second pregnancy, after Dixie refused to have an abortion, Scott beat her in the stomach, telling her that he was going to get rid of the baby. … Each time she left, … He promised to change, … to “do whatever it took to keep our marriage together.” … But the beatings always resumed, becoming more severe, … The time that Scott threw her down the basement steps, chipping her front teeth … The time that Scott stuck her head in a toilet and told her that he would flush her head down the toilet, while her children watched. … The time that Scott, angry about a red T-shirt that Dixie was wearing, poked her in the eye, causing the eye to bleed. … The three times that Scott tied Dixie up, leaving her in their basement for up to two days, not allowing her to go to the bathroom, telling her, “You know, I could let you just sit here and die . . . and nobody would know the difference.” … Two doors in the … home were damaged when Scott smashed Dixie’s head into them—… Scott smashed a plate of mashed potatoes over Dixie’s head, complaining that they were runny. … He ran over her legs with a lawn tractor. … Dixie was being physically abused three to four times weekly, … angry because Dixie failed to wake him before their son, … left for … school …, Scott began beating Dixie’s stomach, screaming, … while their daughter, Ashley, watched. … Scott took her car keys, knocked her to the ground, and dragged her into the house by her hair, pulling chunks of hair out of her head. … Scott left the room as Dixie lay on the floor crying. … . When he stopped beating Dixie, he went into the bedroom, taking the phones with him. … Dixie decided she needed to call the police … As she tried to grab the phone, Scott moved towards her. … Seeing the shotgun near the phone, Dixie grabbed it, closed her eyes, and shot Scott. … “ [1] /Gordon Mitchell 1998 "Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate" Argumentation & Advocacy; Fall98, Vol. 35 Issue 2, pg. Ebsco/ [2] Rowland, Robert C. (2005). “The Narrative Perspective.” Chapter Eight. In J.A. Kuypers (Ed.), The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Page 134. [3] John E. McDonough, 2006, “Narrative Matters: the Power of the Personal Essay in Health Policy.” Book edited by: Fitzhugh Mullan, Ellen Ficklen, Kyna Rubin. P. 10-11. [4] Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. September 10, 2009. New York. Random House, Inc. “ [5] Leigh Goodmark “The Punishment of Dixie Shanahan” February 2007