A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.

[ MODE: Destructive - Paragraph Response ] [[ CON1: Response to Paragraph I ]] No resolutional conflict here. I agree that the deliberate use of deadly force is justified in self-defense [i.e. when the person's life is in danger], but I think I disagree with my opponent's reasons WHY. It'll come up later though. [[ NULL: Response to Paragraph II ]] No response needed. I'll bring up something similar to what my opponent preemptively deals with here, and I'll justify it when I do. [[ CON2: Response to Paragraph III ]] We've got some conflict here. I would point out that retribution is a fundamentally flawed principle that has become rather outdated. Let's consider the following scenario: A guy I went to middle school with used to beat me up every day. Often severely. I was too much of a wuss to deal with him then. I see him walking down the street one day. I am not justified in assaulting the man on the spot. I can hold his past actions against him, but since his past actions are no danger to me in the present, I cannot act violently in response to it now. Now let us take the scenario one step further. Upon seeing me on the street, he decides to have a little nostalgia, and begins beating me once again. At this point, I would be fully justified in defending myself. However, my violent defensive action would be in response to the immediate threat - him currently beating me - not in response to the many times he did so before. Just as I can only base my violent action on the immediate danger, the same is true for a victim of domestic violence. One should not respond violently to a beating three months ago, since that beating poses no immediate or future threat. Therefore, just as deliberate use of deadly force is not a just response to a single act of domestic violence, it is not a just response to repeated domestic violence, since the violent response should only be in response to present and future threat, not to past threats long gone. [[ CON3: Response to Paragraph IV ]] I have a big problem with the argument my opponent puts forth here. He attempts to assign beatings a harm value [he uses 20] and murder another [he uses 100]. Based on strict retribution, which I have already argued against, my opponent attempts to justify murder as retribution for X beatings, where X is (harm of murder)/(harm of beating). Assuming that retribution for past actions is indeed justified, I see no problem with the equation, since it balances the amount of harm. However, there is something I greatly disagree with: the harm values he assigns to each crime. Giving these crimes values in the same realm of numbers relies on the premise that a certain number of beatings is just as bad as murder. This is simply not true. I, for one, would prefer to be beaten every minute of every day until natural death comes upon me than to simply have my life robbed from me. One robs me of comfort, the other robs me of my life. These are infinitely different things. To assign a value so that X beatings = 1 murder has no basis in reality. Life is infinitely more important than comfort. Therefore, even if it is justifiable to act in retribution to acts that no longer pose a threat [being beaten a week ago, for instance], no number of beatings can possibly justify taking someone's life. [[ CON4: Response to Paragraph V ]] Keep in mind that my opponent intends to argue this as an overall statement, rather than only considering a few fringe scenarios. Also, my opponent brings up a good point here - sometimes, people who are victims of repeated domestic violence fear for their health, or even their very lives. I would say victims are only justifiably fearing for their lives in the extremely severe cases, which we are not arguing. However, even this will be dealt with after response mode ends. It is justifiable, however, in a non-extreme case, for a victim to fear for their health. However, unless such health risks are seen to be a threat to the person's life, deliberately taking a life is not a justified response here. I believe I've shown that through CON3. [[ CON5: Response to Paragraph VI ]] At the beginning of this paragraph, my opponent states "So is the deliberate use of violence justified?" This is no doubt true. However, deliberate use of LETHAL violence is not justified. I will show that after response mode is complete. Only if there is no other way could deliberate LETHAL violence be justified. And I will show why there is always another way. [ MODE: Constructive - Point Creation ] [[ CON6: "There's always another way." ]] Let us first consider the types of deadly force that might be used by a victim of domestic violence. 1. Martial arts 2. A blunt weapon 3. A stabbing weapon 4. A slashing weapon 5. A projectile weapon 6. Brute strength That's what I could think of. Now to talk about each one. 1 : Martial arts == It's unlikely that a victim of domestic violence knows advanced martial arts, otherwise the domestic violence would have easily been defended against. Only a very select few martial arts techniques allow the user to deliberately kill their victim. Most martial arts techniques aim to either disable or defend against an enemy. These are the types of techniques a martial artist would be justified in using in this situation, assuming a martial arts master somehow managed to become a victim of repeated domestic abuse. 2 : Blunt weapon == With a blunt weapon, the most one could do is hit the other person over the head sufficiently hard with it. Since such a blow can disable a person, this should be what the weilder attempts to do if being beaten nonlethally. If the blow ends up being lethal irresepective of the person's intent, then it is not a DELIBERATE use of deadly force. 3 : Stabbing weapon == Probably the easiest and most accessible place to stab someone is the stomach. It's actually hard to imagine a scenario where it would even be convenient to stab someone in a lethal place. Of course, the weilder could go Caesar style, and stab the person over 9000 times until death. However, once again, the intent of the weilder should be to disable their spouse, then attempt to either reason with them or call authorities once their spouse is disabled. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone is capable of intentionally killing a person but not capable of intentionally disabling that person with a stabbing weapon. Even if my opponent can think one up, we're talking about OVERALL, not about fringe scenarios that require major assumptions. 4 : Slashing weapon == Same as stabbing weapon, really, especially considering most slashing weapons can be used as stabbing weapons. Either flailing the weapon with no intent or intentionally attempting to disable their enemy are the justified responses to nonlethal violence in this case. If when doing either of these, the person ends up dead, this is not a DELIBERATE use of deadly force. As is the case with all these examples. 5 : Projectile weapon == Guns. Or bows, but I think you'll find that they're not so effective when in a situation where you're being beaten [try it sometime]. Anyway, guns make it VERY easy to disable a person. The weilder could shoot the person in the leg, arm, etc. as a disabling device, or they could aim for the torso to maximize their chances of actually hitting the person. Either way, since there is not the intent of murder, it cannot be said to be a DELIBERATE use of deadly force. 6 : Brute Strength == Highly unlikely, but it's rather obvious how easy it would be to disable someone instead of killing them using this method. Thus, there's always another way. Looks like all, 8000 chars. Good luck to both of us, I think it'll be a good one.