January/February LD Topic: Deadly force as a deliberate response to cases of domestic violence

Thank you. I will first attack my opponents case, then elaborate on my contentions. First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponents generalization is widely inaccurate. He perceives domestic violence in the traditional, heterosexual relationship scenario. He fails to realize that this doesn't apply to same-sex relationships or child abuse. Additionally, I have a source that states, "Contrary to previous beliefs, arrests do not appear to be gender biased. The research showed that police arrested men and women with equal frequency when other factors, such as seriousness of offense, were taken into account. Additionally, police were equally likely to make arrests in same-sex and heteroï¿½sexual incidents. " Thus, men are just as likely to become victims of domestic violence and women are not always feeble and delicate as he claims they are. He also subjugates women to defenseless creatures, incapable of defending themselves. Not only does this perpetuate negative stereotypes, but it cannot be true 100% of the time. His entire first contention is a summary of the terrible effects of domestic violence, but his statements are vastly one-sided. He fails to acknowledge the other facets of abuse. Also, domestic violence may be prevalent, but that doesn't mean murder is the answer. The resolution clearly states, in "repeated cases of domestic violence," meaning the victim has survived. If they could use deadly force, they are capable of self-preservation. Meaning, taking the batterers life is not entirely necessary. Domestic violence may also involve sexual abuse or economic oppresion. http://www.financeproject.org... http://www.loveisrespect.org... To refute his second contention, I will demonstrate further in my case that victims have options other than deadly force. Todays resolution revolves around an issue pertaining to morality. We seek to find the truth in a question that could be argued for decades without reaching a definite answer. Is any individual permitted to take anothers life in the event of abuse? Life is very delicate, which leads us to question its worth and whether or not we have the right to take it from others in times of urgency. I negate the resolution, it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. I select Justice as my value, and the Social Contract as my criterion. To clarify my message, I provide the following definitions: Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one member of the household to exert control over another member of the household. Deadly - Lethal; causing fatality Morality- Rules concerning right conduct Permissible- Permitted; allowed Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally Victims - Someone or something which has been hurt, damaged or killed or has suffered because of the actions of someone or something else These definitions should help my audience analyze my argument, and hopefully, come to terms with it. Contention 1: Domestic violence victims do not have to resort to deadly force. The resolution clearly states that the victim in question has been subject to repeated instances of maltreatment. Under these circumstances, the individual has obviously lived to survive the abuse, meaning deadly force is not necessary. Physical altercations do not always end in death and neither should the ones in this context. If the individual is capable of infringing death upon the abuser, they could also inflict harm on them without taking their life. This way, the justice system can fulfill their duties by bringing them to court. A Personal Protection Order may be issued to prevent communication or confrontation from the batterer and if they choose to break that regulation, the culprit may be arrested. Domestic violence arrests have escalated dramatically in the past century, implying the government is becoming more skilled at its expertise. A domestic violence perpetrator is 50% less likely to repeat abuse once arrested. Communicating with federal authorities is the proper course of action. There are many resources available to victims of domestic violence. Death isn't the answer to the situation they may find themselves in. Those who are truly interested in finding relief can take advantage of the assets infront of them. Institutions such as Safe Horizon, the Joyful Heart Foundation and Women Thrive work tirelessly in efforts to alleviate the burden these people must carry. Shelters, hotlines, and law enforcement are all reliable sources of aid. Contention 2: Disproportionate Rights Violation The social contract is an agreement between members of society which involves revoking certain privelages to receive others in return. Essentially, this means respecting the rights of others and treating them fairly in order to benefit the same way. An example of this would be to leave another persons property intact to justify them respecting yours. Should they take your property, they may pay their dues by reimbursing you or replacing said item. It would be outrageous to demand an amputation or a major sacrifice over a misdemeanor such as this one. This is a metaphor for what the resolution is proposing. A violation of the right to live a fulfilling life should warrant appropriate punishment. Murder is not an adequate castigation because although the batterer has robbed the victim of joy, they could regain it because they still have the right to live. Assasination is not a proper retribution, it does not equal the severity of the offenders mistakes. Life allows us to earn all other rights through time, thus it is more valuable then all other privileges. Joshua Dressler, a law professor at University of Ohio states: "if someone is violating my right to bodily integrity by repeatedly shoving his finger into my chest, that does not give me the right to kill him to stop his offensive conduct. My right to bodily integrity entitles me to demand that he desist and, if that fails or if such a request would be futile, I surely have the right to use proportional force—perhaps a shove—to get him to stop. Killing him would be a disproportional response." Contention 3: Killing abusers undermines value of life. Denying someone the right to live according to their previous transgressions is immoral. There are countless mitigating factors in every situation that contribute towards an individuals actions. You cannot simply state that every batterer should face execution without first taking other constituents into consideration. Attempting to universalize punishment with this crime will not be anymore innaccurate than with any other crime. As stated by the United Nations, "States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment." Thank you, I plead you to vote a negative ballot. Crossex: What effect would witnessing a murder have on a childs psychological well-being? If the victim is capable of killing their attacker, why are they incapable of causing bodily harm without deadly force? Wouldn't this immobilize the attacker temporarily? What do you feel is the role of incarceration in society? Would you say men at war and domestic violence abusers have the same intentions? If so, why do many domestic violence victims survive, and why are many batterers arrested? Is this a reliable comparison? Can you state your source for your definitions of deontology and consequentialism?