January/February LD Debate Resolved

I'll move from aff (through his cards) to neg and try to signpost as best I can. :) Aff case Framework: My opponent states that just acts are morally permissible ones. I hadn't gotten this from your case; thanks for clarifying. Definitions: First of all, I continue to reject my opponent's definition of domestic violence. The word "repeated" in the resolution simply refers to something that has happened at least 2 times, and in many cases does not point to the cycle of escalation described by my opponent. Also, he even says in his rebuttal: "the ending of that definition entails oppression". The flaw in this is that we do not look to the ending of every situation to evaluate moral permissibility. We are looking to the status quo to evaluate the resolution, so even if you accept his definition of escalation, there are always relationships in which the abuse has been repeated once or twice but the escalation has barely begun, and so abuse is minimal. Value criterion: On his criterion—he reiterates the fact that this oppression exists and threatens justice, but does not make it clear why we should evaluate only the existing oppression from the abuser (which is all his case addresses) and ignore the oppressive nature of the use of deadly force. My opponent provides another example of domestic violence being equivalent to deadly force. However, he still ignores the wording of the resolution. "Repeated domestic violence", not "beating within an inch of their life. " So, while his example of the victim being severely beaten qualifies under this term, so does a slap across the face one day and another slap the next day. There's no way to justify using deadly force against this. Wright 1- My opponent claims that 3 women a day are murdered by their husbands. This amounts to 1095 deaths a year. According to an article by Elaine Carey, a Toronto Star Demographics Reporter, 1 in 3 women are abused each year. This equates to about 1,200,000 women. If we combine the two statistics, we can see that only .00009 percent of female victims are actually under attack by deadly force. For the 99.99991 percent who were not attacked by deadly force, it is not morally permissible to respond with a disproportionate amount of force. Clarke 1- Again, pornographers do not "create" societal views of women. They are certainly not the main shaping factor for society's views. My opponent states a statistic on how the majority of victims are women; this does not give a reason! It is not acceptable, proven, or correct for my opponent to assume that the REASON for abuse is that men view women as weak. This ignores the many psychological and circumstantial factors pertaining to abuse cases. In LD debate, the burden rests with the affirmative. If he does not affirm for 40 percent of victims under the resolution, this is not enough and you must negate. Clarke 4- again, this card can be flowed through but it gives him no offense. I allow the use of violent response in the negative world; however, this must be proportional violence. In 99.99991 percent of cases, deadly force is not proportional, unfair to the abuser, and morally impermissible. Clarke 5/His Contention 1- Sorry for the lack of clarity on Clarke 5-- I meant that, no matter the circumstance, telling society it is ok to kill is going to increase its tolerance for violence. If we deem it morally permissible for a victim to kill their abuser after being hit two times, where do we draw the line? What stops a child from pulling a gun on a playground bully? Again, this cyclical domestic abuse does not encompass everything under the definition. Where does the line get drawn? The woman being beaten to death is justified in deadly force, but what about the other 99.99991 percent? They are not justified. This is not a morally permissible action; you cannot affirm. Wright 2- First of all, this certainly does not disprove alternatives. Legal action is not the only way of escape for victims; they can escape to one of the 1500 abuse shelters across the United States, or pursue safety in the abode of a friend or family member. In addition to this, the statistic gives a skewed impression. In reality, this 64% of the .00001% who actually are killed, of the 60% of victims who are women. So, even taking this information into consideration, the percentage of victims able to escape is. .. you can infer how many nines are going to be on the end of that 99%. (A lot. ) Neg case On my value criterion, my opponent states that I contradict myself. I see no contradiction; however, I apologize if I've been unclear. Under a system which requires severe crime to be punished more harshly than minor crime, proportionality is the easiest way to accomplish this. Proportionality is the most important component to my value criterion; retributivism simply supports this as a wider theory of justice. The fact remains under this theory that a response to a crime must be proportional. His criterion still provides no weighing mechanism; we must look to our arguments on his contention to determine who is reducing oppression more. Even here, we can see it's a difficult topic to make an objective judgment on. For this reason, look to my value criterion first. Proportionality is essential to justice and it's easy to see whether this criterion is being upheld. My opponent offers no direct argument to my first contention and I've already addressed the Wright card; therefore, you can flow through both of my contentions. He has not successfully proved his impact of reducing oppression, which is the first reason you cannot affirm. Secondly, even if my opponent did achieve his value criterion, he would only be doing so for the subset of victims who are women. He ignores the existence of both men and children under the resolution. The third and final reason to negate is my case; he has not made arguments to the base of it. Morality requires justice, justice requires proportionality, and therefore allowing a victim to shoot an abuser who has hit them is not morally permissible. Thus, I negate.