It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Although I do commend my opponent for a very panache opening, it’s goal was insidious and perverse and I hope that the voters will see his “justifications” for what they are; not a functional LD case but rather an attempt to save face. Allow me to explain:A proper LD debate case would have at least the following,-An introduction with a Value, Value Criterion, brief explanation of his stance on the subject, and any observations or definitions that apply to the case/resolution only. -At least 2 contentions that have the following:-A working tagline that explains the contention briefly. -Logical or emotional reasoningEvidence (could be anecdotes, statistics or narratives)-Conclusion that points out relevance to Value Criterion and thus, to the value of the case. -A conclusion that consists of:-Brief explanation of reasoning and contentions-Offer final thoughts and ideas-Close the case. My opponent has what at best falls under the category of 3 -albeit large- observations, a burden of proof explanation and a narrative that isn’t even placed in a contention. Ironically, I agree to some extent with what my opponent stated in his three justifications on the grounds that narratives are important. However, a single narrative means absolutely nothing without reasoning or explanations. “My burden then is that my positive discourse is a reason to endorse my advocacy. ” is ridiculous. The fact that you are advocating what is a generally positive idea doesn’t justify “why” you should support it. It would be like claiming, “You should support me because I will save many fish. I won’t explain how I will save the fish, but if I tell you a story about dying fish, you will rally behind me regardless of what I present. ” In LD debate burden of proof is given to both sides, so my opponent needs to bring reasoning that explains the justification of the resolution, not a single narrative. It’s not as if the opponent does not know how to draft a proper LD case either, since in the past he has written one here. [1] This isn’t about not allowing creativity, or being unorthodox, but about fulfilling the required components that even the most novice of LD debaters should complete. “Any denial of this framework would make judging the round nonsensical” is a gesture of avoidance, an attempt to avoid scrutiny at first hand which is a burden that is placed on the affirmative. Furthermore, my opponent’s framework should be viewed as a violation of LD debate as a whole, a debate that is based on values rather than policy. Of course, my opponent could argue that his justifications place value on narrative, but his justifications don’t place value on the resolution itself which is what my opponent is supposed to be advocating. Is his narrative supposed to show logical progression as to why the resolution must stand? Well, it should…. Yet his piece of evidence only flaunts the malice that comes with domestic abuse and doesn’t touch on the justifications of lethal force. If my opponent didn’t want to argue in LD debate method, he should not have used demanded LD in the acceptance round. To conclude, I would like the voter/judges to see that in a debate about values, my opponent places value on a fickle piece of evidence, not on a value that define humanity as a whole. I quote, from the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Ballot, “The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc. , which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question”. This means that my opponent’s “case” must fall because it doesn’t meet LD debate standards. Now to my case: Because I believe in justice and the well being of human beings, I must negate the resolution. My value is Justice with my value criterion being The Legitimacy of What is Just. I believe that the resolution interferes with what is just in today’s world, and because of it’s interfere it cannot be upheld by our community. Before I begin I would like to offer some definitions and observations before I begin today’s debate. They are the following: The following definitions come from the Oxford Dictionary: -Just: “Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. ”-Permissible: “Permitted; allowed. ”-Evil: “Profoundly immoral and wicked”. I would like to offer the following observation: -Because the definition of “just” encompasses the terms “morally right” and “fair”, I will use both morality and fairness as parts of my value criterion and thus, my value. I will now begin my case. Contention 1: The resolution perverts the course of Justice. The judicial system was made for the very purpose of dealing appropriate punishment to an individual who has broken the laws of humanity or of society. To dwell on one specific judicial system would dismiss other systems that may be considered more or less “just” than the others. Just, is more like an intangible value that one can attempt to pursue and legitimise itself to some degree, but it is impossible to have a completely just system. Therefore, I will mention general laws that are accepted by several countries and the appropriate punishments that they use. Take the United States, who uses what I believe is the appropriate punishment for domestic violence and what that violence entails. Depending on the seriousness of the domestic issue, criminals will either be convicted of either a misdemeanour or a felony. In the case that my opponent brought up in his narrative, the offender did a series of offensives that would have warranted him a felony charge and most likely, a life sentence. Some might argue that a life sentence is not “enough” of justice but I would argue that the death penalty, which is akin to a public execution, is justice that only primitive savages can afford, not a communal society. A life sentence locks a dangerous man away from the liberties that a free man would have, and to be stripped of liberty is far more just than say, the immoral method of public execution and even worse, the perverse justice that could be dealt by a victim. The use of “lethal force” entails that the victim deals death to his or her offender, and revenge is an evil method and therefore is “profoundly immoral” as explained by my definitions. Because the judicial system could deal a more morally acceptable punishment, the resolution must fall. Contention 2: The killing of anyone, by any means, is never “permissible”. Everyone can agree that “murder”, by any means is inherently an act of evil. When a human being kills another, there is a violation that is defined by law, religion and even common sense. To put it bluntly, to kill a fellow being is one of the most immoral and wicked acts that a human being can possibly do, so why would anyone suggest its use? The resolution entails that the killing of another being is “okay” when it comes to domestic violence but how does an immoral act correct another immoral act? The resolution is a logical fallacy that believes that a greater evil will correct an evil of perhaps lesser degree. Because it is not morally right or fair to perform an immoral act to correct another one, the resolution must fall. Contention 3: Killing a human weighs heavily on the conscious. One reason why lethal force isn’t justified is because of the detrimental consequences that come with the killing of another human being. Killing another being brings a series of terrible traumas that will affect the victims that perform the acts of lethal force for months, years and worst case scenario, never get over their traumas. The most obvious case is PTSD, or post traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is most prevalent in “people are exposed to severely stressful, life-threatening situations in which they perceive that they have no control over the outcome” and feeling “helpless, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and and find it impossible to put the situation behind them and get on with their lives”. [2] This is emplaced on the number of psychological issues that come with a serious domestic violence family. Is it fair for the victim of domestic abuse to suffer more trauma than he or she is already subject? No it most certainly isn’t and because of that logic, the resolution must fall. I have shown how the resolution perverts the course of justice, I have shown how the actions dictated in the resolution are not “permissible” and I have shown that the actions do more damage to the victims; because of these contentions I believe there is warrant to negate the resolution at hand. Yes, it is tragic that the victims had to suffer the degrees of pain they went through, but this debate isn’t about prevention, but rather, about how to deal punishment to offenders. It is essential that we proceed with the correct manner of punishment or correction. This parallels with what Kant said, concerning that the ends don’t justify the means. The affirmative and negative both agree that justice must be served, but if we go about justice in the wrong manner, it degrades the very morality that we are trying to secure with justice. I would like to end with a quote from Martin Luther King: ““As my sufferings mounted I soon realized that there were two ways in which I could respond to my situation -- either to react with bitterness or seek to transform the suffering into a creative force. I decided to follow the latter course. ” Citations:[1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] "The Psychological Disorders. " The Psychological Disorders. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <. http://users.ipfw.edu...;.