It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

I would like to begin by re-attacking my opponents case. My entire “problem” with his case is completely legitimate because he disregards the single, most important aspect of LD debate. The Value is not an “optional” aspect and is required according to the National Forensic League LD Debate Ballot. First reattack on his format- It isn’t untrue. The very first line of the judging ballot is this, “The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value,” and to claim that I am lying when I have the ballot right in front of me is outright slander. “Disads, theory, kritiks” are all valid for use for VC but you did not state them under the correct terminology nor did you even apply them correctly. In reality, what he is doing by expecting to win by negating the judging ballot (which is the sole paper used for judging) is the utter reality of what’s “breeding unfairness”. Second, it is very common to attack a case by saying it is lacking in style and requirements. Chances are if you don’t organise your case by ballot standards a debater with hit you hard on that point, and that is exactly what I am doing. Also I believe I quoted you correctly because the justification for your framework is about me not being able to call you out on it. Well guess what? I did call you out on it with the official ballot to back me up. Third, just like I said in the original attack, this isn’t about killing creativity, it is about following the ballot. It is similar to showing up to play professional football in jeans and sneakers and saying “Well you’re killing creativity by not letting me dress how I want when I play!” Also the reason why no one likes CX on this website is because it is impossible to emulate CX with the nature of the internet. Fourth, it does mean you lose points. The fact that I can link your source into my V and VC shows that I am more capable. Your absence of this requirement shows both incompetence and negligence for what is an official format. Fifth, the reason why it refutes your argument is because you are avoiding the resolution and instead trying to reason why narratives are good. This isn’t a debate about narratives, it is about the resolution and it is completely legitimate to call you out on not focusing on the resolution. I conceded to the idea of using narratives as “EVIDENCE” but not as an entire case. Evidence is used to backup reasoning and evidence alone cannot win a debate. Even IF (and that’s a big IF) his single narrative could hold an entire case, I would win in numbers of reasoning and evidence. I have three reasons, V and a VC while he only has one narrative. Thats a 3 (technically 5) to 1 ratio in terms of material. What he has done is made up his own rules and negated the rules of the OFFICIAL BALLOT. If you cannot follow the rules of the ballot and be creative without in its limits, then you shouldn’t have decided to debate me with LD. The judges must use the official LDDB before my opponents inferior one, the one he just pulled out of whatever conduit you can think of. Moving to the defence: Value: First off, in a proper LD debate, I would kill this attack by stating that my opponent literally cannot weigh values because he has no value of his own to weigh against mine. Secondly, I am negating the resolution, not your narrative. I am not calling what Scott did just, but Dixie’s response is equally unjust because to kill anyone is never just “by definition". I should also like to point out that his evidence is completely legitimate but only: “As a piece of evidence and nothing more”. I cannot negate a true story, but I am not negating the story, I am negating the resolution which my opponent seems to not uphold. He also states that he links to a VC yet he never states which specific VC he is using. VC: No attack made on my VC. Defence against general attack: I don’t have to give a specific standard for what is just or unjust. According to the ballot, “Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle”, so “generally”, murder is unjust while a court, jury system and correction is more just. Also my opponent offers no definitions to the resolution, so to attack mine without offering any is both hypocritical and downright pitiful. How can you defend a resolution when you don’t even bother to define it? Defence for 1st Contention: General defence: If you are going to attack my contentions you better correctly label them. My first contention is “The resolution perverts the course of Justice.” not “The justice system is better”. I should end this defence here on the grounds that incorrectly signposting is one of the worst mistakes a debater can make, but I’ll continue. First: I advocated that as a general principle the justice system is better. From the narrative my opponent showed us, the victim made one single, pitiful attempt to alert authorities right before she went ahead and filled her husband full of shot. From his evidence, to disregard the legal system on the grounds of ineffectiveness when the victim herself made only “one” attempt is so horrendous its almost humorous…. almost, if this wasn’t a truly serious matter. Second: It does matter because prison no one is being killed. Offenders get sent to prison and no one is killed as opposed to a murder and the victim being accosted to that murder. Are you really going to argue that the ladder is better? Third: Correction is punishment. To claim that when you go to prison for life is “getting away scot free” is folly. Fourth: State response, of any kind, is more just than Dixie’s response. Also to treat Dixie as some kind of sacrificial lamb is folly when she could have avoided being charged and have her husband put away for good if she had just picked up the phone earlier. Fifth: You cannot use people as an ends to justify a means. Who gives you the right to say that Dixie should give herself up for the greater good when she is opposed to it? Teleology doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of progress, she would only be convicted of murder and locked up in the cell that should’ve been given to her husband. Sixth: Well you see, the car analogy doesn’t work when you are advocating the death of an individual. I am right in advocating the justice system because it saves lives and gives whats duly given to those who hurt others. Defence on Second Contention: General Defence: My contention is: “”The killing of anyone, by any means, is never ‘permissible’” not “violence is never permissible.” There is a fine line between violence and murder. First: If you had signposted like a professional you would know that murder, under any means, is not justified. Come back when you learn how to signpost and when you don’t have to put words in my mouth in order to make an attack. Second: Same defence as the first defence. We are talking about killing another human being, not attacking on violence. Domestic violence is “violence” but to kill another human being is on a completely different level. There is a reason why violence is a misdemeanour and murder is straight to a felony. Third: Am I saying that Scot acts in justice? No. Are we debating what the aggressors “should” do? No we are not so stop saying that I am in agreement with what they are doing. We are debating the correct punishment for these aggressors and because there are ways to punish without stooping down to (or even lower) the level of domestic abuse the resolution must fall. Fourth: Aha, no. The AFF can still win it’s just that you dug yourself into a deep, deep hole the moment you decided not to “actually debate” by the ballot. Also if you wanted to be successful in debating a general policy you would have brought more than “one” narrative to the table. Defence on the Third Contention: General Defence: Please….. please label my contentions correctly. My contention is “Killing a human weighs heavily on the conscious” not what my opponent said. His failure to address my points properly could be, at best, poor debating skills and, at worst, be considered slandering and an ad hominem. First: You know what? This is a decent, valid attack since we are debating the punishment towards the aggressor not the victim. But I will still defend myself saying that to neglect the well being of the victim after the perpetrations is too near sighted. To think about the consequences for long and shot (my case) term is the better solution. Second: Okay sure, but his attack is based on circumstantial behaviour. Sure “some” people might not get PTSD, but to dismiss my point on the idea that "some" people find murder permissible seems fairly weak no? Third: Problems with my ideas and yours could easily be avoided if you just put the offender in jail. Also to suggest that people undergo therapy is valid but still, to not uphold the sanctity of human life is morally wrong on almost all circumstances especially one that can be solved through the law. Fourth: Awareness doesn’t always fix the problem. I am well aware of breast cancer and yet breast cancer still doesn’t look any less dangerous. Also to suggest using the death of people on top of suggesting that murder is okay is completely unjustified. People are not ends. This is going to be my last input into this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for brining to light this issue and for standing his ground to the end even if I disagree on how he does so. However, I must be factual in order to stand my ground. I have defended all of the attacks made by my opponent and have successfully attacked my opponents “case” and narrative. I will provide a link to the National Forensic League LD Debate ballot, but this will not be an inclusion of new evidence since the ballot it always available to the judges in a normal LD debate. Murder is what the victim is doing, and to justify murder is the moment we collectively lose morals as a society. For justice’s sake, for moral’s sake and for our sake value the case which wishes to do the right thing, the right way.