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

My opponent rebutted my attack by stating my evidence was misleading. According to him, the amount of arrests due to domestic violence do not account for ALL the cases of domestic violence. This may be true, however, it does take into account the perpetrators of domestic violence, many of them which happen to be women. His entire case contains statistics concerning women and the plight they must endure under their husbands abuse. He also claims domestic violence in samesex relationships is under reported because they fear social exclusion. In that case, then, can men also under report, in fear that they will be perceived as "weak" and "feminine" if they do so? Furthermore, my opponent did not answer my crossex questions directly. For the first question, he states children experience trauma after witnessing abuse. Abuse does not equal murder, but we will make an inference from the information he has provided for us. If children suffer so greatly when members in their household are verbally, sexually, and physically supressed, wouldn't they also suffer negative side effects if they observed a murder? I think so. He completely ignores my question concerning the role of incarceration in society and his comparison between men at war and victims vs their abusers. He does answer my second question directly, however, he states the following: "The doctrine that actions should be solely judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences and whether or not they produce a net benefit." The consequences of taking an individual's life is not right. You can't say it's better for every transgressor to be exiled from existence because they cost too much money to maintain. If someone's burden on society is measured by their financial upkeep, then those who consume expensive medical services should also be exiled. Money is not a reliable gauge of someones role in society. If they pose a threat to others lives, they could be sent to jail and gain rehabilitation services before they presume their usual roles in society. I was attempting to establish this with my crossex questions, which he blatantly ignored. His attempt at utilizing consequentialism wasn't entirely effective. His rebute on my first contention is again, vastly one-sided. He tears apart one sentence out of my entire contention. He says women are too vulnerable to ask for help in times of crisis but I already established that if they are afraid of confrontation, they may obtain a non-protection order that will protect them from further abuse. He also claims deadly force does not equal murder, but he already stated in his first case that a woman cannot exert lesser force upon a man because it will only trigger a retaliation from her attacker. He already established that he approves of KILLING batterers. He cannot change his stance because it is convenient. I will derive the following quotes from his case: "The battered woman may not be able to confront the batterer without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength or emotional control. The lower degree of force a woman typically exerts upon a man may have little or no impact on a physically stronger abuser. Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser." "In 2009, Nancy, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law wrote that most victims of domestic abuse syndrome come to feel that they are trapped into remaining with their abusers. When in desperation, often after many years of abuse, they take matters into their own hands and kill their abusers." It is clear my opponent intends to annihilate the abusers. I also stated that I approve of PROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT, meaning if the batterer hits the victim, the victim may hit back, but not kill them. Essentially, my opponent agrees with me, and his rebuttals against my second and third contentions are entirely discredited. He claims battered woman are justified in killing their passive abusers, but this agrees with his idea that there must be "reasonable ground" for self-defense. There is no reasonable ground for self-defense if the dispute has ceased. At that time, the victim may find other sources of aid, which I have already established are available to them. Shelters may only provide a temporary refuge, but within that period of time the woman may seek employment and learn to become self-sufficient. Money would no longer be an object if she freed herself from the grasp of her abuser. The study in Philadelphia of dead domestic violence victims may not be entirely accurate. He did not state when the study was conducted. I already mentioned that domestic violence arrests have escalated over the years. Because law enforcement failed to aid those women back then, doesn't mean they will now. Even if the batterer doesn't face criminal charges, the victim can defend themselves with an NPO and should the batterer attempt to confront the victim again, they will be charged for violating regulations. I urge you to vote a negative ballot, thank you.