January/February LD Debate resolved

I will now start my rebuttal of his case. ==Rebuttal== On to his Frame Work. His value is *Morality* I have no problem with this since *Justice* and *Morality* pretty much go hand in hand. His Value Criterion is Upholding the Social Contract. The social contract and morality both rest on proportionality. When someone breaks the social contract their rights are forfeited to maintain equality, but only the rights they violate are taken away. An abuser does not sacrifice his right to life because it would be disproportional, not moral and is not upholding the social contract. The Aff also creates a world where it is difficult to uphold the Social Contract. My Value Criterion of Upholding Institutions of Justice is vital to achieving his value criterion of the social contract since it is these institutions that judge if there truly has been a breach in the social contract and provide Especially since they are un-biased. We must look to my Value Criterion before my opponents. ===Contention 1=== Sub Point A- His Sub Point A basically supports his claim. It talks about how the Self-Defense doctrine is morally permissible under the Social Contract. I agree that the social contract is a means of morally justifying actions. This argument can actually be a turn though. He provides no impact so I will impact Sub Point A myself. Sub Point A proves how Self-Defense is something that is morally permissible. Self-Defense is the allowance to justifiably kill someone who threatens your life. The resolved says it is justified for the victim to attack his/her abuser with deadly force. What happens when the abuser retaliates against the abused and kills them rather than vice-versa ? This then becomes extremely morally perplexing. Is the abuser to blame for his actions ? Under this sub point he is not to blame. Rather he is justified. This is precisely why we must seek out alternatives. We must get help from institutions that provide justice in order to ensure justice is served and the *Moral* thing is done. Also the resolved is *Not* a situation of Self-Defense. The definition of *Deliberate* is Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional. In order to be in full consciousness of the nature and effects there needs to have been time to *Think* Which means we can't appeal the heat of passion Self-Defense since there *Needs* to be time to deliberate. Sub Point B- He also fails to impact this argument. He talks about how when someone violates another persons rights they *Forfeit* their own rights. He then goes on to card Kaschkoff. Kaschkoff says that when one threatens another's life then their right to life has been *Forfeited* However this is very bad. This results in a *Disproportional* taking of rights. I do admit when one violates another's rights then their rights are *Forfeited* but only the rights they *Violated* are *Forfeited* Otherwise there would be quite a low bar for retaliatory murder. If someone were sitting on me preventing me to move I can then push them off to regain *Liberty* but I can't kill them. This is extremely *Disproportional* Then he talks about *Necessity* using Robert F. Schopp. Its true one may be able to perform anything *Necessary* to defend themselves when being abused. This doesn't mean to use deadly force. If someone is beating me with a stick I simply need to disarm them from attacking me any further. There is no threat of death needed to do so. Even if you don't buy that the situation of the resolved Deadly Force isn't *Necessary* due to the *Deliberation Process* In that time one could seek help from the police or leave the abusive relationship. Therefore *Self-Defense* is not applicable to the situation in the resolved. Against the statement of women using deadly force as a last resort I have 2 responses. 1) He doesn't provide an actual statistic or empiric of how this is true. For all we know there might be 1% of women truly doing the act out of *Self-Defense* when the abuser was attacking. While the other 99% had done so without seeking alternatives. My opponent cannot gain the permissibility using the self-defense plea, or the principle of *Necessity* ===Contention 2=== Sub Point A- My opponent states that a lack of alternatives results in affirmation. While this may be true there are still alternatives present. He then cards Elisabeth Ayyildiz. She basically says the * Disproportionality* used by a woman is justified. This statement assumes that 1) The abuse victim is a woman and 2) The abuse victim can only fight back with a weapon. An abuse victim could be a body builder. There is no limit of who an abuse victim is. We can't assume that only women are abuse victims. Also turn the Elisabeth card. This is precisely why we go to Institutions of Justice because the abuse victim cannot fight back with brute force. If they attack with *Disproportional* action it is still immoral. Since *Proportional* violence may not work they should then get help from alternatives. The exact reason she uses to *Justify* Deadly Force is a reason to *Condemn* it. He then gives a statistic on the likelihood of being killed when you leave a relationship. Turn this argument. This is precisely why you must seek help from institutions of justice to ensure safety. As Brian Stipak, a Professor Emeritus of Public Administration, says in his article "Domestic Violence Reduction Unit" In 1993 the Portland Police Bureau created a special unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), designed to reduce the level of domestic violence. A product of the philosophy of community policing, the DVRU represented a new way of doing police work, one that more accurately reflected the cultural values of the community in the enforcement of the law. The formation of the Unit symbolized the growing view that domestic violence resulted in public crimes and required special attention. A neighbor calls the police because the people next door are having a loud argument and she is concerned for the woman's safety. The officers arrive and enter the house after knocking. There are broken dishes and the couple is struggling with each other. Separating the couple, the woman is taken into the kitchen and the man is taken outside. The woman shows the officer scratches on her arm and the marks around her neck which she says resulted from when he tried to choke her. The officer explains the man must be arrested because there is probable cause that a domestic violence crime has occurred. The officer asks the women if she wants to leave for a safer place. The women says she is fine as long as he goes to jail. She is assured by the officer that the man will go to jail and will not be released until the court hearing the next day. The officer explains the process by which she can get a family abuse restraining order and encourages the woman to follow through with prosecution. She says she is not sure she will go that far. The officer talks about the "cycle of violence" and refers her to the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU). The officers confer, read the man his rights and he is taken to jail. The next morning, an officer from the DVRU calls the woman and offers information about filing a restraining order and support in developing a safety plan. The officer explains that she must take some type of action to stop the violence. This shows how there ARE alternatives and they've begun to recognize Domestic Violence as an issue more and more. There are now DVRU's all around the country and the world. More will come over time. Sub Point B- In other third world countries there is still the alternative to *leaving* the relationship. Also seek help from *Friends* or *Family* The more people present the less likely for someone to abuse. The social contract theory is correct but the threat isn't imminent therefore they can seek help from these alternatives. Thus I urge a negative ballad.