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

As it is the last round I will refute my opponent's arguments in her last speech. The refutation will include contentions and criterion clash. For the layout of round 5 I will put what my opponent says in quotations and then respond to it below. ""My opponent argues that domestic violence victims are too scared to seek help, so they must use deadly force on their abusers. His theory is inconsistent. A woman who is frightened as my opponent says will not find the willpower to strike her batterer. Because his argument doesn't make sense, it should be disregarded."" My argument with this is that victims suffer psychological impairments and therefore feel cornered into feeling as if they only have one way out. My opponent counters this by saying victims will not find the willpower to strike their batterer. These counterexamples prove that they can and do and wins me this point (each women testifies to being psychologically impaired and has expert testimony): State of Kansas v. Stewart (1988) State of West Virginia v. Riley, 201 W. Va. 708 (1997) In State v. Gallegos, the New Mexico Court of Appeal reversed a battered wife's conviction of voluntary manslaughter where she shot and stabbed her husband while he was lying in bed after he had been drinking. Earlier in the day, the husband had sexually abused her and threatened to kill her. Moreover, in the past, he had beaten her and thrown her against a wall, causing the premature birth of their second child. ""He also states that NPO's will not work in the case of domestic violence."" This is all my opponent says about NPO's. """He also elaborates on his contention, "Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone." However, the psychological impact of killing another human being the victim MAY be emotionally attached to can be equally horrifying. As he states: "Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around." It can especially drastic if children are present.""" This does nothing to help my opponent's case. No evidence is given and she does not mention why this makes it not morally permissible for a victim to use deadly force. """He also claims that domestic violence victims have no options so they must use DEADLY force. I do not want to waste precious time debating whether the resolution implies deadly force as a force that HARMS or a force that KILLS. If someone deliberately uses deadly (LETHAL) force, their intention is to kill. I already argued that I feel we have the right to use proportionate punishment, not murder. My opponent seems to agree with this when he states, "A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.". Therefore, I have settled my case.""" My argument is taken astray. I advocate that OFTENTIMES victims have no other options and this makes it morally permissible to use deadly force. Even if there are other options available, victims may feel as if there are none. In any case, a victim is acting in self-defense and using deadly force is morally permissible. Also, lethal force is not the same as deadly force. The last part of her refutation is accepting what I state, "A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.". This seems to be the case, which contradicts her point of intentions. A victim of domestic abuse should and does have the intention of stopping the abuse, not to kill the abuser. Remember, earlier I gave evidence stating that domestic violence predominately occurs within relationships where the two involved know each other. Death would not be the first thing to come to mind. If a victim is beat repeatedly, and in response, picks up a baseball bat to defend their self then that would constitute using deadly force, as a baseball bat can cause death OR serious injury. Deadly force does not always mean a gun will be involved. """Also, my opponent stated that law enforcement is not reliable. I already provided evidence to prove that the justice system has improved over the years and that arrests decrease the occurrence of domestic violence.""" This is the only piece of evidence even remotely close to what my opponent is talking about. https://www.ncjrs.gov... It states, "Police have been making more arrests in domesï¿½ tic violence incidents. In 2000, about 50 percent of intimate partner violence cases resulted in arrests, compared to 7 to 15 percent in the 1970s and 1980s." This means out of the cases brought before police, more arrests are being made than before. No where did it say that it decreases the occurrence of domestic violence. Looking at my evidence provided in earlier rounds, victims do not receive the help they need from law enforcement, which means that the social contract is broken (my opponents VC) and the victim is able to defend their self outside of the constraints of the social contract. Another point on this, is that when an abuser abuses someone, they lose all privileged given by the social contract and therefore do not even have a right to life once they repeatedly abuse another living being. """I dropped the "hotline is not an alternative" argument. I'd just like to say they can raise awareness, helping domestic violence victims realize that they have options. They may also provide emotional support in times of need. It will make a domestic violence victims life much easier when he/she realizes he/she has a way out. The need to resort to deadly force can be greatly reduced by these services.""" My opponent concedes the drop and does not offer evidence supporting the claims at how effective they are. """I believe my opponent misunderstood my interpretation of the social contract. According to Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the social contract is the sacrifice of certain liberties to receive others in return. In retrospect, this means respecting others rights to privacy for them to do the same for you. Penalties performed under this contract should be punished with APPROPRIATE force, not simply murder. This is the point I was trying to clarify. Thus, my criterion is not unreliable.""" The social contract is a contract between society and individuals. Where liberties are exchanged. Society (government) protects the individual in exchange for these liberties. When an individual violate another person's liberties (on the level of abuse) then the contract is broken. When the government or law enforcement cannot sufficiently protect the individual, the contract is broken. In each of these cases, deadly force is morally permissible for a victim to use. """He asks for proof that women's shelters are successful. Here is a shelter that houses men, women, and children in need of housing with an 85% success rate: http://www.familyshelter.org...; Actually, this is not a women's shelter for domestic abuse. The following is copy and paste from their site; "My Father's House is a non-profit shelter ministry that opened to meet the needs of homeless families." My opponent also gives information on the Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse but does not state the effectiveness, only that 1,000 battered women prefer women's groups and battered women's shelters over the police and lawyers which only helps my case. Once again, my opponent states that victims can just go get help by disregards my psychological argument. To finish, she hits up appropriate punishment again, which does not exist when the social contract is broken. The social contract is not broken over little things like stealing or trespassing, only when someone's well-being is being threatened. My V and VC are not attacked. This should win the debate on itself. Thank you!