Domestic Violence

First I will be briefly defending my case, then I will extend my arguments from earlier regarding my opponents case, and I will end by giving voters. ||Pro Case|| O1: Moral or Immoral, no noticeable in between Con submits that I need to provide reason to show why lethal force is immoral, as a failure to do so would merely result in the voters giving Con the round because any moral middle ground is his territory. I think his conclusion is slightly misplaced, and here’s why. If I am able to show that using lethal force is not able to be deemed as moral, then there are only two options left: moral neutrality or immorality. Considering my undisputed analysis in R3 C1 stating that the likelihood for a morally neutral event to exist is extremely minimal, especially in a case as complex as a victim of DV using premeditated lethal force, I think it is reasonable to default to the idea that lethal force is immoral in this case. Also, considering the definition of immoral is “not conforming to the accepted standards of morality”, it would make sense that an action which does not fall in line with that which is moral would be considered immoral. O2: The resolution does not allow children as the direct victim of DV The argument that lethal force is able to be justified by looking to the indirect harm it causes to children is not properly upheld by my opponent. The only evidence he gives regarding why the abuse is harmful to the child is that it may cause them to develop problems later in their life and relationships. My opponent provides no standard by which we are able to judge whether this harm inflicted to the child should be retaliated against with the use of lethal force, and thus he is merely making statements which have no basis. C1: DV cannot be called moral, it can only be excused SP A: Deadly force cannot be justified against DV We must note that when discussing my O2, Con vehemently argues that when talking about DV we must include LGBTQ in the definition: and then when refuting my SP A he tries to use evidence reducing the legitimacy of the moral laws I set up by claiming “the moral and temporal laws governing the nature of self-defense are biased against women.” On one hand he advocates the position that the victims of domestic violence can be of any gender or sexual background, and on the other he claims my moral standards are irrelevant because the victim as a women is disadvantaged. We are able to disregard the evidence because his evidence requires the specificity of the actor using lethal force to be much narrower than we have determined it to be. SP B: Deadly force may be excused, but not justified It appears Con and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of being morally blameworthy and the morality of an action. I submitted in R2 and R3 that an action was able to be immoral, while the actor can still remain morally blameworthy. We must note that when reading the resolution, “The use of lethal force by victims as a deliberate response to repeated acts of domestic violence is immoral,” the object in question is the action itself, and not the victim. While the victim is the person committing the action, because we are judging the action and its consequences directly we are able to declare the action immoral while the victim can remain morally blameless. Con directly contested this, and although I am convinced my position remains the correct one, as a voter you may still be undecided. This is where we must look to my second point regarding the justifiability of an action in R3 SP B. This is an important drop considering I establish that the ability of the victim to carefully deliberate an action warrants them as responsible for their actions. This means that if you do not buy the idea that the action and the victim are able to be separated, the only burden I have remaining is to show the action was immoral, as I have already shown the victim to be immoral in their usage of lethal force. C2: The original purpose of this contention was to show the options victims have for escaping DV. However, upon realizing how divisive the evidence truly was, I chose to abandon its original purpose, but keep the evidence itself. As far as the excuse of BWS goes for excusing an action, look to my rebuttals regarding SP B for a reason why the victim is able to be held morally accountable for their actions in this instance. Also, the use of BWS as a solve all piece of evidence for justifying using lethal force is merely ignoring the loads of other cases of DV where the victim does not have BWS. For this reason the impact of his BWS evidence is minimal at best. C3: The evidence regarding whether or not victims have alternative ways to escape DV is inconclusive I apologize if I introduced this Contention wrongfully, as I was under the impression that all new arguments before R4 would be accepted. If I misunderstood the rules I urge you not to take this contention into consideration, however, from my POV the Initiator seemed to imply in the first round that all new arguments before R4 were okay, and it is because of this that I believe this contention should still stand. I stated last round that by my standards in order for the victim’s action of using lethal force to be justified there must be 1) Imminent threat 2) No other options for escaping DV In order for condition number 1 to be met, Con must show that there is an imminent threat. Failure to do so means that the criterion was not upheld, and therefore the action cannot be justified. The same applies to number 2. Because I am able to show, due to inconclusive evidence, that Criterion 2 is not able to be upheld, we must conclude that lethal force is not justified. Look to my O1 defense this round if you are unsure how I am able to reach that conclusion. Con asserts that inconclusive evidence would only strengthen his position, as women would feel they have no other option for escaping. However, I am not making a statement that is meant to be applied to every woman specifically, rather, I am remarking that in some cases women do have ample means for escaping, and in others, they do not. ||Negative Case|| C1: Lethal force only choice left If my C3 still stands, this contention is not able to make an impact for Con. Essentially Con employs evidence in this contention which shows how in some cases the Government fails to provide solutions for DV, and how women cannot simply run away. My evidence in R2 C2 not only has just as much merit, but it shows why in some cases the opposite is true. Pro attacks my arguments by showing why people do not have outlets for escaping, but all he is doing is merely showing that his side of the issue has multiple examples, rather than refuting my point. The facts I gave regarding all the ways women have escaped from DV still stands. C2: Despite the lack of imminence, deliberate lethal force as a response to domestic violence is justified. SP A: Lethal force is morally justified as a form of self-defense. In this contention Con sets up a different standard by which we may judge the use of lethal force, and he uses this standard to justify deadly force. Considering my opponent never disputed the validity of my standard by which we may judge an action which I established in R2 C1, and I never disputed the validity of his standard, the choice of a standard falls upon the voter. Even though I may not attack my opponent’s standard at this point, I can still give reasons why mine is preferred. Because the majority of the discussion during this case revolved around my standard of societal benefits and harms the standard I set up should be preferred. Additionally, my standard is more globally applicable, considering my opponents standard can only be applied to self-defense cases or cases where a person’s sovereignty is broken, and mine encompasses all situations in which societal benefits or harms are able to be weighed. SP B: Abused children should be permitted the use of lethal force. Look to my defense this round of the O2. SP C: Lethal force is morally and legally permissible a defense to domestic violence, insofar as domestic violence is a form of kidnapping. Considering the multiple figures I gave in R2 C2 establishing the ability of agencies and people to provide and find shelter from DV, the assertion that “people wanting to flee just don’t know what will happen if they try” justifies their use of lethal force simply ignores all the evidence I presented when trying to apply this assertion to the resolution. We are essentially repeating our discussion of C3 in structure. The same implications can be taken from my C3 regarding my opponents use of evidence showing you can't escape, as can be taken from this comparison of some cases of DV to kidnapping. SP D: Abuse is always an imminent threat, and therefore poses a grave and constant risk of harm to the victim. Even if you don’t buy my point last round due to a lack of evidence, the controversy surrounding the ability of a victim to escape is enough to go Pro. ||Voters|| Conduct goes to con for his extremely mannered behavior during and outside of the round, and for his choice to even go above and beyond in certain cases. Spelling and grammar is a tie. I believe I made the more convincing arguments, and as such, won the round, for the following reasons listed below. Reliable sources is a tie. Here are the reasons why I won the debate: (1) My standard is preferable due to its more thorough usage throughout the round, and it’s global applicability. (2) Under my standard of societal benefit and harm, using lethal force as a deliberate response to DV is shown as not justified, and in turn, immoral. (3) My opponent’s discussion of LGBTQ is turned against him and invalidates his counter to my C1 SPA, and counter to my C2 SPB. This allows much of my case to stay standing, and uphold my C3 to ultimately show how lethal force is immoral.||Vote Pro||