January/February LD debate topic

Resolutional Analysis My opponent seems to misunderstand the point of my resolutional analysis. I was just arguing that an affirmation of the resolution is not an overarching endorsement of the use of deadly force but merely the recognition of its legitimacy as a check on repeated domestic violence. Definitions My opponent argues that victims of repeated domestic violence are those who have been abused more than once in their lifespan. However, according to the Collins English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, repeated actions are those which happen many times or reoccur again and again. Therefore, the phrase repeated domestic violence correctly refers to habitual abuse rather than merely occasional violence. Attacking the Negative Case Alternatives to Deadly Force My opponent claims that victims of domestic violence can leave the relationship instead of resorting to the use of deadly force. However, as Jane Campbell explains, “The likelihood of harm may substantially increase when a woman leaves an abusive situation. According to the...Justice Department...the victimization rate of women who separate from their batterers is six times the rate of married women.” Simply stated, leaving a relationship is not a viable option for victims of domestic violence. The Imminence Requirement My opponent argues that current understandings of self-defense require the victim to prove that their life was in imminent danger. However, this doctrine takes an excessively narrow focus and excludes the context of relationships that are unique to the domestic sphere: Most notably, traditional analysis of self-defense fails to take into account the gendered context of domestic violence. Women, who account for the majority of domestic violence victims, are often unable to attack their abuser in a directly confrontational situation due to disparities in size, strength, and emotional control. This requires a different notion of what is morally permissible in response to domestic violence. As Jane Campbell furthers, “Several aspects of the traditional self-defense doctrine are a difficult fit for...women. As many commentators have argued, the law of self-defense is a male construct, defined by how men…respond to violence. Rather than recognize and respect the fact that domestic violence is different, and often less avoidable, than other types of violence, the law often simply metes out unjust and overly harsh results for those whose self-defense does not fit precisely within the traditional, male-based canon.” To give women a fair opportunity to defend themselves, we must allow them to use deadly force even in non-confrontational situations. 2. Furthermore, unlike other situations in which self-defense may be used, domestic violence leaves the victim in a constant state of terror. While lethal violence may or may not be imminent at a particular moment in an abusive relationship, the fact that it is rationally perceived as inevitable makes anticipatory self-defense morally permissible. Jane Campbell explains, “The law of self-defense arises from longstanding principles governing behavior between those involved in aggression, but developed apart from the relationship between spouses....The law needs to recognize that batterers are different than others who make threats. Not only do batterers share a home with the victim—unlike most people involved in disputes—but they operate much like the way terrorists do by instilling fear that an attack is forthcoming, and thus, creating constant anxiety and fear in their victims. The uncertainty about precisely when or how the attack is coming creates dread, hyper vigilance, and fear in the victim...The sustained trauma created by an abusive relationship differs from other [situations] in which self-defense is used.” Therefore, applying the traditional doctrine of self-defense to situations of domestic violence would be inadequate. For these two reasons, we should recognize that, while the use of violence in non-confrontational situations is typically unethical, it should be allowed in cases of repeated domestic violence. The Slippery Slope Argument My opponent also argues that allowing victims of domestic violence to kill in non-confrontational situations would justify the use of deadly force in almost any circumstance. However, as I explained above, domestic violence is unique and differs from other situations in which self-defense may be used. Thus, in allowing the use of deadly force in response to repeated domestic violence, we wouldn’t have to allow the use of deadly force in other non-confrontational situations. The Proportionality Argument My opponent argues the use of deadly force is not a proportionate response. However, as Elisabeth Ayyildiz explains, “[A] battered woman may not be able to defend herself without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength, and emotional control...Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser.” Thus, the use of deadly force may actually be a proportionate and necessary response to domestic violence. Defending My Case 1. My opponent claims that my version of the social contract would justify the use of deadly force in response to minor violations of the law. This objection misunderstands my original position. As I stated previously, “The social contract is an agreement between citizens to refrain from violating each other's basic rights.” In other words, the social contract applies only to basic rights, such as those discussed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, my social contract theory would only allow for the use of deadly force if an individual has violated another’s basic rights. 2. My opponent argues that adopting the social contract would allow people to take the law into their own hands and use unreasonable judgment in determining if another had actually failed to meet their duties. However, this isn’t true. Under my version of the social contract, societies could conduct legal investigations to determine if the perpetrator of the violence had actually defaulted on his or her duties. Indeed, nothing in my advocacy would prevent these investigations from occurring. 3. My opponent argues that I disregard the value of humanity in permitting the use of deadly force. However, the opposite is actually true. In taking away the rights of a few individuals who frequently fail to meet their duties, I’m providing everyone with a clear incentive to respect and promote the value of humanity. 4. My opponent claims that murders will become commonplace under my version of the social contract since a criminal could "always find a violation of the social contract to exculpate himself." I have 2 responses to this argument: A) The social contract only applies to basic human rights, which are not frequently violated. Thus, a criminal would rarely be able to find a legitimate justification for the use of violence. B) It’s highly likely that the state would investigate any particular incidence of violence. This would give all individuals a reason to use deadly force only if their basic rights had actually been violated. 5. Lastly, my opponent argues that some rights are natural and cannot be taken away. This objection ignores evidence I presented in my case. As I noted, rights can only exist within a relationship where both people fulfill their duties. According to Robert Grant, “A right is only one side of a relationship; your right must be the duty of another. A human right is a contractual right that imposes upon all others the…duty to act or refrainfrom acting in a certain way. Human rights should not be confused with possessions…Rather, a human right is a relationship between an individual and all others that entitles a person to certain conduct from every other person and from society.” Therefore, even basic rights cannot exist if individuals in society do not fulfill their responsibilities. http://qr.net... http://qr.net...