January/February LD Debate Resolved

My order will be a little strange but I will signpost. Here we go. Frame Work Debate Lets look to my opponents value structure. She says if she can prove that Deadly force as a response to repeated DV is unjust then we negate. So I obviously will attempt to disprove this by meeting her criterion, but we should still look to my criterion for this round for 2 reasons. 1st her response to my criterion is inadequate. I did this whole resolutional analysis in the beginning of my speech which provided the link. Let me re-iterate it. The resolved seeks justice because of the usage of the words *Response* and *Repeated*. *Response* is the actual deliverance of justice, while *Repeated* shows how these beatings continue. Therefore the value is Justice. The definition of Domestic Violence is an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. The ending of that definition entails oppression. Therefore whoever can reduce that oppression gains the justice the resolved seeks and wins the round. I link my value and criterion to the actual resolved while she doesn't. Also her attack on my Frame Work isn't sufficient enough to take it out since we aren't talking about that situation the resolved says *Repeated* that is what we debate, not the *Starting Point*. Another issue with her value criterion is that she defines *Retributive Justice* as only having to punish a more severe crime more than a *Less Severe* crime. Then she goes on to give a *Proportionality* argument in her first contention. This is a major contradiction. Therefore consider her criterion not as this definition of *Retributive Justice* but rather *Proportionality*. Also extend my value criterion. Her Overview She tries to say that I have no means of justifying the moral permissibility of the resolved, but I have through my value and value criterion. The reason being is because the act is morally justified when the act gains justice. She may argue against this but *Justice* and *Morality* pretty much go hand in hand. My Frame Work *is* the weighing system. Even if you don't buy that I can meet her *Proportionality* Criterion. Direct Link to both Value Criterions Cross Apply to her first contention She tries to say that there is no escalation of violence in Domestic Violence but there is. My definition clearly shows it, she provides no counter definition from an actual source so use my definition. Domestic Violence can also be considered *Deadly* If I'm dating someone and I beat them today that's not *Repeated* Domestic Violence. If I beat them within an inch of their life the next day *That* is repeated Domestic Violence. So Domestic Violence *Is* deadly. Also as Nancy Wright, a law professor at Santa Clara University, writes in her article "Voice for the Voiceless" By 2004, there were almost 1,500 deaths annually from child abuse, an average of more than four children each day, unfortunately, over three women every day are murdered by their husbands. This shows how *Deadly* Domestic Violence is. Therefore a response of *Deadly Force* is proportional because the definition of *Deadly Force* is substantially likely to result in death U. S Armed Forces. This links directly back to the Value Criterion of *Proportionality* As well as *Reducing Oppression* because when we affirm we will be preventing these *Deaths* because we will allow victims to fight back and not get killed. Clark 1 She says pornographers don't represent society, but pornographers still create the image that society tends to view women as. Then she says this is inaccurate, it has no truth, and I'm only creating social barriers. It is accurate I provided the statistic from the U. S Department of Justice saying estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. The reason for that abuse is because the *Abuser* believe he is strong and his victim is weak. This is clear proof and accuracy of women being viewed as *Weak*. I also recognize the social barrier being there, and its oppressive. That's why I seek to abolish that view with my case. Her second response is that I'm only focusing on a sub-group of victims and I exclude men. I have two responses. 1st the statistic she gives only strengthens my case. Women are mainly the abused, in that study then the other 60% of DV Victims in Oregon are women. 2nd I made this analysis that at the point where I prove it morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for *Victims* in my Framework. Let me re-iterate that point. Also Extend that point it says: D. A. Clarke is talking about how women are seen as weak and masochistic creatures simply living in a dominant and brawny man's world. My opponent may say this is stereotypical, but it is something that is proved every day. So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women are viewed as by society. Therefore I am not ignoring men because men can still be viewed as weak and masochistic. On that note extend Clark 1. It may not be a sole reason to vote but it strengthens my Value Criterion of Reduce Oppression because these views, as my opponent stated, "Create Social Barriers" These Social Barriers are oppressive. Therefore when I abolish this view of women then I reduce oppression therefore win the round. Clark 4 Her only response to Clark 4 was *Violent Resistance* doesn't equal *Killing* She assumes *Deadly Force* Always results in death when it doesn't. Its simply *Violent Resistance* So this card is dropped and also able to be extended. Therefore extend Clark 4 which states: If women defended themselves violently, the amount of damage they were willing to do to would-be assailants would be the measure of their seriousness about the limits beyond which they would not be pushed. If more women killed husbands and boyfriends who abused them perhaps there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives. This impacts directly back to the standard of reducing oppression because it shows how when we affirm women (or any other domestic violence victims) Will no longer be viewed as weak and masochistic creatures of society therefore reducing those social barriers and reducing oppression. Clark 5 There is a major issue with her response to Clark 5. She says killing is ok in *Any* Circumstance. It isn't I only advocate *Deadly Force* in response to Repeated Domestic Violence. My Contention 1 1st she tries to turn Clark 2 by saying wheres the bright line for domestic abuse. If someone is *Beating* you everyday and the *Beatings* increase in the level of violence everyday and its done to *Gain Power and Control* that is not to low of a bar for retaliatory murder. It is proportional because the Domestic Violence is a threat to life and it takes away liberty. Therefore the child being bullied everyday and is getting *Beaten* worse and worse everyday is able to respond with deadly force to defend himself. This doesn't necessarily mean death. 2nd she talks about *Alternatives* Group this argument and her *2nd Contention* Nancy Wright 2 Most battered women have sought help unsuccessfully from police or other protective agencies. One study of women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were known to authorities before their death. This proves alternatives fail. thus I urge an affirmative ballad.