A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.

>>"A guy I went to middle school with used to beat me up every day. Often severely. I was too much of a wuss to deal with him then. I see him walking down the street one day. I am not justified in assaulting the man on the spot. I can hold his past actions against him, but since his past actions are no danger to me in the present, I cannot act violently in response to it now." Philosophically you are perfectly justified in assaulting his as soon as you feel threatened. Consider you've been previously assaulted in the past - as soon as you feel threatened, you're justified in assaulting him to prevent his action against you. This is perfectly analogous to you seeing a flashlight that you know has a painfully bright light. You've been zapped by this light a hundred times against your will. You are perfectly justified in removing the light's batteries before you are zapped again. >>"However, my violent defensive action would be in response to the immediate threat - him currently beating me - not in response to the many times he did so before." In other words, my opponent argues that past action has no bearing on one's considerations of the present. The abused spouse cannot defend him/herself till the other spouse is actually attacking. This is, of course, completely ridiculous. >>"Therefore, just as deliberate use of deadly force is not a just response to a single act of domestic violence, it is not a just response to repeated domestic violence, since the violent response should only be in response to present and future threat, not to past threats long gone." This is also ridiculous. Past action MUST be included as a qualifier for justifying violence. If it wasn't, then each individual situation would be a new act of violence and it wouldn't be possible for there to be repeated acts of violence. Thus, one MUST consider past action - the culmination of past actions shows a pattern in the actions and modifies the propensity for present and future violence. >>"Giving these crimes values in the same realm of numbers relies on the premise that a certain number of beatings is just as bad as murder. This is simply not true. I, for one, would prefer to be beaten every minute of every day until natural death comes upon me than to simply have my life robbed from me. To assign a value so that X beatings = 1 murder has no basis in reality." If you were beaten every minute of every day, eventually you would wish for death - thus I submit that beatings and death are indeed of the same severity. At some point in time, one will lose the will to live because of the constant abuse.... Of course, this determination is completely subjective, and is up to the individual. My opponent has expressed his personal preference, and I have expressed mine of this issue. >>"no number of beatings can possibly justify taking someone's life." I disagree - but again, this is personal preference. I would say that being beaten with permanent physical or emotional damage is justification for taking a life. >>"However, unless such health risks are seen to be a threat to the person's life, deliberately taking a life is not a justified response here. I believe I've shown that through CON3." Again, your reasoning rests on your opinion of the situation. At what point does the health risk become risky ENOUGH to take a life? I would argue that a risk of permanent physical or psychological damage is enough, and that repeated beatings constitute this risk. >>"Only if there is no other way could deliberate LETHAL violence be justified." My opponent has just stated that there is indeed a way to justify deliberate legal action, which is the crux of the debate. He also asserts that there is always "another way" to solve the threat of domestic abuse. In the abstract, this may be the case, but in reality, it often is not. ********************************* My opponent delivers a lengthy dissertation about the methods by which one might kill an abuser. I will simply state that blunt, stabbing, and projectile weapons are probably the most common methods used, or even a combination of blunt and stabbing. It's unusual that one needs more than a gun... Overall, my opponent focuses on disabling the abuser instead of alternate methods like going to the authorities. I would submit that this indicates that my opponent believes the use of violence is justified as long as it is nonlethal violence. Thus, we have determined that violence is justified, and that the determination of whether or not lethal violence is justified is dependent upon the circumstances of the incident. However, I also submit that in at least some cases, lethal violence is the only way to stop an attacker. Nonlethal violence may simply enrage an attacker, and adrenaline is a powerful stimulant that may make the situation where one attempts to use nonlethal violence into a situation where there is an overwhelming need FOR lethal violence.