Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe

Good Day to my opponent thanks for accepting the challenge, and good day to my judges. Just as a road map i will defend the Pro's case then attack the Con's case. 1. The first point my opponent makes is that i need to first give definitions and set motion of debate. I would like to point out that my first paragraph is an introduction. This introduction is a narrative of a testimony given at a trial "State V. Hundley. " After my introduction i go on to state the topic - Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. After i state the topic I define relevant terms to my case which are moral, permit, and domestic violence. 2. Here there is a lot of confusion by my opponent, Im assuming he read the tag line at top of the page but because the topic is so long he did not see the remaining words. However my opponent oversight should not be excused as i go on to restate the topic immediately after my introduction which i will restate again here: Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to REPEATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. the caps are the words that are not stated at top of page that is a website error however it is clearly stated in my argument. Throughout the con case my opponent continues on with his assumption that im talking about just rape, but rape does fall into a broad category of domestic violence so i will still attack his points. Judges please keep in mind that this domestic violence (rape) is being repeated. This would not be a one time incident but a horrific abuse that may persist for years, look to my introduction as an example. 3. Since the debate is talking about Domestic Violence i did not go beyond the parameters of the debate. 4. I am emphasizing quality of life, not life itself. my opponent states "Those criminals who commit the crime of rape are also part of individuals and societies across the world. " Yes they are individuals apart of society however as i go on to explain in my value criteria those criminals would be infringing on individual rights when they commit the domestic violence (Rape) worse this would be a repeated infringement according to the topic. Im arguing that on a moral bases alone, NOT LEGAL, that; (1) these criminals give up their rights when they commit the domestic violence (rape); (2)not only is this domestic violence harming the individual it also harms the society because it sends the negative message that QUALITY of life is not important. ; (3) in order to uphold quality of life and counteract this negative message we vote pro and affirm resolution. 5. I do not deny in my case that the use of deadly force is a deliberate response, as in the victim made the concious decision to end the criminal life. I do however contend that there are no better alternatives as i go on to explain in my case and will again outline here as i rubutt more of my opponent's argument. 6. All of my points; (1) there are preventative factors to the abused leaving; (2) social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self- defense; and (3) deadly force may be justified in several ways. all of these points are gender neutral the crimes of domestic violence can be committed men against women, women against men, man against man, woman against woman, and parent/guardian against children. Again i can only assume my opponent is selective reading here also i would like to point out the Rape is apart of physical abuse not to mention the psychological abuse that can be suffered from rape. i mention these forms of abuse all through out my case and want to make clear that include rape. 7. All ready answered part of this, that rape is included in those arguments plus the resolution requires that we talk about the many forms of domestic violence not just rape my opponent should have focused on that fact. in this first point that my opponent is responding to I outline several arguments as to why victims cannot escape repeated domestic violence which are Traumatic bonding theory and separation abuse. My opponent attacks neither of these arguments so judge you must assume he agrees with me or at least accept that my arguments stand as my opponent did not attack them. Victims of domestic violence are often prevented from leaving. 8. these victims have already been victimized because the domestic violence is repeated they are however also potential victims as in they will be victims again if the abuse is allowed to continue. 9. In my 2 argument social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self- defense i explain that the state has an obligation to protect the individual and when the state fails in this regard than its up to the individual to protect themselves. my opponent does not respond to this. the fact that this abuse is repeated shows that the state is failing in its duty which gives individuals the right to exercise power of the state to protect themselves. my opponent states "do you know the state also has the power to arrest" my third point answers this "First, death may be necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. Death may be the only means by which battered women can escape the abuse. Moreover, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in circumstances other than self-defense. In California, for example, deadly force is permitted by any person, not just a police officer, if necessary to apprehend any person for any felony. In these situations, a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger. Battered women should be seen as apprehending the batterer for committing a felony, the battery itself. Finally, death may be justified under a retributive analysis in which the battered woman is seen as punishing the batterer. If the battered woman is stepping in where the state has failed, then she should be permitted to exercise the same powers as those possessed by the state. The death of the batterer, therefore, is a permissible solution for battered women. " My opponent attacks neither of these arguments that the abused may lack sufficient strength to "arrest" nor can they leave so death is often only option. He also doesn't attack the the abused should be seen as apprehending the criminal for the felony of domestic violence because this abuse is repeated there is reasonable fear for one's life on part of the victim. and lastly that from a moral stand point and retributive analysis that this would be permissible. Again you can see my opponent did not take into full scope of the topic nor did he sufficiently disprove the pro's case i will move on to attack con case now. 1. deliberate means it was premeditated or conscious decision not that their were other alternative. My case outlines that there are no other alternatives from them being prevented from leaving, lacking strength to subdue the abuser, and that the state fails to protect these individuals are all reasons why there are not other alternatives to use of deadly force. My opponent states "Killing the offender should only happen, if and only if, the victim has no other choice" i prove that there is no other choice. 2. its permissible according to "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong" im not arguing that this will be permissible according to the law. rough sex implies consent which can't be seen as rape however if you don't accept that argument victim may go along with "rough sex" because of separation abuse of traumatic bonding theory. The abuse is still very real both physical and psychological. lastly my opponent repeatedly states we are talking about just rape in his case so by his on words we should are not be discussing rough sex at all or how it can be used as a defense since he agrees its different from rape.