Domestic Violence

I will begin with a generic overview of the round thus far, and then attempt to both briefly defend my points and then go on to rebut the Pro's points. I shall then conclude with voting issues. OVERVIEW: The Pro states that he likes to edit his positions as the debate progress. Fine. However, no more new points or edits should be made as this is the final round, and we agreed on that at the onset of this debate. Pro concedes the two criteria I noted in terms of the potential for DV to be moral as well. (Pro dropped my points regarding proportionality. ) If I can meet those two criteria, then a Con ballot is in order. REFUTATION OF PRO O1: MORAL VS. IMMORAL Pro concedes that moral neutrality is sufficient to vote Con. He claims that this has little impact on the round; on the contrary, what this means is that if the Con fails to demonstrate lethal force to be immoral, you must vote Con. The Pro must prove immorality. If the Pro fails to do that, then default to Con. O2: LGBTQ + CHILDREN I conceded children were not direct victims of DV, but that does not mean they are not indirectly harmed by DV. In which case, a parent may be justified in using lethal force against the abuser to halt the harm to the child. As to LGBTQ, under the definition we agreed, domestic violence applies to them. You cannot try and limit the scope of the definition we both assented to, particularly when you"re only referring to states, and this topic is global. CONTENTION ONE: SUBPOINT A: Pro drops my argument that the two criteria (imminence + alternatives) are biased against women, and should therefore be disregarded. Thus, even if I fail to meet those criteria, a Con ballot is still in order because I have shown that those criteria are immoral, in which case, you can default back to the Con case, C2 sub-point A, for reasons why lethal force is not immoral. SUBPOINT B: Pro makes a very important drop here. I argued that, "Con states that if an act is excused it is "not morally blameworthy. " In other words, the person was not immoral. So, if lethal force in response to DV is excusable, which Pro claimed it was, than the victim"s actions were not immoral. Pro"s own argument turns against him. That"s a prima facie reason to vote Con. Pro"s attempt at rebuttal is to say that "although an action may be immoral"they were not morally blameworthy. " This is incorrect, insofar as an act that is immoral is morally blameworthy. If an act is not morally blameworthy, it"s not immoral. Moreover, Pro never warrants his own assertion here. Finally, Pro and I see to agree that the actions of the justice system do not, as a rule, reflect morality. Therefore, look to Pro"s own words, and my moral arguments, rather than his legalistic cards. CONTENTION TWO: This is completely dropped by Pro. Extend my arguments that Government doesn't solve for DV. Extend my arguments that Battered Women"s Syndrome excuses an action, warranting a Con vote, and that BWS applies in only a small fraction of cases so Pro cannot co-opt it for his advocacy. CONTENTION THREE: This is utterly abusive. It"s one thing to make new rebuttal points at this stage; it"s entirely different to add new contentions. It's fine to "edit" and adapt; it's not fine to create wholly new positions. You can disregard C3 for this reason. Even if you don't buy that, here's another reason to disregard it: essentially what Pro is saying is that he cannot meet the burden he establishes form himself. He must prove lethal force fails to meet those two criteria, instead, because of the "inconclusive" nature of things, he cannot actually show that those two criteria aren't met. He says this doubt is reason to presume Pro; I vehemently disagree. In fact, it"s reason to presume Con, largely because if the existence of alternatives is "inconclusive" women could feel as if they have no other option but lethal force, at which point, there actions were justifiable or excusable. Furthermore, Pro loses much of his offense when he introduces this contention, here's why. His case relies on the notion that the threat is not imminent, and that plausible alternatives don"t exist. He cannot prove either, because he states the evidence is inconclusive. At this stage, he is basically asserting that he cannot even prove the fundamental claims of his own case. Therefore, his case lacks logicality and any type of warranted foundation. That only leaves Con"s case to vote off of. Finally, as Con, I offer reason to assert that lethal force is okay separate from these criteria, which means parts of my case go un-impacted by Pro's C3. DEFENSE OF CON CONTENTION ONE: His only attack on this was to cross-apply his contention three, which I have already addressed. CONTENTION TWO: SUBPOINT A: This is dropped by Pro. This is key because Schopp"s discussion of the danger to a victim's sovereignty does not require imminence, rather, it merely requires abuse, which is what an abuser, by definition does. The Impact of the Extension: Schopp claims that victims should be permitted self-determination via criminal conduct, which does not necessarily imply imminent violence. It could involve other forms of unlawful coercion. At this point, even if I cannot meet the two criteria posited by Pro, this card shows how lethal force is justified, meriting a Con ballot. Pro cannot make any arguments against my card, as those arguments would be new. SUBPOINT B: Again, I pointed out that the harms posed to the child should still be taken into account when considering whether a parent should use lethal force in a violent relationship. But, even if you disregard this card entirely, I still have enough offense to win. SUBPOINT C: Pro gives no warrant as to why DV and kidnapping are not synonymous. All he says in regards to this is that that is a "hefty argument" to make, which neither rebuts nor analyzes my point. Extend my argument and don't allow him to make new points against it. Pro then applies his C3 to SPC. I dispute the applicability of C3 to SPC, because C3 acknowledges that the availability of alternatives is "inconclusive" and nebulous. My source is stating that because people wanting to flee just don"t know what will happen if they try, they are morally permitted to kill the abuser instead. Ultimately, it is because the existence of alternative is vague and dubious that lethal force is allowed. Pro misconstrues what my card was saying, and so fails to realize that his C3 actually confirmed the point my source was making. SUBPOINT D: Pro calls my points "inconclusive" because "certain cases" show otherwise. In fact, Pro fails to mention any specific cases, leaving us only with the evidence I provided. And instead of actually addressing the warrant, that addiction creates a constant need for abuse, making the threat constantly pending, and thus imminent, Pro attempts to get around it with vague, unspecific claims about unnamed cases. My evidence is clear and straightforward, and should be preferred to such ambiguous assertions. Again, don't let Pro make new arguments or cite new cases here. VOTING ISSUES: (1) I meet the criteria set out by Pro. My C2 SPD show imminence, and my rebuttal of Pro"s C# shows the invalidity of his remarks, allowing you to prefer the wealth of evidence I offer that alternatives aren"t available. (2) Pro"s own arguments about the "excusable" nature of lethal force actually support the Con side, as I noted in response to his C1 SPB. Insofar as he admits lethal force is "not morally blameworthy" he makes it impossible for himself to meet his own burden of showing lethal force to be immoral. (3) BWS turns Con as well, because it is excusable. (4) I extended evidence which showed why the two criteria Pro set out show be entirely discounted, in which case, you should prefer the Con because I offer not only separate reasons on why lethal force is justified, but also because Pro has undermined a key part of his advocacy. (5) My C2 SPA, which went unrebutted, proves, on its won, why a Con ballot is in order, separate from the two criteria. (6) The warrants of my SPD were poorly addressed if they were addressed at all. This sub-point illustrates how DV is akin to kidnapping (a warrant never directly analyzed by Pro) and how, just as in a kidnapping, lethal force is justified. Even if you buy is C3, if you also accept that DV is like kidnapping, then you must also buy that because of this, lethal force is not immoral. In fact, Pro never suggests that killing a kidnapper is immoral, while my source makes it very clear that such force is permissible. So, this evidence is clearly able to show that lethal force, is, indeed, not immoral. (7) Pro undermines his own case. Pro's case relies on the notion that the threat is not imminent, and that plausible alternatives don"t exist. He cannot prove either, because he states the evidence is 'inconclusive' so he can't meet the burdens he sets for himself. I noted this in my earlier rebuttal when I point out that Pro's contention one was reliant on his contention two being correct. Pro dropped this point, and then contradicted his own contention two with his contention three, simultaneously invalidating his contention one. Essentially, Pro has no viable case. That only leaves one case standing: mine. Please don't allow Pro to address any points he dropped earlier. Ultimately, this round comes down to the issue of burdens. In many ways Pro utterly fails to show that lethal force as a response to DV is "immoral. " Pro fails to meet his burden, whereas I, as noted above, have met mine. Thus I conclude by thanking Pro for an excellent, cordial debate, and I ask for a Con ballot.