January/February LD Debate Resolved.

Starting with the AC:On DA Clarke 1, who says that women are oppressed, and warrants it with analysis about porn.1. Fantasies played out in porn are not an adequate indicator of society's belief, not all men seek to rape women, this is not the reason why women are portrayed as weak.2. Women themselves have fantasies, in which they are dominated, and since it is impossible to be oppressed by your own fantasy, then it is impossible to say that they are oppressed by the same pornographic view which they themselves hold.Castleman reports"From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them."Women have these fantasies, therefore, these fantasies don't oppress women.Now that we have established that the AC doesn't link domestic violence to women being portrayed as weak I turn the whole case because he causes more oppression of women than I do. His whole case focuses on women, and therefore, he portrays women as the weaker "victim." Women being portrayed as the victim is a stronger link to oppression than porn fantasies. Wood states"[Stereotypically] women are pretty, deferential, and focused on home, family and caring for others. Subordinate to men, they are usually cast as victims, angels, martyrs, and loyal wives and helpmates."[Note: bold added for emphasis]By portraying women as the victim my opponent furthers this stereotypical mindset of women as weak victims which he admits is the primary cause of domestic violence. Therefore, he only furthers the mindset which he wishes to eradicate. His entire case is offense for me.Remember, he said "Women are usually the abused because they are seen as weak and masochistic creatures of society." and at the point in which he perpetuates the mindset of women being weak and masochistic creatures then he causes more abuse. This turns his whole case. Furthermore, this argument is more important than any other in the round. The outcome of this round does not affect anything, regarding domestic abuse happening in the world. However, the discourse which he uses, the discourse that portrays women as weak does affect society. If you endorse his AC then you also endorse his mindset that says that women are weak victims, and therefore, you endorse the mindset which causes abuse. The only way to prevent abuse is to negate to reject this mindset.On Contention 1, which says that society fails to provide justice1. DA Clarke provides no numbers, we have no idea how often society fails2. Affirming the resolution, which would lead to moral permissibility of murder as a response to domestic violence, doesn't necessarily solve3. Society does the best it can, affirming leads to a slippery slope of vigilante justice, because if women are allowed to kill their abusers, then what will stop vigilante justice from being performed in other crimes? Where do we draw the line?On Contention 2, which says that affirming would solve the problemOn his first link, which is about the perception of women1. Turn: By portraying women as the victim in the round he actually perpetuates the idea that women are weak. He is the one, in this round, who is oppressing women more. Therefore, I control the internal link on solvency because affirming heightens the view of women as weak, and therefore, affirming actually causes domestic violence.2. If you buy the DA Clarke cards then this won't solve because men will continue to fantasize about women being abused regardless of reality.On his second link, which says that women fighting back will deter1. This assumes that the abuser is rational, if the abuser is irrational then he won't be detered2. This doesn't justify the murders themselves3. No quantified evidence, how much will it deter abusers?On Self DefenseOn Campbell1. Campbell never justifies murder as a response, Campbell just says that the trauma is different, not that the trauma justifies murder.2. Campbell is talking about the law's treatment of self-defense. Therefore, if you buy Campbell, then that takes out his first contention because Campbell assumes that the law has the ability to solveOn Ayyilidz1. No warrant. Do you really think that the law's construct of self-defense is male-based?2. Turn: Remember that he furthers the perception of weak women because his case portrays women as always the victim, so if the law is truly flawed, then he worsens that problem because he perpetuates the flawed mindset of women being weak.3. This card also does not justify murderNCI value Justice. However, justice should be defined first. This must be the definition used in this round because my opponent had a chance to define it but chose not to. Justice is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "the quality of being fair and reasonable" and "the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:" Therefore, I win right here because in order for justice, which is both of our values, to be upheld the law must do it. Therefore, by advocating vigilante action my opponent destroys the link to his own value. Furthermore, my opponent must prove that death is a fair and reasonable punishment for repeated domestic violence.My value criterion is equality. Because justice is contingent on fair and reasonable punishment, this should be preferred. Remember, even if you don't buy this, I control the internal link to his VC, which is solving oppression because he creates more oppression.Contention 1: Deadly force is not an equivalent response to repeated domestic violence.Kant writesThere is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and deathTherefore, no matter how painful an abuser makes the person he or she is abusing, that is not equivalent to death. Therefore, death is not an appropriate response.Stairs agreesKant offers perhaps the purest (though not necessarily the clearest) statement of the retributive theory of punishment. The idea in brief is simple: it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons. Legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the core motive in punishing someone is to deter others, or to protect society, or to set an example, then the person punished is wronged; their humanity has not been respected. So punishment must always be in response to guilt, but Kant in effect goes further: the suggestion that seems to come through this reading is not only that guilt is a necessary condition for punishment, but that the guilty must be punished or else justice and equality, the only proper foundations for the law, will not have been served. Equality is the principle that must be used in selecting a punishment. Kant uses a metaphor. He refers to the principle of equality as the one by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than to the other.Furthermore, revenge is bad and immoralStairs furthers[E]ven a person guilty of murder is to be treated with a certain sort of dignity, because even the murderer is still a person -- still an end in himself. Punishments that don't respect the humanity of the criminal are outside the pale of morality. They are not justice, they are pure, unadulterated revenge. And it would be a mistake to confuse what Kant means by "retribution" with revenge. The instinct for revenge is a natural one; so is the instinct to take things we want that don't belong to us, as anyone who has spent time around young children will testify. But morality requires us to rise above our mere instincts. That's what makes it hard to be a virtuous person. And in the sphere of punishment, morality requires that we respect the humanity of the person we are punishing. [Note:brackets not in original]Negate for 3 reasons1. Reject the mindset2. Reject inequality/vigilante injustice3. His case's warrants are weak, no solvency