Domestic Violence

For this round, though, I will be refuting Pro"s case. His arguments will be displayed in all CAPS; my rebuttals will appear below. OBSERVATION ONE: EITHER MORAL OR IMMORAL, NO IN BETWEEN There are three points I"d like to raise in objection to Pro"s assertion. Firstly, the only explanation Pro offers for why there is no gray area is that the topic poses a "moral dilemma where no middle ground exists. " Essentially, this is saying there is no middle ground because there is no middle ground, which is, of course, circular logic. Pro fails to warrant his assertion. Secondly, there are a variety of moral theories that illustrate how an action can be morally neutral, for example, ethical utilitarianism. Under this theory, if a moral dilemma has not net loss or benefit, it is neither moral nor immoral; it is simply neutral. Thus, proving an action"s moral neutrality would be sufficient to fulfill the Con burden because I would have shown that lethal force was not "immoral. " This single example seems to disprove Pro"s argumentation. Thirdly, Pro concedes that, even if you don"t accept that moral neutrality is enough to go Con, justification is enough to vote Con. If lethal force is justifiable, meaning "encouraged or, at least, tolerated," then a Con vote is in order. OBSERVATION TWO: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DOES NOT INCLUDE CHILDREN OR LBGTQ Even if children are not strictly victims of domestic violence (I"ll use the abbreviation DV now) we should still evaluate the impacts of violent relationships upon them. Violent parents and high-risk lives are not good for children, and women may need to employ lethal force on behalf of their children. "Domestic violence not only affects those who are abused, but also has a substantial effect on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence, are among those seriously affected by this crime. Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to numerous social and physical problems, but also teaches them that violence is a normal way of life - therefore, increasing their risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers. " (Source: 1) However, violence in LBGTQ relationships should be construed as DV. The agreed upon definition of DV stated it was between "intimate partners," not necessarily those of the same sex. In fact, the DOJ recognizes same sex DV on a federal level. "Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating. " (Source: 1) CONTENTION ONE SUBPOINT A: DEADLY FORCE NEVER JUSTIFIED Firstly, Pro"s own source says that lethal force can be justified if there is a net benefit to the act. In fact, his source sets up two criteria by noting that: "justified conduct"will be exculpated only if the greater harm was certain to occur and if no less harmful alternative was available. " In other words, that a threat must (a) be imminent, and (b) there can be no alternative prior to lethal force being used. It should also be proportional. I would argue that if I can show that DV constitutes a deadly, imminent, and alternative-less threat, lethal force is justified according to Pro"s own criteria. There are two takeaways from this, that Pro fails to show deadly force is never justified, and that the Con can easily justify DV under Pro"s framework. I will now show how the Con can meet the threefold criteria set out by Pro"s source. (1) Imminence is defined as impending; about to occur, according to Encarta. Abusers are addicted to their abuse; meaning they need to abuse constantly and will escalate their abuse overtime in order to continue getting high. Because this urge to abuse is always present, the threat of abuse is always imminent and always certain. Women shouldn"t have to wait until the first punch lands before they defend themselves, because waiting can often be lethal. (2) There are few if any alternatives; I"ll address this in response to Pro"s second contention. (3) Proportionality, oftentimes domestic abusers use serious and potentially deadly acts of violence, which would indicate proportionally lethal force could be used. There is a second argument that can rebut Sub-point A, even if you don"t believe I meet the three criteria. The evidence Con presented was in a self-defense context, but both the moral and temporal laws governing the nature of self-defense are biased against women. According to Prof. Cynthia Gillespie, "Over the centuries a number of rules limiting the right to self-defense have been developed which seek to balance the private right against the public order. These rules, for the most part, have been written not by legislatures but by judges, virtually all of them male, in cases predominantly involving male defendants. The result has been a law that permits men to exercise their right to defend themselves in the situations in which men have customarily felt the need to do so, but it does not permit women to exercise their right to self-defense in the situations in which they believe they must do so. " Therefore, those three criteria need not necessarily be met to show justification. SUBPOINT B: EXCUSED ISN"T JUSTIFIED The evidence offered by Pro is written from a legal perspective, which is not necessarily in line with the moral perspective. Law does not necessarily connote morality; thus, this evidence is questionable when talking about whether DV is "immoral. " In addendum, Con states that if an act is excused it is "not morally blameworthy. " In other words, the person was not immoral. So, if a woman is excused is using lethal force, then her response was not immoral, and a Con ballot is in order. This clearly turns Pro"s card for the Con. CONTENTION TWO I"ll just make a quick note here. Contention one is predicated on contention two being valid because many contention one arguments rely on the notion that there are alternatives to lethal force. Therefore, if there are no alternatives, Pro"s C1 SA are void. SUBPOINT A: GOVERNMENT SOLVES In fact, government does not solve. Pro offers only one example of this, the UK. In fact, this is a global resolution, and many nations are completely without viable legal recourse for victims of domestic violence. "You realize that they remain in those relationships because they do not have a way to hide," she said. "They do not know where to run to. They go to their parents, but their parents send them back because of the cultural mindset, they think it is right for your husband to beat you, they keep pushing them back. Some of them have actually expressed that if we knew where to go and hide we would leave this relationship"Tesfaye says in her home country, Ethiopia, which also does not have laws to cover domestic violence, marital rape is a huge, if largely unmentioned, problem. She says laws which were recently passed in Ethiopia severely restricted outside funding for non-governmental organizations, making it all the more difficult to address the situation" (Source: 2) So, while some nations like the UK may have some means of redress, many nations do not. Even the U. S. has its problems, as I noted in my case. And, even in the UK instance, those Courts have yet to be tested; they could be miserable failures. Pro says victims have "plausible outlets for escaping domestic violence," yet, frankly, this is often not the case. Technically, recourse may exist, but if making use of those outlets is extremely hard and implausible, lethal force is justified. SUBPOINT B: BATTERED WOMEN"S SYNDROME At the very least, BMS would provide an excuse, which, as noted earlier, would warrant a Pro vote. Furthermore, this doesn"t address the issue of LGBTQ domestic abuse, nor does BMS apply to all female victims. In addendum, I have offered much evidence explaining why lethal force is often the only option. Finally, those examples the source lists hardly characterize the majority of DV cases. Final note, I would point out that much of my case directly or indirectly rebuts many of my opponent's points, and can therefore be cross-applied. I'll touch on this more next round. So, when we ask is lethal force justified in response to DV, the answer must be yes. Thus, I eagerly await Pro"s rebuttal of my case. Round 4 can be for defenses of our respective cases and for voting issues. Sources: 1. . http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov... 2. . http://www.voanews.com... 3. Gillespie, Cynthia K. , 1989, Founder-Women"s Law Center, holds a J. D. in Health and Insurance Law, "Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense, and the Law," p. 182