January/February LD Debate Resolved

I'm really sorry about Round 4! Thanks to my opponent for the pardon, and for the awesome debate!!! :) Definitions I'll concede his definition of domestic violence since he is correct in saying I have not offered a counter definition. BUT. When you look to his definition, you can see that we still need to negate the resolution. Here's why. "…she tries to talk about how there are relationships where abuse is minimal. In these situations it can't be considered *Domestic Violence*." Under his own definition, this must be considered domestic violence: "An escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control." This definition does not state that we deem it domestic violence *only after a certain point*-- it includes the entire cycle, including the minimal instances that begin it, when the abuse has not yet gained enough power and control to stop the victim from leaving or seeking other solutions. It is NOT morally permissible to kill in these circumstances; therefore you cannot affirm. This is your 1ST VOTER. Wright 1: I said that 99.99991% of victims are not being attacked with deadly force; he says this 99.99991% are "still being abused with enough force to oppress them and the force continues to escalate." To the first point: oppression is simply NOT ENOUGH to constitute killing in return! When an abuser strikes a victim, this does not mean the victim can turn around and stab them. It is an unfair and disproportionate response that certainly is not going to create justice. To the second: again, the existence of this escalation means that in many situations it has not yet escalated and deadly force would be a completely inappropriate response. Clarke 1: I will no longer debate the cause of the abuse since it is irrelevant to the moral permissibility of the response; however, I do believe that this pornographic view of women always being the victim is not accepted by the whole of society. Most of society's views stem from what they see around them in day-to-day interactions, and other (non-pornographic) sources of media like news, TV shows, and social networking sites. These have gender portrayals that are fairly even, especially per our society's recent focus on gender equality and feminism. Men are also included under the resolution, and since 40% of victims are male and his case focuses entirely on women, he is not affirming for all people. The burden of proof: where I come from, if the aff doesn't prove moral permissibility the judge still has to negate regardless of the neg's arguments. However, I accept that I do need to prove some sort of moral prohibition, and believe I have done so with my proportionality argument. Clarke 4: I addressed his first argument in Clarke 1. He also states: "I am punishing a serious crime, like Domestic Violence, with serious consequences rather than no consequences at all." Here again he inflates the violence dictated under the resolution; this violence may not have escalated and a couple of slaps cannot be considered a "serious crime". Even if the abuse is extreme, killing is not a permissible solution because it is not proportional to the physically harmful (but NOT deadly) attacks brought on by the abuser. In addition, I never advocate for "no consequences at all" and believe it is preferable that the abuser is punished through the legal system. However, if the victim can escape another way, this also creates a state of justice by ending the abuse. Clarke 5: "It isn't justified to kill anyone you see like you're trying to make it sound." I am not attempting to say that the affirmative is contending this; only that if we affirm, it will become more and more difficult to draw the brightline on killing. What constitutes as oppression enough in society? According to my opponent, it is permissible after the victim receives minimal abuse that may escalate in the future. Again, I bring up examples such as the bully on the playground. Is this, in the aff world, going to be considered abuse enough to kill as a response? Sending a message to society that it is ok to kill in this or that circumstance is inevitably going to increase violence and lower the bar on homicidal vengeance. This is your 2ND VOTER. Wright 2/Koch 1: First off, let me remind you once more of the possibility of minimal abuse. The drastic actions described in Koch may well be entirely unnecessary for escape. Now, saying that abuse shelters are usually full is an argument that can be turned. What about those who are filling it? These are victims who have escaped using their resources, which proves it can be done. If you look at the remainder of Koch 1, you can see that my opponent has proved alternatives difficult, but not impossible. This difficulty is irrelevant to moral permissibility. The fact that one solution is hard to access (but still possible!) does not automatically make another one permissible! For example, if I steal my opponent's cell phone, he has many options. He could steal it back peacefully, for example, or he could kill me. Both of these could solve the problem. But, if he came to my house and I refused to give it to him, this would make it extremely difficult for him to steal it back. However, this does NOT automatically mean that it is a morally permissible option to kill me instead. Likewise, even though alternatives may be difficult for a victim to access, this does not prove permissibility and is not a reason to affirm. Value Criteria 1) His criterion is reducing oppression but he does not reduce oppression on the abuser. He says that the victim is more deserving of this oppression reduction and that oppressing the abuser creates justice; however, the fact that he cannot achieve his value criterion for all the participants in the affirmative world is a reason to negate right here. You can also cross-apply my first contention here: killing the abuser is NOT going to create justice because this is a disproportionate response. Killing the abuser is giving him more than he is due since the abuse shown towards his victim was not deadly. 2) At the point where he proves alternatives are an impossible course of action to victims regardless of the level of abuse they are receiving (which under his definition is as likely as not to be minimal), you can affirm. He does not prove this. No weighing mechanism—this still holds. How do we determine when we have reduced oppression? This is often a long equation of events. The fact that he cannot achieve his own value criterion is your 3RD VOTER. For these reasons, prefer my value criterion which is basically proportionality. I don't link my criterion to the resolution? Here's the link. My opponent agrees that morality is based off of justice. A morally permissible action is one that upholds justice. In order to uphold justice, we look to the theory of retributive justice, which states that a just response to a crime must be proportional. Deadly force as a response to abuse is not proportional, therefore not just, therefore not morally permissible, therefore you negate. This argument is clearly stated in my first contention and is your 4TH VOTER. Remainder of my case: "My Wright cards are still there on her contentions don't let her even touch them until she properly responds to them." I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I can't find anything applied to my first contention that directly refutes the principle that killing is not a proportional response to abuse. Please extend this argument and look to my criterion link to see why this matters. Although he says he disproves the alternatives I provide both in my second contention and in subsequent arguments, this is not a reason to affirm. Again, a difficulty in access to alternatives does not prove moral permissibility. My proportionality argument still stands and it is NOT just or permissible for a victim to shoot an abuser in return for physical abuse. Thus, I urge a CON vote.