January/February LD Debate resolved

I just realized since Neg goes first there's nothing for me to rebut.. So Aff will present a case and rebuttal to my case in the second round. Also I apologize for the case being rather short since this is the case I use at actual debate tournaments... I would also like to thank EthanHu for accepting this debate and I look forward to a great round ^.^ Here I go. Since we need institutions of Justice in order to make sure Justice is served negate the resolution: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated Domestic Violence. It is necessary to understand how we will weigh the arguments in this round the resolution asks is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. So the resolved presents the issue of Repeated Domestic Violence and offers Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response as a justified answer, but if we were to justify the resolved then we would be justifying vigilantism because we are saying it is ok to take the law into your own hands. The resolved is justifying Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response because it delivers Justice but at the point where we justify Vigilantism we are undermining institutions of Justice and Justice is lost because without these institutions Justice can't be delivered. Therefore my Value for this round is justice; Justice is defined as giving each their fair due. The reason I value Justice is because the resolved seeks it. The resolved presents the issue of Domestic Violence and justifies Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response to end this issue. My opponent must defend the statement that the use of Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response gains more justice than loses. I on the other hand must defend the statement that it loses more justice than gains. My Value Criterion is to uphold Institutions that provide Justice. Upholding Institutions of Justice will gain Justice because without them there would either be no reinforcement of punishment when a crime is perpetrated or unfair/disproportional responses from a possibly biased party. These institutions include the police force, and the due process system. So whoever can better uphold these Institutions of Justice should win the round. Contention I: The Aff creates a world of anarchy where people are able to take others natural rights without any consequences. Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Moritz College of Law, writes in his Book Battered Women and Sleeping Abusers: Some Reflections. My concern, however, is not with the case of the woman who uses deadly force against her abuser during an attack or because of an immediately impending one; rather, my focus is on the morally perplexing situation of the battered woman who kills her tormenter when he is not attacking, or about to attack, her. I am interested, in other words, in ‘nonconfrontational homicides,' such as when the abuse victim kills her abuser while he sleeps, or as he is watching the Super Bowl game, or eating dinner. The traditional rule, which still prevails in most jurisdictions, is that self-protective force can only be used to repel an ongoing unlawful attack or an imminent unlawful assault; and ‘imminent' or ‘immediate' has come to mean that the attack will occur momentarily, that it is just about underway. By definition, of course, no assault is taking place or imminent in nonconfrontational cases. Stemming from the common law, a core feature of self defense law is that the life of every person, even that of an aggressor, should not be terminated if there is a less extreme way to resolve the problem. Joshua Dressler 2 I fear that the result of expanding self-defense law to the extent required to justify the killing of a sleeping abuser would be the coarsening of our moral values about human life and, perhaps, even the condonation of homicidal vengeance. . . . I believe that we should be very, very slow to suggest that the killing of a sleeping abuser is a ‘proper' or even ‘tolerable' moral or legal outcome. The danger of allowing nonconfrontational homicides to be considered morally permissible is a slippery slope. If a woman hits a man twice, according to the resolution, he can then kill her at any point in her life. Her life has become forfeit. A whole slew of dangerous self-defense claims then become possible. When we affirm the resolved we are justifying the use of vigilantism. The reason being is that as long as someone claims they are being abused they can then justifiably kill their supposed abuser. This undermines institutions of justice because then all people have to do to kill someone is claim they were domestically abused even if they weren't. This would result in many more innocent lives being killed and it would all be considered justified. Institutions of Justice wouldn't be able to deliver justice anymore because the killing of that innocent person is considered justified and delivering justice. At this point institutions wouldn't be able to function the way they are supposed to and they would eventually break down. When that happens no ones live will be protected. This is why we must negate to ensure justice is served which is why I urge a negative ballad.