Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe

would prefer L-D High School Format however if you have argument(s) feel free to accept challenge thx & GL [Wright, Nancy. 2009. "Criminal Law Brief. 4:76.] documents a despicable tale "For example, in State v. Hundley, Betty Hundley's "build up of terror and fear" extended throughout her "tumultuous" ten year marriage to Carl Hundley. Over the years, Carl "knocked out several of Betty's teeth, broke her nose at least five times and threatened to cut out her eyeballs out and her head off." He also "kicked Betty down the stairs on numerous occasions and had repeatedly broken her ribs." When Betty moved out, Carl "started a pattern of constant harassment," Ultimately, Carl broke down the door of the motel room where Betty was staying, choked her, raped her and threatened her life, as he turned his back to her to reach for a beer bottle, Betty shot him five times in the back." It is because of the horrible experiences of victims like Betty who have endured both physical and, although harder to see but no less terrible, psychological abuse due to domestic violence that I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. I would like to define a few terms at this time. All definitions will come from [Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. 1983.] Unless I say otherwise. Moral- is defined as "principles and practice in regard to right and wrong; ethical." Permit- is defined as "to suffer without giving expressed authority; to allow." Domestic Violence- the following contextual definition is from [ Meyersfeld, Bonita. 2003. Albany Law Review. 67:371.] "…defines domestic violence as: physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant." More definitions are available upon request. My value in today's debate will be Quality of Life. We can see that quality of life is the most important value we can consider in today's debate because it is held in important regard to not only individuals but to societies across the world as well. If this was not the case then slavery would be allowed instead of outlawed in most countries today and we would not care if rights were violated like rights to liberty, pursuit of happiness, and right over one's body. We would not have seen the civil rights movement or the promotion of women rights here in America if it wasn't for the deep regard we have for quality of life. After all what is life if you spend every day in chains, if you are not free to spend your free time as you choose, or if you don't have equal consideration? This leads me directly to my value criteria of maximizing individual rights. Only through maximizing individual rights can we continue to uphold the value of quality of life. These rights like the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness are inherent, furthermore these rights can only go as far as not to infringe upon other's rights. Domestic violence by definition infringes upon these inalienable rights and sends the message that the quality of life does not matter not only for the victim but for others as well. The fact that the resolution posits a situation where this infringement and negative message is repeated further supports the need to uphold the quality of life. I will have three main points to support my position: (1) Many factors often prevent victims from leaving; (2) Social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense; (3) Deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways. To my first point, many factors prevent victims from leaving. Several pieces of evidence shine light on this horrible truth. [Hope Toffel, Southern California Law Review, Volume 70, 1996.] "For example… people taken hostage may subsequently show positive regard for their captors… abused children have been found to have strong attachments to their abusing parents… and cult members are sometimes amazingly loyal to malevolent cult leaders. The relationship between assaulted women and their partners, then, may be seen as one example of what we have termed traumatic bonding – the development of strong emotional ties between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." [Nancy Wright, law professor at Santa Clara Law School, Criminal Law Brief, Volume 4, 2009.] "Another reason that women don't leave abusive relationships is called "separation abuse," meaning that the battered woman fears retaliation towards herself, her children, other family members, friends or even co-workers. Although only 10% of women are separated of divorced, they account for 75% of all victims of domestic violence and are fourteen times more likely to be battered than women who are still cohabiting." When considering this evidence we must see that these victims are faced with the horrific choice of staying in an abusive home or leaving, just to face escalated violence at the hands of their tormentors. This leads me directly to my second point that social contract breakdown necessitates aggressive self-defense. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] "Vigilantism as a permissible mode of self-help for battered women may be justified under social contract theory. The breakdown of the social compact occurs when the state fails in its obligation to protect the individual. This breakdown justifies the individual's resort to self-help. Under social contract theory, if the state fails in its obligation to protect citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection." When society fails to undertake necessary measures to eradicate, or at least meaningfully reduce, domestic violence, it ought to be morally permissible for potential victims to take matters into their own hands and prevent themselves from continuing to be victimized. Moving on to my last point that deadly force on the part of the battered may be justified in several ways. [Ayyildiz, Elisabeth. 1995. American University Journal of Gender & the Law. 4:141.] explains "First, death may be necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. Death may be the only means by which battered women can escape the abuse. Moreover, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in circumstances other than self-defense. In California, for example, deadly force is permitted by any person, not just a police officer, if necessary to apprehend any person for any felony. In these situations, a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger. Battered women should be seen as apprehending the batterer for committing a felony, the battery itself. Finally, death may be justified under a retributive analysis in which the battered woman is seen as punishing the batterer. If the battered woman is stepping in where the state has failed, then she should be permitted to exercise the same powers as those possessed by the state. The death of the batterer, therefore, is a permissible solution for battered women." In conclusion my case clearly outlines the affirmative position that repeated domestic violence is an egregious violation of individual rights, a violation where the use of deadly force to escape the situation is not only a morally permissible solution, but often times the only solution. I strongly urge you to remember the victims like Betty Hundley and promote the individual rights and quality of life for not just the past and present but for the future as well. Vote affirmative in today's debate.