It is morally permissible for a victim to use lethal force as a response to domestic abuse

Con Case C1: American Roots First, I would say our Locke evidence isn’t “conflicting” and thus doesn’t become mute. The only time this would occur is if our evidence said the complete opposite arguments with no ability for us to evaluate the arguments further. Locke’s philosophy isn’t that natural rights are categorically un-infringeable, but rather given a state of nature these rights exist naturally (without the need for the government to grant them). My opponent is misconstruing Locke’s political theory. Second, he says self-defense is fine as long as you don’t kill the other person. This is theoretically ridiculous: my opponent is giving equal moral and legal worth to the aggressor and fundamentally destroying the ability to protect one’s self outright. Wasserman writes that legally one is given the right to protect oneself (i.e. protecting their own legitimate right to life) “A proponent of a lesser-evil approach might reject many of these provisions as too permissive or construe them as conditions of excusable rather than justifiable killing. There is a more basic feature of existing law, however, which is equally incompatible with a balancing of evils: a single victim is permitted to kill any number of intentional aggressors if it is necessary for his survival.” AND TURN: without the complete right of self-defense (i.e. ability to kill the person) societal confidence and individual autonomy would collapse – Wallerstein writes, “Starting from the premise of an absolute unqualified right not to be killed, it follows that self-defense, as a derivative right, must be an absolute natural right as well. This is so because without an absolute right to self-defense the right not to be killed can hardly be regarded as a right, as it provides its owner no effective tools to protect it. Self-defense plays a major role in resisting the direct imminent unjust threat posed by an aggressor. It also has an additional role in the defense against an indirect threat to autonomy, a threat that is generated by the fear and instability that the lack of such a right would bring about. It constitutes one of the basic conditions that allow people to live together in society. One of the reasons we value life is because it is a necessary precondition to the possibility of autonomy, of pursuing various personal and communal goals. Thus, the right to self-defense can be partly explained by reason of its implications for autonomy. No matter how comprehensive the rules of a given society are, there will always be situations where one is unable to turn to the community for help. Unless the possibility to defend oneself is recognized in these situations, the risks associated with living in a society would increase.” C2: Cross-apply to my C2 C3: Proportionality My opponent says nowhere in my case do I refute proportionality. On the contrary I do, refer to the Toffel evidence: she tells us that women, who are biologically less equipped at physical violence, are at a severe disadvantage in a fight with her domestic partner. One of the only ways she can defend herself is planned out preemptive defense. Proportionality doesn’t have moral weight when the individuals are inherently unproportional. .My opponent also says that since we threw out Locke then we can’t look to his evidence. Ill refer to this under my case Finally my opponent argues that I would not be justified in killing him if he punched me in the gut. Theres a few issues with this scenario: first, I probably am not biologically unfit enough to need to use deadly force; second, I would contend that if you kept attacking me over and over again and I feared for my life then I would morally be in the right to use deadly force if necessary. Pro Case Framework: Self-Defense My opponent’s only argument against this is that it should be thrown out, but I already answered this. Insofar as this is her only attack, the arguments within the evidence stand as valid. I offered 3 independent arguments that could be extrapolated from Locke: First, right of self-defense is a natural and moral right which exists to protect th sovereignty of the individual. Second, when one tries to inflict force upon another, he has violated his own rationality and devolves to the level of an animal. Third, a state of war exists between two people when force is inflicted upon another. This point is especially pertinent for the round because war is different than simply a one-time struggle. War permits deliberate and intended use of force. As such, even though the abused is planning out the use of deadly force, it is morally legitimate because the abusers action resembles that of war. All of these can be extended as independent arguments for a self-defense framework. C1: Inescapable Environment My opponent argues that the evidence uses conditional words, and then says well this doesn’t give a justification to kill. This argument has no warranted link at all. But regardless, he is misunderstanding the evidence. Wright tells us that abuses spouses or children are the one of the most MARGINALIZED groups – this doesn’t necessarily mean in poverty, but can definitely entail it. The evidence argues that abusers create psychological cages for the abused where they make the abused feel insufficient, helpless and detached from the outside world. But moreover, he is missing the point that Wright is explaining archetypical scenarios associated with an abusive relationship – just because some scenarios might not fit into all these descriptions does not negate the principle of the resolution. My opponent argues that my Toffel evidence diminishes my claim that its actually self-defense. However, he completely drops the substance of the evidence: (1) the evidence indicates that abused women are commonly disadvantaged against men who abuse them and could not sufficiently defend themselves in a direct altercation. Thus, women must be able to access a right of self-defense in a situation where they could not possibly defend themselves. (2) The Locke evidence supports this claim when Locke talks about a state of war – in war, anything needed for survival is permissible (as long as the individual is culpable). This includes preventative measures. (3) He misunderstands the “grabbing the kitchen knife” argument – it was not meant to argue against the Toffel evidence, but rather be a topical analysis which tells us that simply using the word deliberate does not factually entail preemptive. *Note: The resolution at the top doesn’t even use the word deliberate – but that is how the actual resolution is written for high school LD debate* It’s up to the readers as to how they want to analyze this argument. C2: Law is unhelpful My opponent argues that there are other options for women – however unless the woman seeks legal protection then the other services are rendered useless. The woman has no ultimate protection unless the law is on her side. My opponent argues that if a woman killed her husband, wouldn’t she be arrested as well? True, but at that point the threat would have been mitigated, and the abuse completely gone. Remember the evidence indicates that the law doesn’t always prevent separation of the husband and wife. The only way to break the psychological hold the abuser has on her is through the use of deadly force.