January/February LD Topic: Deadly force as a deliberate response to cases of domestic violence

My opponent argues that domestic violence victims are too scared to seek help, so they must use deadly force on their abusers. His theory is inconsistent. A woman who is frightened as my opponent says will not find the willpower to strike her batterer. Because his argument doesn't make sense, it should be disregarded. He also states that NPO's will not work in the case of domestic violence. He also elaborates on his contention, "Many victims suffer from psychological problems (as I revealed with evidence in round 2). Battered women syndrome and battered child syndrome applies to everyone." However, the psychological impact of killing another human being the victim MAY be emotionally attached to can be equally horrifying. As he states: "Once the violence begins, the woman may be too heavily invested in the relationship to leave or optimistic that they can turn things around." It can especially drastic if children are present. He also claims that domestic violence victims have no options so they must use DEADLY force. I do not want to waste precious time debating whether the resolution implies deadly force as a force that HARMS or a force that KILLS. If someone deliberately uses deadly (LETHAL) force, their intention is to kill. I already argued that I feel we have the right to use proportionate punishment, not murder. My opponent seems to agree with this when he states, "A victim's intention is not to kill their abuser because of their financial burden of society. Their intention is to stop the abuse.". Therefore, I have settled my case. Also, my opponent stated that law enforcement is not reliable. I already provided evidence to prove that the justice system has improved over the years and that arrests decrease the occurrence of domestic violence. I dropped the "hotline is not an alternative" argument. I'd just like to say they can raise awareness, helping domestic violence victims realize that they have options. They may also provide emotional support in times of need. It will make a domestic violence victims life much easier when he/she realizes he/she has a way out. The need to resort to deadly force can be greatly reduced by these services. I believe my opponent misunderstood my interpretation of the social contract. According to Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the social contract is the sacrifice of certain liberties to receive others in return. In retrospect, this means respecting others rights to privacy for them to do the same for you. Penalties performed under this contract should be punished with APPROPRIATE force, not simply murder. This is the point I was trying to clarify. Thus, my criterion is not unreliable. He asks for proof that women's shelters are successful. Here is a shelter that houses men, women, and children in need of housing with an 85% success rate: http://www.familyshelter.org... A page from the Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse states the following: The main purpose of a shelter is to provide safety to a woman and her children in a crisis situation of domestic abuse. Some women who come to shelters, however, are not in an immediate crisis but were victims of earlier domestic abuse or violence. Shelters determine a woman's eligibility to stay and for how long. In addition to safety, shelters typically offer their clients help obtaining social services, protection orders, medical services, transportation, and housing. Shelters also assist many women by phone and through outreach or educational programs, and some provide training to personnel in the criminal justice system. As for their effectiveness, it states the following: Bowker surveyed 1,000 battered women about the effectiveness of eight formal services available to help them. These were police, physicians and nurses, clergy, lawyers, district attorneys, social service or counseling agencies, women's groups, and battered women's shelters. Of these services, women gave the highest ratings to women's groups and battered women's shelters. I never said the resolution specified a ceased dispute. However, if the victim chooses to seek assistance and take the necessary protocol, it can end. If the woman from New Mexico had sought assistance before murdering her husband he may have faced the consequences of his actions, and the woman wouldn't have to deal with the stress of being prosecuted for murder. My opponent and I continue to argue on technicalities. Deadly force is a force in which you intend to, or should know, you are going to kill. Furthermore, he argues that murdering a batterer will produce a net worth. This is not the case. It is unjust because it not equitable on both ends. A thief doesn't deserve death for taking someone's property, and an abuser doesn't deserve death for his/her transgressions... Justice cannot be achieved without proper interaction.