January/February LD Debate Resolved.

NC, AC So let’s start with the top. Extend my Oxford definitions of justice which specifically say "the quality of being fair and reasonable" and "the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:" Therefore, I win right here because in order for justice, which is both of our values, to be upheld the law must do it. He doesn’t use the law, therefore, he can’t uphold his value Extend my criterion of equality. This is the only way to link to justice. Extend my analysis that says that because justice is contingent on fair treatment, you must look to equality before all else. I give reasons to prefer equality, he doesn’t give any to prefer his VC, therefore, I win right there because he never shows equality Even if you buy his VC, I’m solving oppression better, we'll get to that later Extend Kant which says that no matter how much pain the victim is enduring, it is not worse than death. This means that the aff is inherently unequal because deadly force implies that the abuser will be killed. Extend Stairs 1. I win right here because he precludes utilitarian impacts. Remember his analysis that “The idea in brief is simple: it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons. Legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the core motive in punishing someone is to deter others, or to protect society, or to set an example, then the person punished is wronged; their humanity has not been respected.” I preclude any utilitarian arguments because we must look to equality of punishment there. Since he doesn’t provide that, I win right here. Extend Stairs 2 which says that revenge is bad. His world is one of revenge, mine is one of equal punishment which precludes his utilitarian impacts. Remember, even if he solves abuse 100% (which he doesn’t) I preclude and win off of the NC. He didn’t do nearly enough work on this and that will cost him AC He greatly mishandles the case turn. I argue that he perpetuates the mindset of women being victims, which is the stereotype, as shown by Wood. He himself says that this stereotype of women is the root cause of abuse. He perpetuates the stereotype because he says that women are the victims of domestic violence. By portraying women as the victims, he perpetuates the same stereotype which he fails to eradicate. Your ballot does not change any laws. The only impact that your ballot has is endorsing an advocacy. By affirming, you endorse the stereotype that causes abuse. Extend my analysis that says that this impact precludes all others because it will actually happen in the real world. If you vote for him, then you accept the negative mindset that says that women are victims. Negate to reject this mindset So, extend that and I win there Down the AC His first response is simply offense for my case turn. By portraying women as “victims of repeated domestic violence” the very words he uses in the round cause a patriarchal mindset. His words cause abuse in the real world He misunderstands Castleman. Castleman says that women fantasize about being raped by men, not about raping men. If they fantasize about the same patriarchal society that allegedly causes abuse, then they can’t be oppressed by that society. So this takes out solvency. Remember, affirming perpetuates women as the “victims” of domestic violence. Therefore, affirming perpetuates a bad mindset Extend Wood. Wood shows how stereotypically women are portrayed as victims. My opponent continues this stereotype by affirming that women are victims. This proves the case turn even more On Contention 1 Clark needs numbers, otherwise the impact isn’t quantified. Extend that Affirming perpetuates the mindset, so it doesn’t solve Affirming leads to vigilante justice. He doesn’t justify a brightline ever. He doesn’t say why vigilantism should only apply in domestic abuse cases. Therefore, affirming leads to vigilante justice in all situations, which risks oppression and inequality, so negating is the only way to solve both criterions on that level. Cross-apply my reasons why vigilante justice is bad On Contention 2 Link 1 Perception of women Doesn’t show solvency numbers. Unquantified. Don’t grant him utilitarian impacts Voting in this round doesn’t actually change anything. Remember my analysis that says that all affirming does is endorse the mindset that causes abuse. Even if affirming would hypothetically solve the mindset, it doesn’t because an affirmative ballot doesn’t change anything. His discourse does occur however The stereotype will occur no matter what. Extend my analysis that says that stereotypes and fantasies are divorced from reality. Regardless of whether women use deadly force or not, it won’t solve because stereotypes and fantasies are untrue. This takes out the entire warrant of Clark Link 2 Deterrence Extend that the abuser is assumed to be rational. If the abuser is irrational, than the abuser can’t be deterred. He never proved that abusers are rational, therefore, he can’t solve No quantified evidence Remember, my NC precludes utilitarian impacts which are all that he provides. Therefore, you can buy his whole case and I win On Self Defense Underview Just as a response to all of this, I think he misunderstands “deadly force.” In order for “deadly force” to be justified murder or killing of the abuser must also be justified, because deadly force at least risks death. Therefore, since he concedes that none of his cards justify murder or deadly force specifically, they aren’t sufficient to affirm On Campbell Literally all Campbell says is that situations of abuse are “different.” That doesn’t mean anything he tries to make it mean. It could, in fact mean that situation of abuse aren’t as bad, but if they are only “different” then there is no way that this card justifies deadly force. Campbell thinks that the law can solve otherwise she wouldn’t use the law as justification. If the law is crap then why is she using a legal outlook to determine justification? This means his author thinks that neg can solve or is inconsistent. Either way, it is bad news for my opponent. On Ayyilidz It is an appeal to authority. Ayyilidz doesn’t even show how the law is patriarchal, not one example. Don’t buy this card If self-defense is a patriarchal, male construct as Ayyildz says then why should we use it? We’ve already established that patriarchal mindsets cause abuse, so how can a patriarchal construct solve abuse? It can’t. Extend the turn He concedes that the card doesn’t justify murder. If it doesn’t justify murder, then it can’t justify deadly force, because deadly force risks homicide inherently Remember, he admits he doesn’t justify the self-defense doctrine. Even if you buy the underview, you can’t affirm He says he doesn’t have to because it is justified by the law. But my opponent’s own cards say the law is patriarchal. Remember, he is using a patriarchal system to justify his position. That turns the whole case because a patriarchal system, which is the justification for self-defense, according to my opponent’s authors, causes abuse. Extend the massive turn Back to Vigilantism His first response is about how it can be just. Apply Oxford definition of justice which specifically says that justice has to be carried out by a government. He therefore, delinks himself from his value Affirming does cause vigilantism. Use of deadly force by the victim is vigilantism. Affirming says that is permissible. Therefore, he justifies vigilantism Brief Voting Issues NC went almost cold-conceded. It precludes all his util impacts. Even if he solves abuse, that isn’t enough to win His discourse stereotypes women as victims by placing them in the victim category. This mindset caused by his discourse causes abuse. This precludes all impacts in the round and turns the case Definition of justice says that it must be equal and must be by government. He has no link to his value. I solve oppression better by rejecting his mindset His case is unwarranted I give reasons to prefer my VC, which he doesn't link to