January/February LD Debate Resolved

Rather the definition of *Domestic Violence* does imply the escalation of violence. My definition of Domestic Violence is from an actual source. She provides no counter-definition of Domestic Violence. She can reject my definition of Domestic Violence but fails to offer a counter definition from an actual source therefore my definition still stands which states, an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. When I say "The ending of that definition entails oppression" that means the ending of the definition not the ending of the abuse. The abuser abuses their victim to feel in control, that is during the abuse. Then she tries to talk about how there are relationships where abuse is minimal. In these situations it can't be considered *Domestic Violence*. The abuse must be large enough to control the abused, it takes a lot more force than a simple slap or two to control somebody. Therefore the abuse is large, deadly, and escalating. Then she tries to say that the Neg can meet my criterion by ignoring the oppressive nature of deadly force I have two responses. 1) The reason we value the abused freedom more than the abuser is because justice is defined as giving each their fair due. Therefore we are better achieving justice when we reduce the oppression on the abused because that is what they're due. Also we gain justice through punishing the abuser which is they're due/ 2) At the point where I prove alternatives aren't a viable course of action then the Neg world allows this abuse to go on which isn't moral and isn't delivering justice. Then she says a slap across the face today and a slap across the face tomorrow meets the requirement of the resolved. However she is wrong. The abuse needs to be enough to control the victim and a slap across the face doesn't do this. Wright 1 She tries to weasel out of Wright 1 by saying that the other women who were domestically abused but weren't killed were also not being beaten with deadly force. This however is wrong. The other 99.99991% were simply not killed by the domestic abuse, but as I stated before are still being abused with enough force to oppress them and the force continues to escalate. This disproves that for 99.99991% of Domestic Violence cases that it isn't morally permissible to respond with deadly force Clarke 1 So my opponent tries to re-iterate her point here. Allow me to simply break it down. The pornographers still create an image that we still tend to use. We pay attention to the fact that pornographers paint this image of "Look that woman loves to get beaten and she will still stay with her boyfriend and actually have sex with him" the same way that we've painted this image that all black people are crime perpetrators. I don't agree with either statements but if you ask common people they will agree. I aim to destroy the idea that women or any domestic violence abuse victim is weak and masochistic. The statistic does give further reason and proof because I clearly proved how the abuse occurs because the abused views their victim as weak and easily able to be dominated. My opponent doesn't dispute this. She also says this ignores many circumstantial factors for abuse but she doesn't provide any. This is a blank claim. Then she tries to pin the B. O. P on only me. That's not how it works, the B. O. P is both on the Neg and the Aff. The Neg needs to prove it is morally impermissible while I must prove it is morally permissible. Clarke 4 Once again she tries to re-iterate the new statistic she finds in her attack to wright 1 but cross-apply what I said to it early. This card does flow through and gives me major offense because it links to both value criterion's. I am reducing the oppressive view of women and the victims of Domestic Violence being weak, I am reducing the oppression the abuser has over the victim in Domestic Violence, and I am punishing a serious crime, like Domestic Violence, with serious consequences rather than no consequences at all. (Which occurs in the Neg world without alternatives) Clark 5 We tell society is ok to kill in *Certain* circumstances. It isn't justified to kill anyone you see like you're trying to make it sound. We only say the killing is Justified when the abused is being controlled/oppressed and the force used to control/oppress is getting larger and larger. Cross-Apply the response to the 99.9991% argument I've made 2 times. Wright 2 She tries to say they have other alternatives then she provides some, allow me to disprove Koch 1 (Crisis line counselor; "Why Don't Battered Woman Just Leave? ") Battered Women Shelters are usually full. Another problem with re-locating is that many women have children who would have to be taken out of their current school and enrolled in one near the shelter- only to do it all over again in a month or two as the shelter is only a temporary response. Batterers tend to isolate their partners from other people because this gives them more control and security. Hence, these men often make having friends difficult or impossible for a woman. If she happens to have family in the area, batterers will commonly discourage or prohibit her having contact with them. Furthermore, women in abusive relationships frequently become estranged from family members and friends who are frustrated that she has not left her abuser. However, even if a woman does have family or friends willing to put her up, it is highly possible that she is putting both herself and them in grave danger by staying there. A batterer often looks for a woman when she leaves. If her mother, brother, or best friend live in the area, you can bet he's going to go there first. These men are violent individuals. They are dangerous. Some of them are complete and utter psychopaths. This disproves those alternatives. Also she misunderstands the percentage. These abused women were known by the police before being killed the others simply couldn't reach out due to these reasons. The other 99% still couldn't escape. On to her Case My opponent claims my criterion provides no weighing mechanism but it IS the weighing mechanism. The arguments that reduce oppression win. There is no difficulty using this to weigh arguments. She still fails to link her criterion to the resolved therefore look to mine first since it does link to the resolved. Also she still can only meet her criterion with alternatives, which I disprove therefore I meet her value criterion better. My Wright cards are still there on her contentions don't let her even touch them until she properly responds to them. Also she simply says extend both contentions but fails to state how she gains offense from this. I have proved my impact of reducing oppression, because the resolved presents oppression and whoever can better solve that oppression wins the round. I will be gaining justice by giving the abused their due of liberation as well as the abusers due of punishment. I am proving it is morally permissible for all victims. I make this connection in my Framework where I state "So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women are viewed as by society. " Therefore I am proving for all victims and I meet my B. O. P The *Proportionality* is a clear reason to affirm when alternatives aren't available which I have proven For these reasons I urge a Pro/Aff vote. I await my opponents responses.