Jan/Feb LD Resolution

I'm sorry I forfeited my last round. I've been extremely busy with school, debate and many other things. I hope the voters and my opponent will excuse my forfeiture. I'll just address the arguments he presents in the order he presents them. "Ontology must be followed by some type of action" 1. He tries to say there is no warrant for this. What I mean by this argument is that right now we do need to re-think our positions on what happens when it comes to Domestic Abuse. We must recognize that 1st People are justified in taking the action since it is necessary to prevent any greater harm to their life. 2nd People will already take this action regardless if we affirm or negate. The language of Moral Permissibility is what actions society tolerates and what actions they don't tolerate. Now he argues against my turn. 1st Extend the argument I make about how the deliberation process and coming to the decision of killing one suffers, even with the thought of having to kill one suffers. Also, with the two examples he gives, people still suffer. When buying flowers for your girlfriend you waste money therefore suffering. When you have a birthday you suffer because you get closer to death, or you don't get what you want. The turn still stands 2nd He argues that he outweighs on the magnitude of suffering. a) I take no action in changing the flow of suffering, rather, I take action in saying it is justified for the flow of suffering to be altered, but it still doesn't change any flow of suffering, people will still naturally suffer with the decision of having to kill. The natural flow of suffering is justified in the Aff world, while in the Neg world the natural flow of suffering is viewed as prohibited. b) The suffering of the woman is not decreased by killing the abuser, rather, the suffering stays in place. The trauma suffered by the woman stays in place, and even more trauma from coming to the decision of killing also comes to play. People who are abused will still commit this action when they see it necessary, but in the Aff world it is justified to have this flow of suffering versus the Neg world prohibits it. Long can be extended, but its a reason to Affirm not Negate. The idea of a bright line is that people can suffer enough to actual do some kind of transcending. He says suffering is necessary for one to transcend but there must be a certain amount of suffering in order to be able to transcend and be able to become better people in life. Once again suffering is everywhere and is natural, thus the bright line is when one is able to make the decision of how to suffer. This creates a more natural flow of suffering, because ones actions decide it, not arbitrariness. Extend both levels of the argument I make. I apologize for the misunderstanding I create with the argument of the confrontation of death. I meant to say that deadly force doesn't necessarily mean one will die, but that one will come close to dying or possibly die. Thus the confrontation of death is greater in the Aff world. You can now buy the turn. "The Aff makes suffering flow better" 1st This is exactly what I mean by there must be a bright line to arbitrary suffering, then the next level is suffering from ones decisions where people will be able to make the most transcending. 2nd This turns the argument he's making. 3rd The action the Aff takes is a critical discourse by saying the action is Morally Permitted, since abuse victims will attack their abusers when they see it necessary anyway. The NC can go extended but all of the arguments coming out of the NC are reasons to Affirm. Clark 1 He fails to understand how Clark 1 functions, it is only to stress reasons as to why we live in a patriarchal society. Regardless if it says fantasy or not it still imprints an image in society's mind. We still live in a patriarchal society, my opponent can't challenge this. Clark 2 Once again he fails to understand how this card functions. This card functions with the next one. It shows how society often fails to punish or doesn't punish enough. The only argument he makes are "He provides no empiric evidence." essentially. He fails to provide evidence they don't fail. Its much easier to believe they do fail, than they don't. They still fail sometimes. Thus extend Clark 2 which shows how systematically society provides a lack of consequences for a crime. Clark 3 The response he makes to Clark 3 is not responsive to the important point in Clark 3 so extend it. The important point is that whenever there is a lack of consequence for a crime, the action is looked upon as justified. Thus the Neg advocates an arbitrary form of suffering which is bad because he condones one to change the natural flow of suffering by abusing their partners without any kind of consequence in return. Clark 4 This asserts warrants as well. It talks about a deterrence factor which will be tolerated in the Aff world/ The turn doesn't apply because there is still a value of life, even with domestic abuse ending there is still a confrontation of death in this situation and in other situations in life naturally. Clark 5 We subtract arbitrary suffering and promote suffering made by decision which is better. Extend it vote Aff even more. Abusers will be stopped from continuing to abuse even more and more people, it will deter their idea of patriarchy even more. Underview 1. Every situation isn't different for domestic abuse, he isn't being responsive to the actual arguments. Extend Campbell and Ayyildiz who talk about the reasons why in Domestic abuse situations one should be allowed Self-defense. 2. The abuser forfeits their rights at the point where he infringed on another persons rights. 3. The murderer would have to be under constant abuse, we aren't justifying psychotic maniacs going around killing 30 or 40 people. 4. Once again extend Campbell and Ayyildiz who clearly show how the Aff does in fact meet the criteria of Self-Defense. Thus vote Aff of of the turns on the NC and the Underview.