January/February LD Debate resolved

I'll just rebut his case then refute mine. Seeing as my opponent doesn't provide his own framework or rebut mine means that he accepts my framework. Which means all arguments should link back to the reduction of oppression. Whoever can better reduce that oppression will now win the round. Lets start looking at his case. ===Rebuttal===Lets look at his first contention which is:C1: There are alternativesThis contention assumes that there are always alternatives. So lets look at the alternatives he presents. Pretty much the only alternative he present is to contact the police. This is pretty faulty because 1st. Many abuse victims try to contact authorities and fail. Nancy Wright, a law professor at Santa Clara university of Law, writes in her essay Voice for the VoicelessOne study of women in Philadelphia, who died at the hands of their abusive spouses, estimated that 64% of the women were known by the police to have been physically abused before their deaths. This just goes to show how Authorities tend to do nothing. Then he says the Victims can use non-deadly force to subdue the abuser, escape and contact authorities. The victim is still in danger. If the victim contacts the police then they'll be safe for a short amount of time, but the abuser is still likely to attack the victim. My opponent may say that the police will do something to help, but the most they would do is have a restraining order, but whats that going to do ? If I am an abuser and I'm about to kill my victim I don't care about the few days in jail that I'm risking. The alternatives in this case are ineffective. My case clearly shows how Alternatives do not work. He also fails to give any actual empiric evidence or statistics on how these alternatives exist and work well, so we still can't look to this argument. Another way these alternatives are ineffective because of the psychological damage done to Abuse Victims. Nancy Wright 2Another reason that women don't leave abusive relationships is called "separation abuse,", meaning that the battered woman fears retaliation towards herself, her children, other family members, friends or even co-workers. For example, in Koss, the battered wife testified that her abusive husband threatened to kill her children unless she dropped a domestic violence complaint she had filed against him. Fears of retaliatory abuse appear to be well-founded since the most frequently and seriously battered women are those who are separated or divorced from their abusers. n175 Although only 10% of women are separated or divorced, they account for 75% of all victims of domestic violence and are fourteen times more likely to be battered than women who are still cohabiting. Unfortunately, it is also accurate that, if the abuser is unable to locate the battered woman, he may seek revenge on other people who are important in her life. This also shows exactly how even if these alternatives did exist then abuse victims are very unwilling to use them due to ineffectiveness and fear. Now lets look to his second Contention which is:C2: Disproportionate Rights ViolationSo here he talks about how disproportionate responses are not morally permissible. He then goes on to say that the resolved is disproportionate, but 1st Self-Defense is a disproportionate response because someone is threatening your life and in order to protect your life in that instance you had to kill the person. This disproves his statement that disproportional responses are morally impermissible. Even if you don't buy that then looks look to the definitions of Deadly Force and Repeated Domestic Violence (Neither of which he disputes) the definition of Deadly Force is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. This means that the force will be likely to result in death but not necessarily. Then lets look to the definition of Repeated Domestic Violence. Its defined as an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control that happen many times or reoccur again and again. The escalating pattern of violence is potentially deadly. Nancy Wright 3 Unfortunately, there has been a steady increase in the number of children who die from domestic abuse at the hands of their parents. In 1989, approximately 600 children were killed by their parents. By 1995, almost twice as many children (or 1,000 youngsters annually) died of domestic abuse. By 2004, there were almost 1,500 deaths annually from child abuse, an average of more than four children each day. Unfortunately, many experts believe that these shocking figures are conservative since death from parental abuse may be incorrectly diagnosed as accidental or as the result of sudden infant death syndrome. This shows how deadly Domestic Violence is and how Deadly Force is a proportionate response and is morally permissible. ===Refutation===Now lets look to my contentionsC1: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve it. My opponent fails to understand how this contention functions. If you look to the Impact of that argument it says: sometimes Society either delivers very little Justice or at times no Justice at all, By Affirming the resolution we will better be able to achieve Justice by allowing those that have been abused the encouragement to fight back when they can no longer rely on Societies aid Therefore allowing them to themselves reduce oppression. The point I try to stress is that Society cannot always guarantee safety. So at the point where society cannot save Domestic Abuse victims then they are allowing the abusive oppression to continue. This contention proves how in the Neg world we won't be able to reduce oppression, rather in the Aff world we can because we allow victims to liberate themselves. Then he goes on to say since females are feminine we look to protect them more, he fails to provide any empiric evidence or statistics as to how this is true, and he is also agreeing to my 1st D. A Clarke card at the top of my case. This card talks about how women are seen as weak and masochistic. This statement can actually now be turned, he admits that society also has this view. The only way to end that oppression, by society, is to allow those who are viewed as "Feminine" (Domestic Abuse Victims) to be able to liberate themselves therefore reducing oppression on two levels. Now lets look to my second contentionC2: Through affirming there would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as domestic violence. He lets D. A Clarke 4 and 5 go cleanly dropped, he never addresses what the cards actually say. Just because he says this is my response to Contention 2 doesn't mean he actually answers contention 2. He simply says that we are actually affirming even more violence Extend D. A Clarke 5 which says: If women become more violent, will the world be a more violent place? Perhaps, but it's not a simple equation of addition. We will have to subtract any violence that women prevent. So we will have to subtract a large number of rapes and daily humiliations suffered by women who today cannot or will not defend themselves. We might have to subtract six or seven murders that would have been committed by a latter-day Zodiac Killer, except that his first intended victim killed him instead. It's not as if we were suggesting that women introduce violence into the Garden of Eden. The war is already on. Women and children are steadily losing it. This effectively takes out the argument of "Only Affirming more violence" Because we will have to subtract violence we PREVENT when we Affirm which outweighs the violence we advocate. This also links directly back to the standard of reducing oppression because we are letting the abused be seen as strong creatures able to liberate themselves and prevent violence. I look forward to my opponents next argument :)