January/February LD debate topic

Definitions My opponent restated his definition of repeated without answering my argument. As I noted, “According to the...Merriam-Webster Dictionary, repeated actions are those which happen many times or reoccur again and again.” Therefore, the phrase repeated domestic violence correctly refers to frequent abuse. Alternatives to Deadly Force In my last post, I referenced a study which found that the violent victimization rate of women who separate from their batterers is six times the rate of married women (1). In response to this study, my opponent argues that a six-fold increase is not that significant since the base rate is incredibly small. However, this is not true. According to Jane Campbell, the violent victimization rate among women who are married is 2.16%. Therefore, women who separate from their partners would have a 13% chance of being violently victimized (1). This would definitely deter many women from leaving an abusive relationship. Furthermore, women who do leave a relationship often must return to protect their children and avoid losing custody of them. According to my opponent’s source, “Many women return to abusive relationships in the belief that doing so is the only way to protect their children. [These] women try to act as human shields, sacrificing themselves to stop abusive mates from harming their children....[W]hen women maintain their commitment to leaving abusive relationships, the legal system sometimes fails them by failing to grant restraining orders and by giving the batterers custody of the children.” For these two reasons, we must recognize that leaving an abusive relationship is not an option for many victims of domestic violence. My opponent argues that, in the future, leaving a relationship might be a more plausible option if we improve certain aspects of our legal system. However, the resolution only applies to the status quo since it’s written in the present tense. Imminence Requirement Gender Bias My opponent concedes that it’s permissible for women to use deadly force in order to defend their lives in directly confrontational situations. However, if we truly want to give women a fair opportunity to protect themselves, we must also recognize that the use of deadly force is permissible in non-confrontational situations as well. Victims of domestic violence often cannot anticipate or predict precisely when the next attack or assault will occur. This makes it difficult for them to prepare for an attack by having a deadly weapon accessible. Therefore, in many confrontational situations, a woman can only defend herself through the use of physical violence, which will likely have little to no impact on a man who’s much stronger. In fact, the woman’s attempt to physically defend herself may only further anger the abuser. As Jane Campbell notes, “Several aspects of the traditional self-defense doctrine are a difficult fit for...women. [T]he law of self-defense is a male construct, defined by how men respond to violence. Rather than recognize and respect the fact that domestic violence is different, and often less avoidable, than other types of violence, the law often simply metes out unjust and overly harsh results for those whose self-defense does not fit precisely within the traditional, male-based canon.” To give women a fair opportunity to defend themselves, we must therefore allow them to use deadly force in non-confrontational situations. 2. Constant state of fear In response to my second sub-point, my opponent argues that battered woman’s syndrome doesn’t justify murder. According to my opponent’s own source, the battered women’s syndrome is a disorder characterized by a collection of mental symptoms and motivational deficits which prevent a victim from acting within the parameters of the law. However, I never suggested that we should excuse a victim’s behavior because she sufferes from some disorder. Quite the opposite, I was arguing that victims of domestic violence have an entirely rational reason to fear for their lives, even when they’re not being attacked at the very moment. As I explained, batterers operate much like the way terrorists do by constantly threatening to attack or even kill their victims. The uncertainty about precisely when an attack is coming, coupled with the batterer’s past history of violence, rationally leads a victim to fear for their life in even non-confrontational situations. Therefore, we ought to relax the imminence requirement in cases of repeated domestic violence. The Slippery Slope Argument My opponent claims that as soon as we allow exceptions to the immanency standard we must allow preemptive murder in general. However, this simply isn’t true. There is no inherent reason why allowing victims of domestic violence to use deadly force would lead to a situation in which preemptive murder would generally be justifiable. Police would continue to investigate all homicides to determine if the actions taken in each situation were acceptable. If the police investigation determined that the murder was not justifiable, then criminal charges would be filled just as they currently are. Proportionate Force In his last post, my opponent conceded the proportionality argument. As he stated, “State v. Wanrow set a precedent that relaxed the requirement that women use proportionate force. The case concluded that a smaller victim may need to use larger amounts of force to subdue a larger attacker... In the same way…we can relax the proportionate force standard…” Social Contract Basic Human Rights I stated that the social contract applies to only basic rights, such as those listed in the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights. This was intended as a general statement. I did not mean that the social contract applies to every single right implied by this document. Legal Investigations In his last post, opponent stated, “The wife cannot shoot first and then have the state ask questions later. This is…problematic because every murderer could claim to be an abuse victim since the only witness that can contradict this story is now dead.” However, in legitimate cases of domestic violence, there clearly would other witnesses to testify about the abuse (such as the victim’s children, family, friends, coworkers, etc.). It’s highly likely that there would also be other pieces of evidence, such as documentation of severe bruises, scrapes, and other injuries. Proportionality My opponent claims, “We can't say a man's life is worth nothing because he hit his wife twice.” However, as I explained at the top of my post, the phrase repeated domestic violence correctly refers to frequent and habitual abuse, not merely occasional violence Natural Rights My opponent once again argues that rights are natural and unalienable. However, he never really addresses my original argument against this point. As Scruton explains, “Rights cannot be had for free…A society cannot be based in rights alone but must also inculcate a strong sense of duty in its members, if rights are to be anything more than useless bits of paper. Rights ought not to be given but purchased, and the price is duty.” Furthermore, as Eric Barnes states, “The idea of a right’s being natural makes no sense. The concept of a right is a normative (i.e. moral) concept, but nature only has to do with how things are and not with how things should be. In other words, moral concepts are created by people, and they are not natural; so the idea of a right’s being natural makes no sense” (2). 5. Value of Humanity Domestic violence has been regarded as a private, household issue for a long time. Society generally has failed to help victims of domestic violence find a way to regain their dignity. By recognizing that it’s morally permissible to use deadly force in response to repeated domestic violence, abusers will think twice before victimizing their spouse or partner. This, in turn, will promote human dignity. 1. http://qr.net... 2. Philosophy in Practice