Current LD debate topic

Definitions: Morally permissible acts are those which are not prohibited. Repeated actions or events are those which happen many times. (Collins English Dictionary). Domestic violence is the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior perpetrated by an intimate partner against another. (NCADV) The affirmative is not bound to defending that it’s morally permissible to use deadly force in every single case of repeated domestic violence. The resolution does not contain a universal qualifier such as the word “all,” enabling me to defend a general statement. Furthermore, forcing me to defend the application of the resolution in all circumstances would destroy reciprocity which is a key to fairness. I value justice which is the administering of deserved punishment or reward. Justice mandates the existence of basic human rights for at least those individuals who are innocent. These human rights must be described in terms of relationships among people. Robert Grant explains, “A right is only one side of a relationship; your right must necessarily be the duty of another. A human right is a contractual right that imposes upon all others the necessary and universal duty to act in a certain way...Human rights should not be confused with possessions. Rather, a human right is a relationship between an individual and all others that entitles a person to certain conduct from every other person and from society “ Therefore, as Roger Scruton concludes, “Rights cannot be had for free. [They] cannot be invented without also inventing the social relations that enable us to uphold them. 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.” The only way societies can inculcate such a strong sense of duty in their members is by giving them a self-interested reason for conforming to morality. As the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg observed, a large proportion of the population is not motivated by an unselfish concern for others. Julie Hough notes, “On the basis of his research, Kohlberg identified six stages of moral reasoning. At the first level, a person's moral judgments are focused on avoiding breaking rules that are backed by punishment. The reasoning of stage one is characterized by egocentrism and the inability to consider the perspectives of others. At stage two, one follows the rules only when it is to someone's immediate interests. Morality is of the form, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.” What is right is what's fair in the sense of an equal exchange.” In other words, people in the first two stages of moral development are not motivated by a selfless concern for the interests of others. Therefore, if we want to protect human rights in general, we must give these individuals a self-interested reason to fulfill their duties to others. To accomplish this goal, society must uphold the social contract. The social contract is an agreement between citizens to protect each other’s basic rights. This contract produces unique benefits for those who choose to accept it. As Robert Grant explains, “Rights are the benefits negotiated by reasonable persons and received by each of them as a result of their agreement to accept the natural duties imposed by the social contract. Human rights are the consideration for the obligations assumed under that fundamental agreement....When parties enter into a contract each becomes obligated to the other and each reciprocally acquires a right to what is promised by the other.” In other words, under the social contract, individuals can earn their basic rights only by fulfilling duties to each other. If an individual violates his end of the contract by harming another, the victim can rescind the contract. Under recession, the victim may use an amount of force which he or she believes is necessary for self-protection. Clearly, in following the social contract, an individual will be avoiding great harm and simultaneously acquiring many benefits. Therefore, the social contract gives all individuals a self-interested reason to perform only those actions which are consistent with justice. For this reason, upholding the social contract is key to upholding human rights in general. Thus, my criterion is respecting the social contract. This includes allowing individuals to defend themselves against those who have violated the contract using an amount of force which they believe is necessary. Contention one: many victims of repeated domestic violence believe that their life is in danger and that the use of deadly force is necessary for protection. In abusive relationships, batterers operate much like the way terrorists do by constantly threatening to attack or even kill their victims. However, the victims often cannot anticipate or predict precisely when the next attack or assault will occur. The uncertainty about precisely when an attack is coming, coupled with the batterer’s past history of violence, leads a victim to fear for their safety. Sub-point A: Women, who account for 95% of domestic violence victims, usually can only defend themselves through the use of deadly force. As Elisabeth Ayyildiz explains, “Deadly force on the part of the battered woman [is] justified in several ways. First, death [is] necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. The battered woman may not be able to confront the batterer without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength and emotional control. The lower degree of force a woman typically exerts upon a man may have little or no impact on a physically stronger abuser. Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser.” Sub-point B: Repeated domestic violence necessitates the use of deadly force since women often cannot leave an abusive relationship: As Elisabeth Ayyildiz writes, “In addition to believing that a lesser degree of force will be insufficient, many women may believe that leaving is not possible. Those that do attempt to leave report that their abusers follow them, continuing the harassment and violence.” In fact, according to Jeri Martinez, "A National Survey found the victimization rate of women separated from husbands was about 25 times higher than that of married women." This would definitely deter many women from leaving an abusive relationship. Jeri Martinez furthers, “When there are children, the situation becomes extraordinarily complicated. Children increase women's economic dependency on men, and they make leaving extremely difficult...[Often times] the abuser [threatens that] he will win custody of the children, or simply snatch them if she leaves. His threat to gain custody through the legal process can easily be seen as plausible. One study found that fathers who fought for custody won around 70% of the time, whether or not they were absentee or violent fathers. The threat of abduction is also a credible scenario. More than 40 children are abducted by a parent each hour in this country. [O]f these abductions, 46% involve concealing the whereabouts of the child or taking the child out of state.” For these reasons, we must recognize that leaving an abusive relationship is not an option for many victims of domestic violence. These women are literally trapped within an abusive relationship, and they can only defend themselves through the use of deadly force. Therefore, we must recognize that the use of deadly force is permissible under the social contract. In perpetrating the domestic violence, an abuser violates his basic duties towards the victim. As explained above, this entitles the victim to rescind the contract. Under recession, the victim may use an amount of force which she believes is necessary. For the majority of domestic violence victims, this often means using deadly force. Thus, I urge an affirmative ballot.