Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Definitions: Morally permissible- allowed by principles of right and wrong Domestic Violence- I accept my opponent's definition Deadly Force- the force in which a person uses causing a substantial risk of death (US Armed Forces) Self-defense- the right for people to use any means possible to defend themselves when there is an imminent threat to their life Deliberate- Done consciously and intentionally (thought out, premeditated) Repeated- more than once These definitions are final. Value: Life Value Criterion: Maximizing the amount of lives through morality/ethics C1. Self-defense killings are not morally justified when there are other options. If killing in self-defense is the only option for a person, then it is justified to kill. This resolution does not specify whether this action is in self-defense or not. Therefore, the majority of the BOP is on my opponent as they must show it is justified to kill in all situations whether in self-defense or not, while I must show it is not justified to kill in one of the two. If there are other options it is not justified to kill. (Doctrine of Double Effect, Thomas Aquinas) There are other options. I will present two: a)Non-mortal wounds Chances are the way the woman, or whomever else is being abused, is going to kill is going to be with some kind of fire arm. Could this women just not as easily shoot the man in the kneecaps? This serves the exact same goal (protection) but, does not kill their attacker. They have other options; a woman, for example, can choose to shoot, or stab, an area which would not cause death but, would cripple their abuser for life. If you shoot someone in the kneecaps they are not going to be walking therefore, they cannot abuse you. b)Government intervention (police) Could the abused not just pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1? In almost every country around the world, domestic abuse is illegal and there is a police force. If the abused was to call for government intervention, the government would arrest and protect the person who was abused. We must keep in mind this abuse has been REPEATED as in more than once, so the abused has had multiple chances to end the abuse once and for all without using deadly means. It is evident there are other options other than death. It is not justified to kill when there are obviously other options. C2. The terms of this resolution do not meet the standards for self-defense Nowhere in the resolution do we see the term "self-defense" nor do we see a setting for this killing. Basically, this means the abused can kill the abuser any time as long, as they were abused more than once. The terms of this resolution mean my opponent must justify how murder can be morally permissible. Simply because this resolution only says "Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence." This means anytime after the second abuse the abuser life is forfeit and even if the abuser attempts to change and stops abusing the abusers life is forfeit and can be killed at any time. Nowhere in this resolution do we see the abused is in imminent danger. This resolution does not state the abused is in imminent danger, in fact, the converse is true, and the woman is in no threat at all. Since, this is a "deliberate" action; we now know there is no imminent threat to the abused as they have had time to think about exactly what steps they are going to take to kill. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not looking at a case of self-defense any more, we are in fact, looking at pre-meditated murder as the abused is in no imminent threat in this resolution. a)We have defined domestic violence as "emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse" in other words saying mean things. This is murder. Simply because the abused do not have an imminent threat to their lives. My opponent must justify how saying something mean justifies killing. b)We have also defined domestic violence as "economic abuse". In other words, withholding money. Exactly how does this equal an imminent threat to somebody's life? There is no threat. This would just be pre-meditated murder. c)We have defined domestic violence as "intimidation". Once again, just cross apply (b) to (c). Intimidation is the act of being intimidating; causing someone to fear you. d)We have defined domestic violence as "harassment". According to the dictionary, harassment is nothing more than "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands". How does doing something annoying necessitate the need for self-defense? It does not. There is no imminent threat to somebody's life. C3. Using violence to stop violence makes no logical sense This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning and therefore is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to. C4. Laws are based upon morality Society is nothing more than a community of shared ideas. "without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist" if there is no agreement on what is good and evil society WILL collapse. Laws are nothing more than the consensus of what is good and evil. It is evil to kill. It is evil to cause abuse. Society is not physically held together it is held together by "invisible bonds of common thought...a common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is a price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price (The Philosophy of a Law R.M. Dworkin)." The government is the one empowered to create laws which are morale. There are laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws. I will use my remaining time for rebuttals: R1. My opponent's contentions contradict each other Pro states in their first contention talks about Stockholm Syndrome, the emotional attachment of the abused to the abuser. Pro's second and third contentions talk about killing the abuser. There is one problem. If there is an emotional attachment why does my opponent think they are even going to kill their abuser? How would self-defense, or any other means, even be relevant? Abuse victims will not leave because of an emotional attachment but, they will kill despite the emotional attachment. How does this make any sense? Until my opponent clears up this obvious discrepancy, whether by conceding their first point or clearing up the problem, their entire case is null. R2. Self-defense My opponent must prove the state has failed to take action to protect its citizens. They have not proved this, therefore, vigilantism is unjustified. Furthermore, under your, or rather your sources, logic all governments around the world should be dissolved because they are not omniscient forces. The government can only protect an individual if the individual calls out for protection. Until the latter is done, a person cannot resort to vigilantism. R3. Justified in several ways As I have stated in my second contention, there is no imminent danger to the women. One of the key aspects of my opponents contention is "a citizen must also have a reasonable fear that his or her life is in danger". In other words, there must be an imminent threat. There is not one as it is a deliberate response, a planned response. There is no self-defense and there is no imminent danger. My opponent has failed to prove the state has failed in any way. The state cannot protect those who do not ask for protection.