January/February LD Debate resolved

Since Society cannot always guarantee that Justice is dealt Affirm the Resolution It is Morally Permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. I will now offer Definitions for this round: Deadly Force: is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death (U.S. Armed Forces) Deliberate- characterized by deliberation; careful or slow in deciding. (Random House Dictionary) Repeated Action-Actions that happen many times or reoccur again and again (Merriam Webster) Domestic Violence: an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. (2008 NCPEA) Therefore, the term Repeated Domestic Violence is 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, thus avoiding the argument of simple random acts of violence since the abuse is being done methodically and in a pattern. It is not at all random. It is necessary to understand how we are going to weigh the arguments in this round. The resolution asks is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. The definition of Domestic Violence as I stated before is an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. The ending of that definition entails oppression. The reason for that oppression is because the abused are viewed as weak and masochistic. These statistics from the U.S Department of Justice show how estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. Women are usually the abused because they are seen as weak and masochistic creatures. Just as D.A. Clarke, a feminist essayist and activist, writes in her 1991 essay Justice is a Woman with a Sword In male fantasy, women are always powerless to defend themselves from hurt and humiliation. Worse, they enjoy them. Treatment that would drive the average self-respecting man to desperate violence makes these fantasy-women tremble, breathe heavily, and moan with desire: abuse and embarrassment are their secret needs. The "womanliness" invented by pornographers is a deep masochism, which renders women as powerless to defend self and others as the sweetness-and-light female patience and martyrdom of Christian romanticism. It's but a short step from the ladylike and therefore ineffectual face-slaps of Nice Girls to the "hot and steamy surrender" in the dominant male's brawny embrace. D.A. Clarke shows how women are seen as weak and masochistic creatures simply living in a dominant and brawny man's world. My opponent may say this is stereotypical, but it is something that is proved every day. So anyone who is viewed as weak is at danger of domestic violence which is why I use women in my case. So at the point where I prove it is morally permissible for Women then I prove it is morally permissible for victims of domestic violence because I defined the victims of Domestic Violence as being people who are seen as weak and masochistic which women typically are. Men usually commit domestic violence to be the "Alpha-Male" If anyone defies him then they will be beaten. This is immoral and wrong because there is no justification to simply beat someone just for dominance. When these beatings continue and Society fails to stop them Justice has been lost. Therefore my value for this round is justice. The reason I value Justice is because the resolved is presenting the issue of repeated Domestic Violence and also presents Deadly Force as a Deliberate Response as a justified answer. Therefore the Resolved is looking for Justice which is why I value it. My Value Criterion is to reduce oppression. We should look to the reduction of oppression because the resolved entails some type of oppression through "Repeated Domestic Violence" So whoever can better reduce that oppression and gain the justice the resolved looks for should win the round. Contention I: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who deserve it D.A. Clarke 2 There are several ways to prevent crimes from happening. One is education and reason, and our effort to bring up children to be good adults. Then comes elementary preparedness and awareness on the part of the innocent. Then there is active resistance and self-defence when a crime is attempted; lastly, there is the establishment of consequences for the perpetrator. Every time a man molests his daughter and still keeps his place in the family and community--every time a man sexually harasses a female employee and still keeps his job or his business reputation--every time a rapist or femicide gets a token sentence--there is a terrible lack of consequence for the commission of a crime. D.A. Clarke 3 We disagree as a society about the level of "punishment" or retribution or reparation which should be enforced. We can't agree whether murderers should themselves be killed. Most of us would agree that hanging is too severe a penalty for stealing a loaf of bread, but is it too severe a penalty for hacking a woman to death? Some would say yes and some no. Others think we should abandon the concept of punishment or reparation altogether, with their authoritarian implications, and concentrate on re-educating and reclaiming our errant brothers, turning them into better people. While we argue about these things, women are steadily and consistently being insulted, molested, assaulted and murdered. And most of the men who are doing these things are suffering no consequences at all, or very slight consequences. The less the consequence of their offence, the more it seems to them that there is really nothing so very wrong with what they have done. 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. Contention II: Through affirming there would be a reduction of oppression through violence as well as domestic violence. D.A. Clarke 4 If women defended themselves violently, the amount of damage they were willing to do to would-be assailants would be the measure of their seriousness about the limits beyond which they would not be pushed. If more women killed husbands and boyfriends who abused them or their children, there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, however slowly, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives. D.A. Clarke 5 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. Basically the reason for the Abuse is because the abused are seen as weak. When the abused retaliate with deadly force then that erodes the views of them being weak. Therefore causing abusers to consider even greater consequences for their actions. This reduces even more potential oppression which is why I urge an Affirmative ballad.