Jan/Feb LD Resolution

I guess I'll just rebut my opponents case... ===Campbell=== Campbell talks about the relevance of Ontology in everyday life, and how ontology is also always encrypted in all modes of though. My opponent then impacts this argument by saying that we must look to Ontology before all other things because before we assume we are humans and can act in moral ways we must first understand what it means to be human. This is fine but in order for ontology to be effective it must be followed by taking some type of action rather than repeating the contemplation process and allow abuse to continue. This contemplation process over ontology has already been done since the 1970's. If you negate off of this ontology argument you will only be further re-entrenching ourselves in taking no type of action towards ending these issues. ===Contention 1=== The tagline of his first contention is that if we try to affirm off of minimizing suffering by killing those who cause it then we wouldn't be able to understand Human Fatality of the ontological mode of being. He then cards Eugene Long who talks about embracing suffering in order to understand and appreciate human existence, also to place a differentiation between being a god and being human. You can turn Long 1. Suffering is never ending, suffering happens in all actions we take. Even when we affirm we realize some type of suffering. The decision to kill is not an easy one to come to, the contemplation process shows that the agent committing the murder knows fully what they are doing. At the point where I know I MUST kill or be killed then I suffer because the idea of death itself is always one that is suffering. ===Long 2=== Now Long 2 talks about how we must embrace suffering in order to overcome future problems of life, but there must be a bright line of some kind to the suffering that must be endured in order to understand we are humans and we can act in moral ways. If there is no bright line then: 1st We would only be encouraging/condoning domestic abuse which is the type of suffering one doesn't choose to deal with. Rather than having such an arbitrary suffering occur, it would be better to have the type of suffering that resulted from ones actions in order to truly learn from what we've done, discover what it means to be human, and taking steps towards bettering ones own self. You get none of these benefits from Domestic Abuse. 2nd It would be insulting to domestic abuse victims to say they haven't gone through enough suffering or that they must endure this suffering forever in order to understand what it means to be human. He then tries to say we need to confront death in order to value life. The confrontation of death has already been done since repeated domestic abuse is a threat to life. If we simply allow this notion of "We need to confront death in order to appreciate life" then we will only stay in a cycle of doing nothing. We need to couple these ontological ideals with action and take some steps towards further valuing life. Also turn the argument the idea of "Deadly Force" Means there will be a confrontation of death, but its not definite. According to Strauss this is justified because it confronts death to an extreme. Then he tries to say he doesn't advocate further suffering but rather let suffering flow. The affirmative side does this better. Domestic Abuse victims will still kill regardless if we affirm or negate meaning domestic abuse victims naturally kill their abusers now, and will continue to naturally kill their abusers after this round. The language of Moral Permissibility in this context is society's tolerance for an action. When we negate we will say the action of causing natural suffering is immoral, and the suffering you must endure must be suffering selected for you by arbitrariness. This is not at all allowing suffering to flow naturally. The Affirmative side of this round allows suffering to flow naturally the best and be considered morally acceptable/permissible. Then he tries to say that we affirm because I can tell what its like to suffer by seeing others suffer. A) Long assumes the suffering is being experienced. This positionality argument can be turned. The idea of positionality deciding morality affirms because no one can ever tell the abuse that one has gone through except for the victim, since this is true we must leave the idea of using deadly force as a deliberate response up the abuse victim. If they use this course of action then it must be considered morally permissible in order to allow moral options and uphold the values of morality. B) The Aff promotes a great ideal of confronting death. The Abused has confronted death for a large chunk of their life, they then confront death when they attack their abuser, because abusers are still dangerous. The confrontation of death is greater in the Aff than in the Neg. Then he gives his voters. A) There is no prohibition on the action anymore. All of these arguments actually affirm. B) The AC advocates a natural flow of suffering more than the NC, also the AC doesn't destroy any value to life. Rather the AC promotes some type of discourse being taken along with the notion that life is valuable. I apologize for my short responses but I'm super busy between all of my activities -.- I await my opponents responses. :)