Hayes King 2012 PROP NC Lamar LD 2012 PROP NC RESOLVED: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force

in a deliberate response to domestic violence. Agree Definitions Observation 1: The word deliberate and self-defense Deliberate implies, thought out, instead of heat-of-the-moment or self-defense scenarios which would mean that the victim might have the time and ability to act within the law, you cannot attack someone out of self-defense, because a planned deliberate attack implies a thought-out action with an analysis of the consequences and means to complete the attack, this is not what self--defense is. This observation means that any acts of violence toward an abuser are unmoral because there was a chance to escape or act within the laws of morality. Observation 2: Deadly Force Burden The affirmative must justify the action of taking a life to spare another. Its not excusable to say that the victim can do it simply because he is protecting his life because all life is equal no matter what. I value Morality as the code of conduct put forward by all rational members of that society. My criterion for this round will be Protecting Lives. Life is the most important criterion of the round because without life nothing can stand. Life must be upheld because without life nothing is possible especially the liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Contention 1 - Equality is universal and Life is unalienable In 1948, the United Nations wrote a document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3, of this document, is as follows, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." These rights are universal, limitless and applied to everybody, whether the person is murderer or the victim. Wife beater, or the wife. "All human beings are born free, live free, die free and are equal in dignity and rights." There is no compromising in this regard. So here is question presented, is it morally permissible for one person to take away an inalienable right of another person? No it is not. Furthermore, Robert Grant asserts that, "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." No person can morally take away another person's inalienable rights which includes the right to life. You cannot take away a person's right to live.

Hayes King 2012 PROP NC Lamar LD Contention 2 - Disproportionate Rights Violation Our moral system exists because of the rights claims we make against each other. According to John Locke, the social contract develops as a result of people wanting to coexist with one another and therefore agreeing individually that they will not violate rights in exchange for not having their own rights violated. Therefore, the only appropriate retribution is that which is equivalent to the rights, which have been violated to begin with. Taking life is not proportional to the rights violation, which occurs as a result of repeated domestic violence. Though the victim may be robbed of liberty and happiness, they still have the opportunity to regain it because they are alive. Life provides the opportunity to exercise all other rights, and therefore, it is more valuable than all other rights. A victims use of deadly is therefore disproportionate and morally impermissible. Contention 3 - Cycle of Violence