Abbey Chapman

Woodlands Debate

I affirm. [It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.] The value is morality defined as conformity to the rules of right conduct. This is preferable for two reasons: 1. The evaluative term morally permissible frames the debate to focus on the moral permissibility of an action. 2. All other values ultimately aim to determine the morality of the action taken by the resolution. Therefore they are all means to get to the goal or value of morality. The value criterion is enforcing equality. This is the best way to access morality because morality is universally applicable, thus must strive to enforce equal partnerships, Philosopher Sarah McGrath explains,
Sarah Mcgrath Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 123, No. 1/2, Selected Papers from the 2003 Bellingham Conference (Mar., 2005), pp. 125-148

Immanuel Kant

determining the moral value of an action is done by evaluating the principle that lies behind

it, regardless of its consequence. He begins his account by defining good will: a good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its
willing. i.e., it is good in itself. (7). Placing the will as the primal power behind every choice allows Kant to claim that the moral worth of an action is determined by the principle of the will behind it and has nothing to do with its

the concept of duty is the guiding power which stands for good by itself; an action which is done strictly from duty is a moral action, not an action done merely in accordance with duty but carries within itself hidden inclinations and interests. Deriving from the morality of duty, when only an action that is made from duty (that is: only because of duty, even when against personal interests) is moral, Kant states that duty carries absolute necessity.
outcome. Kant applies his theory by using

Definitions can be provided upon request in cross examination or if my opponent presents abusive definitions for the round. Observation 1: The affirmative advocates deadly force only as a last-ditch effort, not as a primary response. This is due to the wording of the resolution which clarifies that this approach comes as a response to repeated domestic violence. Observation 2: The resolution presupposes the existence of morality. The central question of the resolution is what moral permissibility entails. If I say Sarah should go home, it would not prove me false by saying Sarah doesnt exist. Observation 3: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 95 percent of the victims of domestic violence are women. Observation 4: Due to the inclusion of the term permissible, the resolution is not making a categorical statement, therefore the affirmative does not have to prove every instance. Contention 1: The cause for domestic violence is a unequal desire for power, a patriarchal mindset. Sociology Professor, Kristin Anderson explains,

Abbey Chapman

Woodlands Debate

Gender, Status, and Domestic Violence: An Integration of Feminist and Family Violence Approaches, Kristin L. Anderson Journal of Marriage and Family , Vol. 59, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp. 655-669 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353952

violence is an ultimate resource used to derive power within relationships. Goode argued that individuals lacking other means of power, such as income or educational status, will be more likely to rely on violence to achieve greater power within the relationship. From this perspective, it is the power differences between partners rather than individual sociodemographic position, that influences propensities for violence. A few studies have supported resource theory (Allen& Straus, 1980; Hornung,McCullough& Sugimoto, 1981; O'Brien, 1975). Hornung, Mcand Cullough the link between spousal assault and occupational and educational incompatibilities between spouses. They found higher rates of violence among couples in which a woman's occupational status was higher than her husband's status, and a protective effect against violence when a man's resources were much higher than those of his wife. Similarly, drawing on college student's reports of parental spousal violence, Allen and Straus found that the more a wife's resources exceeded those of her husband, the more likely his perpetration of domestic violence.
The resource theory proposed by Goode suggests that

Thus, men, the prominent abusers set up a patriarchal relationship towards women. The pattern of domestic violence is cyclical as it is encouraged by other males. Research Professor of Family Studies, Sally Lloyd explains,
The Darkside of Courtship: Violence and Sexual Exploitation, Sally A. Lloyd Family Relations , Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 14-20 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/585653

A male's use of physical violence as a technique of control may be both encouraged and supported by his peer group. DeKeseredy (1988) hypothesized that male peer networks encourage the physical and sexual abuse of women as a way to show masculine prowess. Contention 2: The justice system fails these women, and can even encourage patriarchy. Subpoint A: Women do not feel the justice system will prevail, therefore violence goes unreported. Sociology Professor Richard Felson and Sociological Criminology Professor Par explain,
The Reporting of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault by Nonstrangers to the Police, Richard B. Felson and Paul-Philippe Par Journal of Marriage and Family , Vol. 67, No. 3 (Aug., 2005), pp. 597-610 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600191

domestic and sexual assaults against women are particularly likely to go unreported. Women's reluctance to report assaults by their male partners
Although they do not make explicit comparisons between different crimes, they imply that

Abbey Chapman

Woodlands Debate

has been attributed to fear of reprisal, economic and psychological dependence, and anticipation that the police do not take these charges seriously (e.g., Frieze& Browne, 1989; Pagelow, 1984). Women's reluctance to report sexual assaults has sometimes been attributed to their lack of confidence in a criminal justice system that assigns blame to them rather than to offenders (e.g., Belknap; Williams, 1984). Subpoint B: States enforce patriarchal thinking. Associate Professor of Sociology, Rekha Mirchandani explains,
"Hitting Is Not Manly": Domestic Violence Court and the Re-Imagination of the Patriarchal State Rekha Mirchandani Gender and Society , Vol. 20, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 781-804 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640934

scholars generally agree that states are patriarchal, that is, they work to the advantage and power of men over women. Lisa Brush (2003) provides a useful framework for analyzing the two different but important ways in which the state works to the dominance of men and the
Feminist disadvantage of women. The governance of gender refers to how the various institutions and practices of governance differentially regard, reward, produce, and position men and women. Feminists studying these questions

although state policies may appear on their face to be gender neutral, many contain assumptions about gender roles and result in significant gender bias (Weldon 2002). Kingfisher 1996), fostering men's economic and physical dominance over women in the home. In addition, feminist scholars have found that states can implement policies unequally. In particular, research suggests that in imposing laws, states require women to conform to tightly circumscribed and often moralistic notions of gender imposed in a style that is "cumbersome and repeatedly intrusive"
conclude that

Therefore, since the justice system fails to solve domestic violence, the only way to do so is to destroy patriarchal boundaries by reversing dominance roles in the relationship. That can be done by the woman killing in response to domestic violence. Contention 3: Breaking Patriarchal relationships involve deadly force as a response to domestic violence as means to reassert dominance. Reversing dominance eliminates patriarchy. History Professor Gerda Lerner explains,
Gerda

Lerner 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-503996-3 (v1)

To step outside the patriarchal thought means: Being skeptical toward every known system of thought; being critical of all assumptions, ordering values and definitions. Testing one's statement by trusting our own, the female experience. Since such experience has usually been trivialized or ignored, it means overcoming the deep-seated resistance within ourselves toward accepting ourselves and our knowledge as valid. It means getting rid of the great men in our heads and substituting for them ourselves, our sisters, our anonymous foremothers. Being critical toward our own thought, which is, after all, thought trained in the patriarchal tradition. Finally, it means developing intellectual courage, the courage to stand alone, the courage to reach farther than our grasp, the courage to risk failure. Perhaps the greatest challenge to thinking women is the challenge to move from the desire for
safety and approval to the most "unfeminine" quality of all-that of intellectual arrogance, the supreme hubris which asserts to itself the right to reorder the world. The hubris of the godmakers, the hubris of the male system-builders.

Abbey Chapman

Woodlands Debate

The system of patriarchy is a historic construct; it has a beginning; it will have an end. Its time seems to have nearly run its course-it no longer serves the needs of men or women and in its inextricable linkage to militarism, hierarchy, and racism it threatens the very existence of life on earth. What will come after, what kind of structure will be the foundation for alternate forms of social organization we cannot yet know. We are living in an age of unprecedented transformation. Therefore since killing would be a last ditch effort, it would be completely necessary to be a step ahead of the dominant abusive male. Therefore to create equality, it is morally permissible to use deadly force as a deliberate response to domestic violence. Not only does it destroy the patriarchal relationship but also solves for domestic violence because it destroys the inequality that spawns domestic violence in the first place.