Debate This!
My blog was originally conceptualized as a link between the general world of politics and the debate community. That goal has long since fallen by the wayside. But I still think that the issues debaters argue over are some of the more important that face our society, and that (at the highest levels) they discuss them in a particularly nuanced and sophisticated manner that is rare to see in other public contexts.
In any event, I just served as a judge in the prestigious Apple Valley High School “Minneapple” Debate Tournament. It’s one of the best topics out there. The resolution was:
Resolved: A victim’s deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence.
I actually do think that this is a really important normative/policy issue (even if it isn’t all that politically salient). I’m curious what TMV readers think about it–which side do you come down on, and why?
At the end of the weekend, I’ll post my own thoughts.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Debate This!”
Is the victim’s use of deadly force only deliberate, or also premeditated?
Definitions are open ground in debate, so define “deliberate” however you think makes most sense.
I’m on the side, that if the abuse is not in question, the case should go to trial, and if the jury can find her guilty, the sentence should be suspended. Essentially no punishment, but the fear of the trial makes it so it’s not encouraged.
The use of ‘deadly force’ has to be weighted against the level of domestic abuse and the reasonable expectation of severe bodily harm by the victim as well.
It is certainly justified in the case of severe beatings, etc., but can the same be said of somone who on occassion has only slapped with an open hand? That is and does qualify as domestic violence, but does it them justify the use of deadly force as a response?
This is not an attempt to apologize for or excuse any abuse; I am just raising the point of proportionality of response. Mitigating factors have to be taken into consideration to come to any conclusion.
I’ll point out like a good debater that the resolution does not, in any way, mention to whom the deadly force may be directed. I see the debate going down the lines of define “just”, define “deliberate”, a debate on the “repeated” threshold, a debate over the scope of “deadly force”, and of course a debate on morals (pulling from any philosopher you so choose). Boy what an open-ended debate!
I miss competative debate.