Negative Sun Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Don't get me started on techniques for revenge and/or torture *evil grin* "This **** is between me and Mr soon-to-be-living-the-rest-of-his-life-in-agonizing-pain rapist here, you hear me hillbilly boy? I'm gonna get medieval on yo ass!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Here is on of my negative cases, written at the last minute. I'd also give a positive one, but those were written by hand. The value I have chosen for this round is justice, which is defined as giving what is due to them. Justice is an essential thing to a civilized society for obvious reasons. One of the key principles in it is proportionality, for justice cannot exist if there are no standards for it. Executing someone for petty larceny, for instance, could be considered justice, but would be completely out of proportion to the situation. As it is such an important thing, proportionality will be my criterion for this round. Contention 1: The use of deadly force against abuse is not proprotional. It is inevitable that with all the battered women in the world, some of their torment is worse or better than others. Some can vary from simple beatings daily to torture sessions, humiliation, and starvation. It is not possible for all types of abuse suffered to be judged the same. However, killing is a much more limited field. Although people can be killed in various ways, some worse or better than others, the end result is obviously death, something that there is absolutely no form of proportion with. If various types of abuse are met with an equal punishment, is that justice? Obviously not, as our judicial system believes that different crimes should be punished to various degrees. Death cannot vary in the slightest, and goes completely against our established form of what is just. Contention 2: There are nonlethal alternatives, which is essential to justice being served. The only effective way in this situation for justice to be served would be to have the abuser come up before a court, have all the evidence and facts taken into consideration, and then be sentenced in proportion. This obviously can't happen if he's dead, which is where nonlethal alternatives to escaping from abuse come in. Some of these include shelters for the victim, the police, or any friends and relatives the battered woman has who can be trusted. If the victim can have the abuser brought to court and testify against him, justice will have been better served. To allow this to happen, nonlethal alternatives to escaping are essential. Contention 3: Victims are biased in their decisions and are unlikely to effectively serve proportional justice. If someone is abused for varying amounts of time and is trapped in a mindset that nonlethal alternatives are impossible (which as stated in my previous observation, they are not), they cannot effectively make decisions that can compare to those made by a jury of non-biased people. And the girlfriend--who was an intelligent woman--went home with the guy. I wanted to beat my head against the wall at that one, because I knew he was going to hit her as soon as she got home, if not in the car. I even offered her a ride to the woman's shelter, and she refused, so all I could do was give her the phone number. Sigh.... One the issues about abuse I discussed and debated was battered woman's syndrome. To make a long story short, they are often trapped in a sort cycle. The violence escalates, reaches it's height, cools down, and then gets repeated over and over. It's part of the mindset that the abuser can change. Btw, did you ever find out what happened to her? Oh, so everyone knows the heck I'm talking about: For the last few days I was in a debate tournmanent and this was the chosen issue. So I ended up discussing and debating (both sides of) it with around ten people for eight hours straight the first day, and about the same amount of time straight the next day. Nope, no exagerrations here. A definite way to get your brain fried. But at least I know the issue inside out now. Does anyone want to try to outdebate me in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Neither am I, but I have been playing soccer since the age of 5. The RCian-Groin-kick will be deadly enough as it is with those neat li'll soccer-shoes and incredible leg muscles! ditto, brother also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 ditto, brother also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty Metal spikes vs Groin...I suppose the guy who would assaultd you would speak a few tones higher for the rest of his life then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayden Kered Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 If you are attacked, you have a right to use any means necessary to get rid of the attacker. But i think, its only good for when they attack after the first time. When they first attack, get the police involved, and if they attack the second time, then use the force yourself, to prove that you are not an as 'easy target' as what they first thought you out to be. That is my opinion. I totaly agree with Mr_BFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain. Actually you can dish out pain that will bring a full grown man down but only striking at certain places on the body. Ask Jae since she is the martial artist As to the topic, I think that every person has a right to defend themself if they are being threatened. That is in general. Specifically to defending yourself against an abuser, they abuser has no right to physically harm you. If it comes worse to physical violence, defend yourself until you can get away and call for help. Yeah it sounds like what cops tell kids what to do when it's an emergency but hey, sound advice I think. I realize that not all abuse cases are reported with the number one reason being fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabish Bini Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I play soccer too, and a good ol' kick to the groin will bring down anyone, unless they have a metal groin. Which is unlikely. If that is the case, use a mallet . But seriously, I would never strike to kill (I can't anyway, i'm 14 too) even if they did have a knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 To kill no but sometimes it happens. What you do to get over trauma could mean the difference whether the abused becomes the abuser or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 no. not the 1st time. 2nd time ftw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Q'ol Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 When left with no other alternative, make sure it's you who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally. I'm with you there. Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally? Sure. Since they are the ones now being abused and the sides have switched. And as long as it works in with Syke's comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo_92 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm a lover not a fighter. But if somone won't back off, I say kick that guys a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 When left with no other alternative' date=' make sure it's [i']you[/i] who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal. So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? Then you die. Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally? No, by law they should have to sit by and get the living hell kicked out of them. So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window? So are you saying that if it were a matter of survival, you would play by the rules? Basically, what I am saying over all is that if I were in that position, the abuser would die, one way or the other. I do not have the trust in the legal system to "leave it to the police", "fight clean", or "allow for redemption", they abuse someone, they don't deserve to live. If it meant that for handing out my justice I spent the rest of my days in prison, I would be happy knowing that there was one less abuser in the world, one more murderor, but one less abuser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? Then you die. Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally? No, by law they should have to sit by and get the living hell kicked out of them. So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window? So are you saying that if it were a matter of survival, you would play by the rules? Basically, what I am saying over all is that if I were in that position, the abuser would die, one way or the other. I do not have the trust in the legal system to "leave it to the police", "fight clean", or "allow for redemption", they abuse someone, they don't deserve to live. If it meant that for handing out my justice I spent the rest of my days in prison, I would be happy knowing that there was one less abuser in the world, one more murderor, but one less abuser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hell yes it's right. You can stick your moral lectures up the darkest pit on Mustafar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hell yes it's right. You can stick your moral lectures up the darkest pit on Mustafar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lady Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? No, because it's not murder, not really. It's self-defense. Murder is killing an innocent person. I know there's a legal definition, but we're talking moral here, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Lady Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? No, because it's not murder, not really. It's self-defense. Murder is killing an innocent person. I know there's a legal definition, but we're talking moral here, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? Meh. Call me morally bankrupt, but if someone was abusing me to the point where I might die, I'd rather be a live murderer than a dead law-abiding citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser? Meh. Call me morally bankrupt, but if someone was abusing me to the point where I might die, I'd rather be a live murderer than a dead law-abiding citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 So survival is the key. Self preservation. We all do have a right to live and we have to defend it. You just have to know when you have gone too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.