My value for this round is morality. Morality, Based upon the Latin word Moralis, defined by Collins English Dictionary as concerned with or relating to human behavior, especially the distinction between good and bad, or right and wrong behavior. Morality is important in our debate because it is imbedded into the resolution, therefore must be considered when discussing this topic. In, affirming the resolution placed before us today, not only are you saying that domestic violence is immoral, but it is ok to use lethal force in retaliation to this domestic violence is moral. Affirming this resolution is impossible for the simple reason that morality isn’t situational as the resolution states.


	In defense of my value criterion today is Moral Absolutism. The theory of moral absolutism states that even if certain things are relative, Violence, lethal force AND domestic violence included, are however not relative. The theory in depth states that even if the act has positive repercussions, it can still be immoral. You can excuse someone because their action has positive repercussions in the end, such as stealing food and giving it to poor people, but the action was still immoral. Therefore, lethal retaliation to anything, not only just domestic violence, is immoral.

	This leads into my observation I would like to get to before I state my contentions.
In the debate today, I simply have to prove that lethal retaliation is not morally “permissible”. I can prove that any other alternative is more logical or fits better and I am still negating the resolution.

	Now onto my first contention, Moral “permissibility” is not situational.
The resolution says that affirming says that domestic violence, my recurring example but it is not limited to striking your spouse, is immoral but you striking them back is morally permissible. This just seems like some faulty logic. One of the key rules people are taught all their lives is that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  With that rule, affirming this resolution is illogical. Also, as my value criterion of Moral Absolutism states that Violence in the form of  “striking your spouse” even after they have repeatedly strike you is still immoral. Therefore it cannot be morally permissible to use lethal force. It may have all of the positive repercussions as it needs to have. It may be morally excused because society deems it needed due to the circumstances, but it will never be permitted. The difference between being permitted and being excused is permitted means that every time we are in a similar situation, we are allowed to do the same thing, excused however puts it on a discretionary basis.

	This leads me to my contention two, Moral excuse allows for more discretion.
Let's look at moral excuse in terms of replacement of permissibility in the resolution. The word just better fits. Excuse allows for discretion as to whether the so called “lethal retaliation.” My value criterion once again states that permissibility is impossible. The fact that an action is immoral is proof enough that it cannot morally permissible. However,moral excuse says that an action can be immoral but excused due to the circumstances. Moral absolutism says that yes it is immoral but people can excuse it on a discretionary basis depending on if the action to retaliate the domestic violence was of equal reciprocation. Having someone pinch you a few times and then you punch them in the face is not equal reciprocation, therefore it would not be morally excused but with moral permissibility it would have to be considered because it is a similar situation.